There is, of course, as Elon Musk suggested, some probability that the aggression against Mr. Pelosi covers some yet unknown reality (Kurtis Lee, “Elon Musk, in a Tweet, Shares Link From Site Known to Publish False News,” New York Times, October 30, 2022):
In a reply to Mrs. Clinton’s tweet, Mr. Musk wrote, “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye” and then shared a link to an article in the Santa Monica Observer. The article alleges that Mr. Pelosi was drunk and in a fight with a male prostitute.
To explore that possibility, though, one should not look at individuals and websites known for inventing facts or accepting them only if they fit with their muddled ideology and implausible beliefs; one should not rely on sources that have demonstrated a lack of rational methodology in the search for the truth.
If we believe the NYT story, Mr. Musk, who later deleted his post, is not himself totally immune to that defect:
A 2021 editorial in The Los Angeles Times about websites that “masquerade as legitimate local newspapers” noted that the Santa Monica Observer, “owned by onetime City Council candidate David Ganezer, is notorious for publishing false news.” In 2016, for example, the publication advanced a claim that Mrs. Clinton had died and that a body double was sent to debate the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump.
But anybody not used to the discipline of research can be easily fooled by doubtful sources.
A good story by Robby Soave in Reason gives an idea of how Donald Trump himself thinks (“The Paul Pelosi Conspiracy Theories Are an Embarrassment for the Right,” November 2, 2022). Besides lending credence to the gay prostitute theory, Trump repeated another “alternative fact” that seems to have been invented:
You know, probably, you and I are better off not talking about it. The glass, it seems, was broken from the inside to the out and, you know, so, it wasn’t a break in, it was a break out.
The “it seems,” uncharacteristic of Trump’s intuitive certainties, looks contradicted by the rest of the sentence.
The rise of the Internet and especially of the social media has revealed a disturbing fact: how ignorant is part of the general public and how easily they fall into implausible theories—that Sandy Hook was a government-organized hoax, that the 2020 election was stolen, etc. The woke are not better and generally don’t have the excuse of lacking education—although perhaps “education” should be put in scare quotes. One can, I think, be knowledgeable and intellectually honest on the either side of the orthodox left-right divide; but this is not the current state of the public debate.
Suddenly, with the Internet and the social media, the proud ignorant have become able, at near zero cost, to express their muddled intuitions for the whole wide world to see. The big difference is this near zero cost. The idea of charging a price for an efficient access to social networks may be part of the (privately evolved) solution; perhaps charging much more than Musk suggests for Twitter would be even better. The higher the price, the fewer the number of individuals who think that echoing implausible stories is worth it; they will go back to their TV sets or their video games. To be clear: these individuals are respectable as long as they don’t use their proud ignorance to impose their preferences and values on others by force.
Where does the proud ignorance displayed by both the woke crowd and the conspiracy theorists leave the Enlightenment promises of popular education, the perfectibility of mankind, and the possibility of a free society? On that challenging question, it is useful to read James Buchanan’s small book, Why I, Too, Am Not a Conservative (or, as a poor substitute, my Regulation review).
READER COMMENTS
Craig
Nov 5 2022 at 12:29pm
“how ignorant is part of the general public and how easily they fall into implausible theories—that Sandy Hook was a government-organized hoax, that the 2020 election was stolen”
I’d suggest you’re asking the wrong question. You know if my dad says “X” — I believe it, my dad has earned the benefit of the doubt. Remember, the general public wasn’t there, so by definition they aren’t privy to the facts. The question isn’t how ignorant they are but rather how illegitimate is the government if it doesn’t have the benefit of the doubt? So indeed if somebody finds Alex Jones more credible than the government, that surely might say something about the individual, but you know, it says something about the government too.
People believe that the government is capable of doing implausibly nefarious things because, it turns out, the government has actually engaged in implausibly nefarious activities.
Jon Murphy
Nov 5 2022 at 3:37pm
Perhaps, but all we (as spectators) can infer is the individual’s perception of the government relative to their perception to Alex Jones. Their perception may be correct. It may be incorrect. But, as an objective matter, that individual’s choice cannot tell us which is more credible.
One way I attempt to judge the perceptive capabilities of an individual is ask them the question: “What evidence would you need to see in order for you to change your mind?” If they refuse to answer or answer along the lines of “None,” then I know their perceptions are likely incorrect (even if, in an objective sense, they are correct. Being right for the wrong reasons, so to speak).
