There are 5 major lies we were told in the last 8 years and they have undermined just all our trust in our cherished institutions. Victor Davis Hansen articulates them well. They are in no particular order:
5 lies
1. Covid wasn’t a lab leak
2. Biden was fit to serve as president mentally
3. The border couldn’t be controlled without comprehensive immigration reform.
4. Trump colluded with Russia in order to win 2016 election
5. The Hunter Biden laptop was misinformation.
So we lose trust in CDC, FDA, legacy media, FBI,CIA. The common thread was suppression of free speech. That’s why X’s community notes is so much better than an “unbiased “ fact checkers. I trust science but I don’t trust scientists. That’s why Francis Bacon developed the scientific method to keep our biases as far from the research as possible.
Excellent piece. Looking forward to the book. While I generally agree with all of it, I'd like to see some deeper root causes addressed: the turn of academia from knowledge creation to activism, and the similar turn of journalism to activism. Karl Marx may have dismissed traditional philosophy in favor of saving the world (in his view), but is it really a good idea that those entrusted with the discovery and transmission of knowledge to be pushing ideological agendas?
I agree activism is the driving force behind the lies and censorship of speech. Critical pedagogy bears a lot of the blame. It explicitly considers all education to be political, and is dedicated to using education to support the struggle of what it labels as “the oppressed” against those it labels as “the oppressors.” I’m not saying it’s devoid of truth. There are some important truths in it. But it is not about trying to find the truth or teach the truth. It is about teaching half truths to instill a desired ideology in students in order to motivate them to serve a sociopolitical agenda. Not surprisingly, the result is as intended – indoctrination, politicization, and radicalization. In the noble struggle against the violent oppressors (and they define virtually everything the “oppressors” do or say as being “violent”) respecting the truth and free speech becomes secondary, and even a betrayal, if it undermines serving the cause of righteousness. The same process is common from other points on the political spectrum when people cannot win over enough hearts and minds with the truth and free and open discussions, combined with a lack of principles and respect for the opinions and equality of others. Sadly, despite complaining of this approach by progressives, Trump, and too many of his supporters are engaged in the same approach. It is all destructive to the health of our republic.
I agree with you for the most part, and your point about activism is absolutely true—Factory schooling never aimed for activism, only conformity at least until recently... but ideology always has been there, and extends into academia in subtle ways. The way we approach research is a prime example. There's a big divide between two main types of research methods: quantitative [using numbers, statistics, and measurable data] and qualitative [focusing on personal experiences, emotions, and subjective interpretations]. This divide reflects ideological assumptions about what counts as valid knowledge and how it should be pursued, which can box disciplines into narrow lanes of acceptable thought. This creates conformity in academic thinking.
The overreliance on qualitative methods, focusing on personal experiences, emotions, and subjective interpretations, is particularly problematic; much of the research on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is conducted knowing that it's biased. Instead of addressing this bias, researchers often justify it by saying that other people will come along later to fix it or balance it out. The problem arises when researchers (as often happens lately) try to pass their subjective research as objective truth!. With policy based on this poor research.
On the other hand, quantitative research tries to measure things objectively and prove ideas with numbers and facts. Academics rarely combine both approaches, even though doing so would provide a fuller understanding and get rid of a lot of bad research. It would also create clearer thinking and reasoning skills.
The root of this issue lies in the pervasive ideology that has stifled genuine knowledge gathering and homogenized the academic experience We're entire disciplines only study from one viewpoint instead of mixed methods
This failure to cultivate critical thinking limits the quality of research but stunts intellectual growth of generations of students (Of students that wanted to learn). Since universities are one of the few places where students should be learning these skills, it's a travesty to leave them so ill-equipped—and even worse to leave science dangling without the ability to look for facts over opinion, question assumptions from multiple angles, and generate genuinely original thought. The academic world is poorer for this loss, and society as a whole suffers from the lack of truly independent, critical thinkers capable of addressing complex problems in innovative ways. All because of ideology....
Excellent. As you say they are countless examples of experts and authorities degrading their credibility - the area I personally think of most is the 'expert' denial of the sex binary and that a person cannot change their sex. All ordinary people know this to be true, its part of our very obvious life experiences, like the experience of day and night - and when experts either outright lie or try to twist reality, everyone notices. And it REALLY matters. George Orwell, of course, wrote ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’ This is literally where we are, in so many cases. Its really bad.
