Read on Twitter
There seems to be a misunderstanding among those who think "mathematical proof" of voter fraud needs to be investigated.
If a conspiracy theorist has 200 pages of intricate mathematics proving that a cabal of lizard people run the world, there is NO OBLIGATION TO CHECK THE MATH.
If a conspiracy theorist has 200 pages of intricate mathematics proving that a cabal of lizard people run the world, there is NO OBLIGATION TO CHECK THE MATH.
But why not just...check the math? You know, so that all suspicions are laid to rest! Is it because lizard people run the world and they are afraid the truth will get out?
No. Because that's NOT HOW IT WORKS, for two reasons.
No. Because that's NOT HOW IT WORKS, for two reasons.
The first reason is that time and resources are limited. There are, I promise, endless absurd claims about everything from 9/11 to voter fraud, all neatly packaged in tons of data and math.
Fortunately, we triage the evaluation of claims based on prior plausibility.
Fortunately, we triage the evaluation of claims based on prior plausibility.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Are claims of widespread voter fraud extraordinary? Why yes they are. There's no prior evidence of voter fraud. Bipartisan election officials strongly deny them.
But why not check anyway, for the sake of trust?
Are claims of widespread voter fraud extraordinary? Why yes they are. There's no prior evidence of voter fraud. Bipartisan election officials strongly deny them.
But why not check anyway, for the sake of trust?
That brings us to the second reason we don't just entertain any old claim.
Publicly evaluating bizarro claims often backfires—instead of laying all suspicions to rest, more people are exposed to the terrible argument wrapped in what looks like math and data and say
.
Publicly evaluating bizarro claims often backfires—instead of laying all suspicions to rest, more people are exposed to the terrible argument wrapped in what looks like math and data and say
.
So, to recap: Letting "the system work" is NOT the same as "adjudicating every claim in court" or "making sure every claim gets debunked by scientists."
A key part of the system is deciding what gets evaluated by the system in the first place.
A key part of the system is deciding what gets evaluated by the system in the first place.
This is where the contrarians whose brains have been rotted by *just enough* philosophy of science will say things like:
What if the system itself is broken or corrupt? WHO WILL TELL US ABOUT THE LIZARD PEOPLE IF LIZARD PEOPLE RUN THE SYSTEM?
What if the system itself is broken or corrupt? WHO WILL TELL US ABOUT THE LIZARD PEOPLE IF LIZARD PEOPLE RUN THE SYSTEM?
The answer, unfortunately, is a bit complicated. (That's why these folks get so much airtime.)
But it goes something like this: Every once in a while, big assumptions that affect the whole system are bad assumptions.
But it goes something like this: Every once in a while, big assumptions that affect the whole system are bad assumptions.
When those big assumptions are faulty, the "system" starts to produce lots of bad conclusions.
For example, if lizard people really were in charge, and they were suppressing vote totals and doing other nefarious things, you'd start to see their lizardy tracks all over.
For example, if lizard people really were in charge, and they were suppressing vote totals and doing other nefarious things, you'd start to see their lizardy tracks all over.
And eventually the brave truth seekers—the real ones, not the arseholes who weaponize contrarianism for clicks and lulz—would be able to gather a TON of evidence. Lizard tracks everywhere. And the lizards would be exposed.
Takes a while, yes. But that's how the system works.
Takes a while, yes. But that's how the system works.
At any rate, my takeaway: We need to start teaching this kind of thinking at a very, very young age. Make it a basic part of our STEM curriculum. Some places are doing this, but not nearly enough, and not nearly young enough. /x