Craig
Nov 5 2022 at 4:37pm
“One way I attempt to judge the perceptive capabilities of an individual is ask them the question: “What evidence would you need to see in order for you to change your mind?” If they refuse to answer or answer along the lines of “None,” then I know their perceptions are likely incorrect (even if, in an objective sense, they are correct. Being right for the wrong reasons, so to speak).”
You know if its August 1939 and you’re the average citizen living in Germany, you might ask a Doubting Heinrich what evidence he would need to see to prove the attack on the radio station wasn’t a false flag, after all you can point to the pictures in Der Sturmer showing bodies wearing Polish uniforms. History now informs us how those bodies got there. Is the regime above manipulating the evidence? No, they’re not above that. That’s why legitimacy is the political equivalent of an adulterous spouse. A few couples get over it, but many obviously split because it creates a difficult to resolve trust problem. The regime will have difficulty bootstrapping its own legitimacy or otherwise refuting allegations of its illegitimacy for the same reason less weight is given to self-exculpatory statements given by defendants in criminal cases.
Johnson85
Nov 8 2022 at 11:57am
An individual’s perception can’t tell us which is more credible, but it does show who has a credibility problem. I’m not sure the Alex Jones is a good example because the little I’m aware of him makes it sound like he is off the wall bonkers (although I recognize I am relying on people that are generally dishonest for that impression, so it’s possible I’m being misled), but the fact is people are looking further and wider for information because generally people are starving for reliable and credible sources of information. It’s not profitable for media companies to provide objective news so they don’t even try. If we had had more serious and thoughtful people heading up our non-elected bureaucracies, they could have default become the most trusted source of information by far. But we didn’t and so they didn’t. As far as I can tell, basically nobody in the government even understands that public trust is a huge asset that shouldn’t be frittered away. They seem to think they’re just entitled to it and them not being trustworthy is irrelevant.
Jon Murphy
Nov 5 2022 at 3:50pm
Perhaps (and, indeed, if disinformation/misinformation is really so bad, then the worrywarts should support such a fee).
But Musk’s plan is not making Twitter as a whole $8/mo. Just those who want to get/maintain Verified accounts (the blue check mark). Verification already has insanely high barries to entry (as evidenced by the fact about 0.1% of Twitter users are Verified). So, I doubt an $8/mo fee will do much to stop the Proud Ignorant folks.
Mactoul
Nov 5 2022 at 9:16pm
Perfectibility is not for all. Promise is for “fewer but better Russians”.
Mark Brophy
Nov 6 2022 at 8:09pm
“The rise of the Internet and especially of the social media has revealed a disturbing fact: how ignorant is part of the general public and how easily they fall into implausible theories.”
The Covid vaccines are dangerous and fail to protect the user from sickness and death and fail to prevent transmission of the Covid virus; nevertheless, the majority of people in the United States and 90% of Swedes took the vaccine even though there was no evidence that it was safe or effective, and most of the people were younger than 65 and couldn’t have benefited from the vaccine even if it were safe and effective.
The vast majority of the general public is incapable of thinking critically and recognizing even the most transparent scam.
Grand Rapids Mike
Nov 8 2022 at 9:52am
Interesting focus on the article. It doesn’t touch the Twitter’s role in hiding of the Biden son story, hiding the whole fake Russian story to destroy the Trump Presidency, the hiding of the true cause of the Covid epidemic, the overall effectiveness of the Covid vaccine, the firing of people refusing the Covid vaccine, etc. The Twitter, prior to Musk and the whole left wing media gang is all about flooding the public with one version of the story, never backtracking when they are wrong or even trying to determine the actual information. Their goal is to punish anyone who disagrees with the accepted version of what they call “the Facts” or “the Science”. At least Twitter now provides a avenue, admittingly not perfect, but at least an avenue to counter those on the high minded pedestal that trash anyone not going along with the “accepted truth”.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 8 2022 at 11:49am
Mike: It is quite probably true that Twitter had a bias towards left-collectivism instead of right-collectivism. It is certainly true that, like most institutions in our societies, it had a bias against individual liberty as a value and truth as an intellectual goal. However, it is a dangerous mirage to try to correct these biases by, say, denying a private companies the right to require vaccination or other conditions of employment; or finding refuge in implausible and incentive-incompatible conspiracy theories. I have a large number of EconLog posts on these issues.