A healthy and trustworthy culture of truth seeking is one that separates the work of discerning what is true from the question of what should be done about it-- that is, it separates "is" from "ought" questions. In practice that means that truth seeking activities, like scholarship and journalism, need to be carefully separated from activism. Not because activism is bad, and not because journalists and scholars shouldn't express their opinions on "ought" questions. But because when they try to use their expertise on "is" questions to amplify their "ought" opinions, it just amplifies their biases and erodes trust in the truths they find.
I wrote about this some time ago, and it has only gotten more relevant:
In my first year of grad school, one of our professors told us that the best thing you can do is try to prove your theory wrong. This profound bit of advice has stayed with me throughout my entire career.
I question the assumption that people base their opinions on data or misinformation. People encounter misinformation daily yet often navigate it successfully. The real issue seems to be that many prioritize what feels good over objective truth. Misinformation has infiltrated academia, leading to politicization and undermining societal cohesion. Courses appealing to emotions rather than objective data attract students with a specific mindset, fostering a lack of critical thinking, academic rigor, and higher standards Misinformation can polarize academic debates and influence research agendas, leading to a constrained environment where free inquiry is compromised but those without the ability to see fallacy or change mindset to new data are already compromised.... These students aren't there to learn; they're there to be schooled in what makes them feel good. It's not about believing or data at all—it's purely about validating their emotions and reinforcing what feels right to them, regardless of objective truth or factual information.
Love the fight your both putting in (am more familiar with Greg Lukianoff) but for sure your both worked super hard on this problem over many years, thank goodness for you both! best of luck!! - I guess it's hard....Schools chase enrollment and ratings for funding. Academics avoid controversy to keep jobs. Students weaponize moral outrage for social currency. Genuine learning and open debate are sacrificed for financial security and social status... the perfect storm Anyway, I'm sure you've heard it all before. Thank you again. Thanks for letting me vent XD Best!
"It’s no exaggeration to say that our current cultural situation is unsustainable."
That definitely is not an exaggeration, if anything it might be an understatement. The level of general distrust between people is crippling the ability for us to bring our overly divided society back together.
I think Greg and Tom Nichols, who wrote a couple books on the loss of trust in experts (one being "The Death of Expertise") ought to co-author a piece like this one.
Disentangling expertise from political spin will be hard, as we are far down that road. But there is hope. With the U of California system having finally done away with DEI loyalty oaths in faculty hiring, maybe we have at least some institutions that have stopped digging this hole.
Thanks for writing this. In my view, the real problem is integrity or modesty, not facts. As the philosopher of science, Hilary Putnam put it, facts are never value-free for humans. Facts don’t stand alone, even mathematical facts, but are contextualized in conversations among people. Even what I take to be the most solid fact of life, that we will all die, turns out to be contested by some humans (throughout centuries) who claim they have found remedies for mortality. No matter what the facts are, as long as we who consider ourselves experts — whether in politics, activism, science, human rights, whatever — retain the awareness of our fallibility, we are will recognize that we need to know or acquaint ourselves with what falls outside our values/knowledge. When it comes to scientific practices, this type of modesty is or should be part of the method. Scientific method investigates hypotheses and establishes paradigms of investigation and inquiry that are acknowledged as temporary. Because all scientific knowledge is human knowledge, even when we have machines to make our perceptions “more accurate,” it is all interpretive and requires conversations among investigators. Everything scientific, everything related to truth, is a long and continuing conversation. Unless we can work with our differences in a way that allows us to have these conversations and unless we embrace the integrity to be interested in our mistakes (which are many and massive), we simply invest in propaganda and delusional at the edges of our inquiries. Humans will always make mistakes. Humans will always need a lot of conversation to establish the domain of truth or facts and humans will always see/hear/feel “reality” from a first-person stance. These are truly facts, in my opinion. And yet, even these will be disputed. Whatever our research methods are, whether they are quantitative or introspective, they require conversations about their validity and findings because human insights fall close to our self-deception. I appreciate the values and tone of your essay and agree with you about the importance of integrity for scientists, activists and all of us. Universities used to be the places where disputes about integrity and truth were held to the highest standards. I hope that reality can return.
In a related note, Nico Perrino (of FIRE) in a So To Speak podcast on John Stuart Mill inspired me to inquire about the source of Mill's use of the expression "the deep slumber of a decided opinion." The source was Arthur Helps.
His first literary effort, Thoughts in the Cloister and the Crowd (1835), was a series of aphorisms upon life, character, politics and manners.[10] One of these aphorisms is quoted by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, Chapter Two: "The Deep slumber of decided opinion."
