Thread by @seanmcarroll

It just seems so *reasonable* to say "there might be some evidence, just let the process play out," whether the claim is "there was massive voter fraud" or "UFOs are alien visitors." But in many cases (like these) it's not reasonable at all.

Background knowledge matters. Truth claims don't float out in a vacuum, each to be judged independently. We know something about elections and the strategies of certain actors; we know about technology, perception, and motivated reasoning. That knowledge should inform our priors.

People valorize a certain puzzle-solving kind of intelligence. And solving puzzles is important. But the ultimate goal isn't to be clever, it's to be correct. For that, knowing what information to pay attention to and what ideas to take seriously is more relevant.

So what we call "intelligence" ends up having weak, if any, correlation with having good judgment about difficult issues. As @ezraklein said in our podcast discussion, no one knows more about the melting point of steel beams than 9/11 truthers.
preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/0…

Or as @tribelaw once said after a group of Harvard Law students published an ugly parody of the work of a feminist professor who had recently been stabbed to death, he worried that his teaching amounted to just "sharpening their knives."

A lot goes into this. Cognitive biases, values, an ability to weigh evidence in a larger context. But the well-known upshot is that wisdom is more elusive than intelligence. We should work harder at it.

And yes, it's an equally important skill to *not* dismiss dramatic claims that push against conventional ideas when they have a chance of being true!

The point is not "dismiss every wild idea," it's "not every idea is worth taking seriously."

Wisdom is hard.