11/8/2025

Introduction: The Appeal of Convenient Uncertainty

It is undeniably true that no expert, no matter how educated or experienced, can know everything about anything. Human understanding, by its very finite nature, is limited. Complex systems—be they biological, social, economic, religious, or political—are influenced by innumerable variables, many of which cannot be measured or even perceived. Thus, it is both humble and wise to recognize that even the most qualified earthly authorities can err.

However, this humble truth is often twisted into a self-serving fallacy. People sometimes weaponize the admission of uncertainty as a license for dishonest dismissal or denial. They may say, “Well, the experts could be wrong…” Or if they are defensive of the establishment experts but opposed to the real experts who are being silenced and censored, they might say, “The science as you understand it could be wrong…” With the excuse that, “There could be more to the story than we are aware of…” –As if such excuses absolved them from the duty to think, to study, to weigh evidence, or to discern truth from falsehood with honesty and with an open mind. By such reasoning, any narrative or counternarrative becomes equally valid, and no fact can be trusted. This mindset is not skepticism—it is nihilism masquerading as wisdom.

[If you are reading this via the subscription email, please click here to visit this post on my website to help out my website stats.]

A Case in Point

One easy example of this are those who unthinkingly believe the official narrative given by our government as to what happened on 9/11 in 2001. They deny the iron-clad facts and science that honest thinkers have put forward:

1. Two buildings were hit by airliners, but three came down in a free-fall: WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7.
2. All three buildings came down in a manner that can only be achieved by professionally planned demolition experts, which points to the impossibility that these buildings came down merely as the result of impact forces and fires.
3. A building on fire only reaches temperatures of about 1500ºF. At least 2700ºF is required to melt steel.
4. Many witnesses reported hearing the demolition charges going off.
5. …and much more evidence is available demonstrating that these catastrophic events were preplanned and covered up.
6. Just 12 days after 9/11, the Patriot Act was passed, dramatically expanding the powers of the Federal government and reducing freedom in America. This event was also the catalyst for the War on Terror, years of war in the Middle East, and the massive expansion of the Warfare State.

But be all that as it may, I know multiple people who are highly educated, highly intelligent, and highly religious who deny and evade the inescapable deductions that must be made in light of these facts.

Other similar criticisms can easily be made relative to what the establishment experts report as the official narratives relating to the phony fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the COVID-19 crisis, and the Charlie Kirk assassination.

The Psychology of Evasion

When people dismiss ample or even overwhelming evidence of that which to any honest person would accept as empirical proof of truth, with the claim that “the experts don’t know everything,” they are rarely making a scientific or well-reasoned statement; instead, they are making a psychological excuse in denying what there is ample evidence to believe. It is a way of protecting the ego from the discomfort of being wrong or accepting as truth something that somehow conflicts with their fragile world view. Admitting that the official narrative might, in fact, be wrong would require re-evaluating one’s identity, one’s core beliefs, and perhaps even one’s moral standing.

Worse still, this behavior often reveals an even deeper spiritual problem: the refusal to bear the burden of truth. It is far easier to cling to a comfortable illusion than to confront the possibility that the world is more complex, more demanding, and considerably darker than we wish it to be. When the intellect becomes subservient to emotion, reason is no longer a servant of truth but a slave of self-defeating desires.

This is why so many cling to the “official narratives” and institutional wisdom even when the available data, logic, and predictable outcomes clearly refute them. They fear the unknown world they have not honestly considered, dreading the prospect of an existence not supported by ethical, honest, or reliable institutions. For many, the thought of such a thing is too horrible to bear.

The Seduction of Subjectivity

By the logic of “the experts don’t know everything,” one can justify believing anything at all. If knowledge is always incomplete, then every opinion becomes equally legitimate, even when all the evidence and logic in the world clearly refute the reality and validity of specific points of view. The result is a kind of intellectual anarchy, a democracy of ignorance where evidence no longer matters, only emotion.

This is the point at which postmodern relativism is most easily exposed as yet another example of defensive emotional thinking. It is the whiplash reaction of the emotionally insecure when faced with putative truth to make excuses based not on evidence or science but on uncertainty. It essentially declares, “I’ll believe what feels true to me.” But as Jordan Peterson frequently warns, feeling is not a substitute for thinking.

To conflate subjective certainty with objective reality is to open the gates of chaos where anything could happen. But in such instances, what you least desire as the outcome, namely, destruction and despair, quickly becomes the most inevitable.

In such a world, even the most absurd claims can be entertained indefinitely because there is no longer any shared standard for testing reality.

Civilization only improves when built upon the foundation of a shared order of understanding, a collective recognition that truth exists, and that it can be discovered through reason, evidence, and moral honesty. This shared conviction binds people together; it makes trust possible, discourse meaningful, and justice attainable. But when that order collapses—when truth becomes a matter of opinion, or when honesty is sacrificed for convenience—the very fabric of civilization begins to unravel. Trust dies. Dialogue turns to vitriol and accusation. And the people, once united by light and reason, fragment into hostile tribes, each worshiping its own illusion of reality. In such a world, deception becomes power, and only the humble and honest can still discern the path back to sanity and peace.

When the Experts Betray Truth

When institutions, governments, and credentialed elites claim the mantle of “expertise” while deliberately distorting the facts to serve ideology, profit, or control, their credibility rightfully suffers. When “the experts” become paid propagandists, the public’s trust erodes—and rightly so.