Mr. Helps had some interesting thoughts and ways of expressing them:
"He who is continually changing his point of view sees more, and more clearly, than one who, statue-like, forever stands upon the same pedestal; however lofty and well-placed that pedestal may be." ~ Arthur Helps
I agree with that quote if it means testing one’s own opinions by looking at things from various perspectives in order to develop a more fully informed opinion. I think a lot of the vehemence of the disagreement in our society today comes from people viewing things from their own perspective without considering that of others. That doesn’t mean where you are all going to reach agreement on everything. We are not. Freedom of thought, inquiry, association and speech will necessarily lead to different values in different opinions. But considering things from someone else’s perspective tends to make their point of view more understandable. Even if people still disagree, they will hopefully not view each other as “evil” or an existentialist threat.
Interesting and insightful. It seems that the greater truth is that trust is not such a good idea. Why should we trust? Why should we have mere faith in someone else? Why not have even more of a sense of curiosity, a sense of doubt? Having faith is exactly what leads to literally "fighting faiths."
Benjamin Franklin seemed to set a good example and make some important points in his speech at the end of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787:
having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. . . . In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General [national] Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
That is exactly my scientific journal articles are required to be peer reviewed in order to test their duplicability and validity. Thank you for the quote from Ben Franklin. That is great. It is timely now for Americans who want to preserve our constitutional republic to stand up against the long running trend of those in government exceeding their constitutional limits an amazing in their power.
Excellent article.
There are 5 major lies we were told in the last 8 years and they have undermined just all our trust in our cherished institutions. Victor Davis Hansen articulates them well. They are in no particular order:
5 lies
1. Covid wasn’t a lab leak
2. Biden was fit to serve as president mentally
3. The border couldn’t be controlled without comprehensive immigration reform.
4. Trump colluded with Russia in order to win 2016 election
5. The Hunter Biden laptop was misinformation.
So we lose trust in CDC, FDA, legacy media, FBI,CIA. The common thread was suppression of free speech. That’s why X’s community notes is so much better than an “unbiased “ fact checkers. I trust science but I don’t trust scientists. That’s why Francis Bacon developed the scientific method to keep our biases as far from the research as possible.
I would add to that list:
6. The vaccines will prevent both infection and transmission
7. The vaccines don't have side effects like myocarditis
8. Monetary stimulus won't cause any inflation (or else the inflation will be 'transitory')
9. Defunding the police will not lead to increased crime
10. The government was not partnering with social media companies to suppress disfavoured speech
Excellent piece. Looking forward to the book. While I generally agree with all of it, I'd like to see some deeper root causes addressed: the turn of academia from knowledge creation to activism, and the similar turn of journalism to activism. Karl Marx may have dismissed traditional philosophy in favor of saving the world (in his view), but is it really a good idea that those entrusted with the discovery and transmission of knowledge to be pushing ideological agendas?
I agree activism is the driving force behind the lies and censorship of speech. Critical pedagogy bears a lot of the blame. It explicitly considers all education to be political, and is dedicated to using education to support the struggle of what it labels as “the oppressed” against those it labels as “the oppressors.” I’m not saying it’s devoid of truth. There are some important truths in it. But it is not about trying to find the truth or teach the truth. It is about teaching half truths to instill a desired ideology in students in order to motivate them to serve a sociopolitical agenda. Not surprisingly, the result is as intended – indoctrination, politicization, and radicalization. In the noble struggle against the violent oppressors (and they define virtually everything the “oppressors” do or say as being “violent”) respecting the truth and free speech becomes secondary, and even a betrayal, if it undermines serving the cause of righteousness. The same process is common from other points on the political spectrum when people cannot win over enough hearts and minds with the truth and free and open discussions, combined with a lack of principles and respect for the opinions and equality of others. Sadly, despite complaining of this approach by progressives, Trump, and too many of his supporters are engaged in the same approach. It is all destructive to the health of our republic.
I agree with you for the most part, and your point about activism is absolutely true—Factory schooling never aimed for activism, only conformity at least until recently... but ideology always has been there, and extends into academia in subtle ways. The way we approach research is a prime example. There's a big divide between two main types of research methods: quantitative [using numbers, statistics, and measurable data] and qualitative [focusing on personal experiences, emotions, and subjective interpretations]. This divide reflects ideological assumptions about what counts as valid knowledge and how it should be pursued, which can box disciplines into narrow lanes of acceptable thought. This creates conformity in academic thinking.
