In an 1877 essay entitled “The Ethics of Belief,” British philosopher and mathematician William Kingdon Clifford argued that society has a “moral obligation” to believe only in what is supported by sufficient evidence. Clifford wrote, “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
In like manner then, dismissing as untrue what sufficient evidence proves to be true should also be avoided. The problem is that in politics, progressives are like flat-earthers and embody the antithesis of the truth-seeking Clifford addressed in his centuries-old essay.
For the likes of Pelosi, Biden, Obama and Co., belief and disbelief depend solely on political expedience, not verifiable proof. For example, the progressive left touts science while insisting that babies in the womb are incapable of feeling pain, that plastic drinking straws destroy the planet, that illegal felonscontribute to society, and that gender is no longer limited to just XY and XX. Progressives also ignore sound data in order to promote falsehoods like law enforcement indiscriminately murders Black men, the Second Amendment kills people, and Caucasian males are racist, illiterate hayseeds.
In leftist circles, evidence holds no authority over strong belief. Thus, progressives adhere to a mythical gospel whose inherency is altered based on partisan necessity. The left display what psychologists define as “cognitive immunization.” Hence, it’s not a COVID vaccine that needs to be fast-tracked, but a societal antidote to a virus that half the country has adopted via media inoculation, political indoctrination, and public education.
In a Psychology Today article entitled, “5 Reasons Why People Stick to Their Beliefs, No Matter What,” author Aaron C. T. Smith explains why he believes “a mind convinced is immune to logic:”
Cognitive immunization helps to explain why some beliefs become even stronger when challenged. They also help to explain how we cannot let go of some beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence.
Couple the left’s cognitive immunization with exalting emotion over evidence, and the moral relativism our nation has elevated to religious tenet and Clifford’s standards becomes moot, especially if truth challenges the mindset Smith defines as “immune to logic.”
The recent presidential election is a perfect example of how those on the left reject honesty and embrace hype. Ignoring a 19th-century philosopher’s sound advice, and on behalf of the party whose future depends on winning the 2020 election, the media assists Joe Biden by contending that the electoral equivalent to a flat earth is real.
Let’s not forget that while truthful opinions can be useful, useful opinions are not always truthful. For example, as evidence concerning voter fraud and irregularities mount, progressives continue to promote the false narrative that “no evidence” exists.
Adding insult to injury, the group committed to getting rid of Trump “one way or another,” also deems it unnecessary to raise questions about foreign interference, U-Haul trucks, 350% voter turnout, as well as how 1.5-million ballots gave birth to 2.5-million votes.
Rather than advocating for election integrity, the committed and their minions turn their attention toward the repudiation of legal inquiry. Instead of analyzing facts provided by reputable lawyers, those who promise a “fumigated” post-Trump White House have chosen instead to confine reality to an impenetrable prison of lies. Meanwhile, truth slayers threaten, demean, and devalue anyone, or anything, that dares challenge the idea that on November 3rd, a legitimate election took place. As a result, the substantiated evidence lending credence to a different outcome holds zero sway over the left’s narrative that Biden, without campaigning or coherent communication, somehow acquired 80-million votes.
In place of what is real, those who willfully ignore glaring anomalies in the data swear a tyrannical Trump is currently in the process of committing treason. By rejecting truths supported by sufficient evidence, the treasonous left willfully eschews Clifford’s call to “moral obligation,” which is why the “no verifiable evidence” mantra is officially replacing the national anthem.
Collectively, these sort of mind games reinforce the supposition that the mendacious left purposely discounts proof that undermines their viewpoint and dismisses anyone who disagrees as biased, tainted, and dictatorial — all traits prevalent to their own way of thinking.
In other words, if it benefits an agenda, rather than embrace what is credible, the left consciously neutralizes any contradictory information that threatens their well-oiled propaganda machine. The goal is to slowly convince the public that Joe received more votes than Barack Obama and was the first candidate to win the presidency without Ohio and Florida and that, despite increasing his vote totals from 2016, Trump lost while an impressive number of Republican down-ballot seats were added to the House. None of it makes sense, confirming once again, that “a mind convinced is immune to logic” or better still, “a mind determined ignores logic.”
In other words, what the left works hard to ensure entrenches itself in the mind of their victims is not necessarily reinforced by reality. Therefore, how long will it be before progressives float the idea that Kamala possesses the supernatural power to click the heels of her Converse sneakers together and magically transport the candidate with the hairline fracture in his foot from the basement to the Oval Office?
Agenda-driven denial and concocted fantasy is what Clifford described as lack of “moral obligation” to beliefs based on sufficient evidence. Hence, the progressive left is neither exempt from the ethical obligation to form opinion based on sufficient evidence, nor forgiven for accommodating faulty verification to prove a compromised election was both free and fair.
Fueled by political flat-earthers who flout the obvious and repeat the lie, the left hopes that running out the clock will unseat Trump and win the day. In the meantime, thanks to cognitive immunization, motivated reasoning, and passive thinking, our deeply divided nation teeters on a precipice where “sufficient evidence” of fraud is considered insufficient, and insufficient evidence moral justification for a coup.