Thomas Strenge
Nov 8 2022 at 3:22pm
The Pelosi story is fascinating because it leaves room for conspiracy theories. Does it make sense that the Speaker of the House has cameras monitored from DC, but lacks glass breaks, motion sensors and panic buttons? There has also been no explanation how DePape got to the Pelosi residence from Berkeley. That’s no easy trip. Lastly, there has been no police camera videos, security cam footage, and no mug shot. Paul Pelosi got hammered by DePape for sure. But something else is going on. And mind you, we didn’t get the full story on Paul Pelosi’s DUI until after his sweetheart deal conviction.
vince
Nov 8 2022 at 6:54pm
Grand Rapids Mike wrote: “Interesting focus on the article. It doesn’t touch the Twitter’s role in hiding of the Biden son story, hiding the whole fake Russian story to destroy the Trump Presidency,”
Pierre Lemieux acknowledges: ” It is quite probably true that Twitter had a bias towards left-collectivism”
Yet he writes: “how ignorant is part of the general public and how easily they fall into implausible theories— …that the 2020 election was stolen”
Stolen means different things to different people.
Grand Rapids Mike
Nov 8 2022 at 8:36pm
Vince: FYI never mentioned or implied “stolen” in my comment, just stated the obvious left wing bias of twitter along with the rest of standard media. Curious that you would make that assertion.
vince
Nov 8 2022 at 8:57pm
You mentioned media factual efforts to censor and fabricate stories to help Biden win. To some, that amounts to rigging or stealing an election. That view is not a big lie. That was my only assertion.
Walt Cody
Nov 9 2022 at 2:11pm
All media, including social, have been shown to be unreliable. Skepticism of everything is called for. Wait for incontrovertible hard evidence. Sometimes it’s a long wait (Russiagate, the vaccine) , but look at tne evolving stories of Uvalde, the ostensibly migrant-whipping border cops, ‘Hands up, don’t shoot,” the Hunter laptop, the Kavanaugh “rapes,” on and on. As for Pelosi (Pere) it seems to be like Uvalde, where even police reports kept changing as asses were covered and uncovered, especially considering the NBC News report despite its disappearance but not quite disavowal. IOW, the media has proven to be as unreliable as officialdom. The byword should be, Distrust till Verified.
Pierre Lemieux
Nov 11 2022 at 3:33pm
Walt: I don’t disagree with your motto “Distrust till Verified,” with some qualifications. The first one is that one cannot personally verify the zillions of little observations reported every day. Even if one spends one’s whole time on this (which is what I am myself doing), one can only personally verify a tiny proportion of what is happening. The second, related problem is that the interpretation of reality depends on the (hopefully proven) theories that select and explain the facts. A theory that enemies conspire on everything even if the individual benefits are much less than the costs for them individually will be consistent with any bad event but will not explain it satisfactorily. (See for example my post “Epistemology, Economics, and Conspiracy.”)
In practice, one has to rely on trusted third-parties for verification of most facts. This is why it is crucially important to choose media, books, or individuals that have demonstrated to be credible (and only occasionally spend time on tabloids and such, just in case). There are only 24 hours in a day and every crazy theory has been, and probably still is, defended by somebody.
Walt Cody
Nov 12 2022 at 1:21am
Pierre: Nor do I disagree with what you just said here. On my page a week or so ago, I went into a summary of some of Jacques Elul’s musings on propaganda—that we”re constantly being fed “vast amounts of incoherent unverifiable information posing as facts and dispensed with ulterior motives” so that much of what we (think we) know is just secondhand opinion, believed (or mouthed) because it’s locally seen as Goodthink.
And yes, there are far too many important things we can’t possibly verify for ourselves. We believe (or don’t believe) in man-made global warming or election-cheating or “hands up, don’t shoot” because somebody somewhere appealed to our bias, and because we’re either too lazy to verify the things we come to believe, or are never shown the full range of the evidence for and against it, or wouldn’t be able to understand it if we did. I once had a doctor who said he prescribed nothing till the stuff had been on the market for at least two years because that’s how long it took for its safety and effectiveness (or lack thereof) to be shown. I’ve come to feel the same way about the “news” and the fashionable theories of the day—many of which don’t age well—not even within weeks.. The stories evolve or devolve or make a u-turn and wind up as “never mind.” I approach almost everything I’m fed with skepticism and remain agnostic—at least till something more or less convincing tickles my bias.
Comments are closed.