A Liberal Comments on Conspiracy Theorists

 

 I recently (11/2024) read an article on Yahoo news about dealing with friends who become 'conspiracy theorists". It was written by a liberal. He makes some good points that pertain to relationships in general, but he makes some unwarranted assumptions, I think.

The Article was written by Sean Kernan, a Yahoo creator.  He says, “I acknowledge that much of my criticism in this piece is aimed at conservative leaning folks. I’d caution my fellow liberals against being sanctimonious and condescending during these discussions, as that is how we are sometimes perceived.”

Kernan told of a friend who was a pretty smart guy but who recently got very concerned about the Covid vaccines. The friend brought up “weird” questions and Kernan said that he was bringing up “ off-the-wall ideas I’d never even heard of.” The friend was quoting as a source, a podcast by someone whom Kernan described as “extreme political ideologue”. Kernan continues, “It wasn’t even a subject that I had strong opinions on, nor that I was particularly interested in.” And yet, he concludes in advance that the friend's ideas were 'off-the-wall' and further, that he'd never even heard these ideas advanced before.

See, that is part of the problem. People hold a ‘point of view’ that is most likely not well developed, nor personally researched, and may not even be a ‘hot topic’ for them but when they hear an opposing point-of-view, it grates mightily on their perceptions of reality and they are ill-prepared to defend what they actually believe. It is easier to dismiss the other person as a conspiracy nut. And Kernan wonders he and his liberals friends sometimes perveived as 'sanctimonious'.  Go figure.

Kernan goes on with his story: “I saw him again a few months later. He mentioned the election being stolen from Trump, and that’s when I started squirming…. It didn’t seem like he was inspecting the stories behind them, doing real research or, candidly, using basic logic.”

I agree with Kernan when he makes this comment: “The gulf between us was wide.” Most people, liberals and conservatives, do not do their own research. But ‘basic logic’ applied to twisted facts will lead to twisted conclusions. If we are serious about knowing truth, we must have confidence that our sources are people of integrity; honest, diligent, and critical of their own potential bias. This is true for all of us.  Logic, applied to actual facts, MAY lead to truth, if we have enough of the facts, and if those facts are relevant and timely, and any contrary facts are not intentionally ignored (i.e. ‘cherry picking’). Even then, one might still apply logic and yet be able to defend an alternative conclusion.
  
The definition of evidence is this: “Any fact which tends to prove the truth of the matter asserted”. The starting point for our analysis is that the facts themselves must be objectively accurate and verifiable.  Then, armed with actual facts, the analyst (truth seeker) must interpret those facts objectively. If the analysis contains bias, then the interpretation becomes subjective and the conclusions probably not accurate (not truthful).
If the analyst (truth seeker) already has bias towards a certain outcome, that will lend emotional energy to the analysis process, and that will likely lead to error. It is true that while passion may follow reason, reason will not follow passion. In other words, Passion will seldom lead a seeker to truth, but reason will, and when the mind is firmly resolved (objective truth; reliable), then the heart will follow. But if someone is being led by emotion, they will lose objectivity, and their conclusions will subjective (unreliable) truth. The Bible says (Jeremiah 17:9) "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?"

Kernan goes on about his friend, who is becoming a conservative before his very eyes.; “It was weird to feel so confident that I was on the right side of this issue. It was also discombobulating to have someone I cared about espousing views that were borderline offensive.”  I noted that Kernan never says that he has personally researched the issues, yet he seems quite comfortable accusing his friend of not so either and yet he (Kernan) nevertheless ‘feels quite confident’ that he is right.   Doesn’t that seem like the pot calling the kettle black? Sounds like incredible hypocrisy to me. Kernan (and most liberals, it seems) are offended when their liberal (subjective) feelings are challenged by actual (objective) facts.  What is the point of trying to maintain a relationship with anyone who is terrified of the truth?

After reading the article, I would like to have had a good discussion with Sean Kernan to perhaps get some clarification and to better understand his position. I would like to have engaged with him, word-for-word, and subjected his narrative to strict critical analysis.

In closing, I remind you not to be dismayed when you find that most people are so emotionally connected to their subjective point-of view that they cannot even see their hypocrisy.  It’s nice to have ‘thinking’ friends, with whom you can carry on intelligent, objective, logical conversation. Those are few, and far between.
John Sterling