The overreliance on qualitative methods, focusing on personal experiences, emotions, and subjective interpretations, is particularly problematic; much of the research on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) is conducted knowing that it's biased. Instead of addressing this bias, researchers often justify it by saying that other people will come along later to fix it or balance it out. The problem arises when researchers (as often happens lately) try to pass their subjective research as objective truth!. With policy based on this poor research.
On the other hand, quantitative research tries to measure things objectively and prove ideas with numbers and facts. Academics rarely combine both approaches, even though doing so would provide a fuller understanding and get rid of a lot of bad research. It would also create clearer thinking and reasoning skills.
The root of this issue lies in the pervasive ideology that has stifled genuine knowledge gathering and homogenized the academic experience We're entire disciplines only study from one viewpoint instead of mixed methods
This failure to cultivate critical thinking limits the quality of research but stunts intellectual growth of generations of students (Of students that wanted to learn). Since universities are one of the few places where students should be learning these skills, it's a travesty to leave them so ill-equipped—and even worse to leave science dangling without the ability to look for facts over opinion, question assumptions from multiple angles, and generate genuinely original thought. The academic world is poorer for this loss, and society as a whole suffers from the lack of truly independent, critical thinkers capable of addressing complex problems in innovative ways. All because of ideology....
May I propose the problem lies in our failure to properly insure risk?
https://joshuad31.com/the-liability-exemption-dilemma-no-one-is-above-the-law-a687ee1e21bb
Excellent. As you say they are countless examples of experts and authorities degrading their credibility - the area I personally think of most is the 'expert' denial of the sex binary and that a person cannot change their sex. All ordinary people know this to be true, its part of our very obvious life experiences, like the experience of day and night - and when experts either outright lie or try to twist reality, everyone notices. And it REALLY matters. George Orwell, of course, wrote ‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’ This is literally where we are, in so many cases. Its really bad.
My experience has shown me that the first and most important thing is to admit when I've been wrong,, then everything follows after that.
Yes, absolutely.
A healthy and trustworthy culture of truth seeking is one that separates the work of discerning what is true from the question of what should be done about it-- that is, it separates "is" from "ought" questions. In practice that means that truth seeking activities, like scholarship and journalism, need to be carefully separated from activism. Not because activism is bad, and not because journalists and scholars shouldn't express their opinions on "ought" questions. But because when they try to use their expertise on "is" questions to amplify their "ought" opinions, it just amplifies their biases and erodes trust in the truths they find.
I wrote about this some time ago, and it has only gotten more relevant:
https://futuremoreperfect.substack.com/p/saving-the-world-by-separating-ought
In my first year of grad school, one of our professors told us that the best thing you can do is try to prove your theory wrong. This profound bit of advice has stayed with me throughout my entire career.
It might be too late.
The people that the expert class lied to want the expert class defunded and unemployed now. The anger is palpable.
I question the assumption that people base their opinions on data or misinformation. People encounter misinformation daily yet often navigate it successfully. The real issue seems to be that many prioritize what feels good over objective truth. Misinformation has infiltrated academia, leading to politicization and undermining societal cohesion. Courses appealing to emotions rather than objective data attract students with a specific mindset, fostering a lack of critical thinking, academic rigor, and higher standards Misinformation can polarize academic debates and influence research agendas, leading to a constrained environment where free inquiry is compromised but those without the ability to see fallacy or change mindset to new data are already compromised.... These students aren't there to learn; they're there to be schooled in what makes them feel good. It's not about believing or data at all—it's purely about validating their emotions and reinforcing what feels right to them, regardless of objective truth or factual information.
Indeed. We say as much in the piece!
Love the fight your both putting in (am more familiar with Greg Lukianoff) but for sure your both worked super hard on this problem over many years, thank goodness for you both! best of luck!! - I guess it's hard....Schools chase enrollment and ratings for funding. Academics avoid controversy to keep jobs. Students weaponize moral outrage for social currency. Genuine learning and open debate are sacrificed for financial security and social status... the perfect storm Anyway, I'm sure you've heard it all before. Thank you again. Thanks for letting me vent XD Best!
"It’s no exaggeration to say that our current cultural situation is unsustainable."
That definitely is not an exaggeration, if anything it might be an understatement. The level of general distrust between people is crippling the ability for us to bring our overly divided society back together.
We need to reclaim the idea of being wrong.
Nailed.
Woah, you read FAST!
This is one of the ones I read as soon as it appears in my inbox.
Great article.
I think Greg and Tom Nichols, who wrote a couple books on the loss of trust in experts (one being "The Death of Expertise") ought to co-author a piece like this one.
Disentangling expertise from political spin will be hard, as we are far down that road. But there is hope. With the U of California system having finally done away with DEI loyalty oaths in faculty hiring, maybe we have at least some institutions that have stopped digging this hole.
Outstanding piece!
Thanks for writing this. In my view, the real problem is integrity or modesty, not facts. As the philosopher of science, Hilary Putnam put it, facts are never value-free for humans. Facts don’t stand alone, even mathematical facts, but are contextualized in conversations among people. Even what I take to be the most solid fact of life, that we will all die, turns out to be contested by some humans (throughout centuries) who claim they have found remedies for mortality. No matter what the facts are, as long as we who consider ourselves experts — whether in politics, activism, science, human rights, whatever — retain the awareness of our fallibility, we are will recognize that we need to know or acquaint ourselves with what falls outside our values/knowledge. When it comes to scientific practices, this type of modesty is or should be part of the method. Scientific method investigates hypotheses and establishes paradigms of investigation and inquiry that are acknowledged as temporary. Because all scientific knowledge is human knowledge, even when we have machines to make our perceptions “more accurate,” it is all interpretive and requires conversations among investigators. Everything scientific, everything related to truth, is a long and continuing conversation. Unless we can work with our differences in a way that allows us to have these conversations and unless we embrace the integrity to be interested in our mistakes (which are many and massive), we simply invest in propaganda and delusional at the edges of our inquiries. Humans will always make mistakes. Humans will always need a lot of conversation to establish the domain of truth or facts and humans will always see/hear/feel “reality” from a first-person stance. These are truly facts, in my opinion. And yet, even these will be disputed. Whatever our research methods are, whether they are quantitative or introspective, they require conversations about their validity and findings because human insights fall close to our self-deception. I appreciate the values and tone of your essay and agree with you about the importance of integrity for scientists, activists and all of us. Universities used to be the places where disputes about integrity and truth were held to the highest standards. I hope that reality can return.
Exactly. Integrity, modesty, and respect for others.
In a related note, Nico Perrino (of FIRE) in a So To Speak podcast on John Stuart Mill inspired me to inquire about the source of Mill's use of the expression "the deep slumber of a decided opinion." The source was Arthur Helps.
His first literary effort, Thoughts in the Cloister and the Crowd (1835), was a series of aphorisms upon life, character, politics and manners.[10] One of these aphorisms is quoted by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, Chapter Two: "The Deep slumber of decided opinion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Helps
See also https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Helps (with more detail).
Mr. Helps had some interesting thoughts and ways of expressing them:
"He who is continually changing his point of view sees more, and more clearly, than one who, statue-like, forever stands upon the same pedestal; however lofty and well-placed that pedestal may be." ~ Arthur Helps
I agree with that quote if it means testing one’s own opinions by looking at things from various perspectives in order to develop a more fully informed opinion. I think a lot of the vehemence of the disagreement in our society today comes from people viewing things from their own perspective without considering that of others. That doesn’t mean where you are all going to reach agreement on everything. We are not. Freedom of thought, inquiry, association and speech will necessarily lead to different values in different opinions. But considering things from someone else’s perspective tends to make their point of view more understandable. Even if people still disagree, they will hopefully not view each other as “evil” or an existentialist threat.
Interesting and insightful. It seems that the greater truth is that trust is not such a good idea. Why should we trust? Why should we have mere faith in someone else? Why not have even more of a sense of curiosity, a sense of doubt? Having faith is exactly what leads to literally "fighting faiths."
Benjamin Franklin seemed to set a good example and make some important points in his speech at the end of the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787:
having lived long, I have experienced many Instances of being oblig’d, by better Information or fuller Consideration, to change Opinions even on important Subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow the more apt I am to doubt my own Judgment and to pay more Respect to the Judgment of others. Most Men indeed as well as most Sects in Religion, think themselves in Possession of all Truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far Error. . . . In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General [national] Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administred; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administred for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
Honesty, transparency, and competence = trust.
That is exactly my scientific journal articles are required to be peer reviewed in order to test their duplicability and validity. Thank you for the quote from Ben Franklin. That is great. It is timely now for Americans who want to preserve our constitutional republic to stand up against the long running trend of those in government exceeding their constitutional limits an amazing in their power.