Throughout history, the label of “expert” has often been used to legitimize falsehood. The economic experts of every failed empire justified inflationary theft; medical authorities once promoted tobacco as healthy; political scientists rationalized tyranny as “necessary order.” In our own time, we’ve witnessed scientific data massaged to fit pre-approved narratives, dissenting voices silenced under the guise of “safety,” and questions dismissed not because they lacked evidence, but because they threatened the prestige of the powerful.

Jordan Peterson would call this the corruption of logos—when truth itself is sacrificed to protect institutional reputation. Once truth becomes subordinate to social convenience, experts cease to be servants of knowledge and become priests of dogma. The irony is profound: those who accuse skeptics of rejecting reality are often the very ones distorting it.

The Moral Duty of Informed Skepticism

The answer is not blind trust in institutions nor cynical rejection of them—it is informed moral skepticism. This kind of skepticism doesn’t deny expertise; it demands accountability. It tests every claim—especially the ones wrapped in undisputable authority.

Truth is not found in obedience to institutions but in alignment with reality itself. Real truth seekers listen to evidence, even when it comes from outsiders or unpopular voices. They ask not “Who said it?” but “Is it true?” And they say, “Show me the evidence.” When experts and institutions fear these things, it reveals that what they protect is not truth but status and power.

Humility Versus Cynicism

There is a great difference between humility and cynicism. Humility says, “I will listen carefully, examine the evidence, and reserve judgment until I understand as much as can be based on the information available.” Cynicism says, “I refuse to believe anything that challenges my worldview.” And honesty often says, “I don’t have enough reliable information or understanding to really form a thoroughly informed opinion on the matter.”

The humble open their minds to learning. The cynical close their minds in self-imposed darkness. The honest admit when they are out of their league and really don’t have a right to claim a credible opinion.

The fool does not seek truth; he seeks validation. The wise seek truth, even at the cost of being proven they are wrong.

True humility acknowledges that anyone can be mistaken, and that truth exists independent of our opinions. To live righteously and rationally, one must embrace the discipline of seeking what is true, not what is convenient.

The Consequences of Denying Reality

History shows what happens when individuals and societies adopt the nihilistic premise that truth is unknowable and all opinions are equal. Reason becomes dysfunctional, science collapses, justice becomes arbitrary, and tyranny fills the vacuum. When truth is no longer seen as objective, the light of truth is darkened, and arbitrary power becomes the only remaining standard.

When people abandon truth to align with ideology, they become capable of unspeakable evil. Lies metastasize into systems of oppression, and individuals lose both freedom and dignity. When society refuses to acknowledge the morality and truth that should be obviously apparent to any moral or rational individual, it sets a course diametrically opposed to order, freedom, prosperity, and happiness.

The Path of Disciplined Faith

In the end, to acknowledge that “experts don’t know everything” should not lead to relativism but to reverence. It should humble us, not excuse us. It should drive us to seek greater wisdom and discernment with even greater diligence, for the unknown is not an argument for ignorance; it is a summons to deeper inquiry.

Faith, rightly understood, is not blind belief but belief and action based on evidence. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). That is the balance: to prove, to test, to seek, and to cling to what is evidently true, no matter how inconvenient or challenging it might be.

When people use ignorance as a weapon against truth, they enslave themselves to deception. But when they use humility as a foundation for inquiry, they become seekers of light—and light, as always, dispels darkness.

The Responsibility of Knowing

True intellectual integrity requires us to balance skepticism with responsibility. We must not automatically accept everything the “experts” say, but neither must we dismiss their assertions just because they have been caught lying so often in the past. The right path is the narrow one: to engage critically, to ask probing questions, to honestly consider all possibilities, and to discern truth through disciplined thought.

The more access we have to the data, the more accountable we become. Likewise, one could argue that the more we know, the more accountable we become. Rejecting arguments and possibilities that we have not heretofore honestly considered out of fear, prejudice, or by making ignorant assumptions is the very essence of moral cowardice. Hence, to say “the experts might be wrong” or “the data might be wrong” without offering coherent evidence or reasoning is not bravery—it is abdication.

Real courage lies in confronting reality even when it contradicts our preferences. It lies in admitting, “I don’t like this truth, but it might be true nonetheless.” Truth is not a servant to our feelings—it is the standard by which our feelings must be judged.

Conclusion: Restoring Truth as the Highest Virtue

Ultimately, no government, no church, no university, and no expert can claim final authority over truth itself. Institutions can serve truth or betray it, but they cannot undisputedly define it. The revelation of truth belongs to God, to conscience, and to every honest soul willing to seek light without bias or fear.

The wise person, therefore, neither worships experts nor despises them. He studies their words, examines their fruits, compares their claims with observable reality, and tests all things by the eternal measure of truth itself. The moment experts or institutions punish inquiry, censor dissent, or suppress discussion, they declare by their actions that they no longer serve truth, but something else entirely.

In the end, the successful search for truth is not merely an intellectual exercise; it is a moral conquest. It demands honesty to see things as they truly are, humility to admit how little we know, and courage to face whatever the truth reveals, however inconvenient or painful it may be. The seeker of truth must master his passions, rule his thoughts, and govern his reactions, for emotional thinking corrupts reason, and pride blinds the mind. Ego is the enemy of truth; self-justification is its assassin.

Only through disciplined thought, moral objectivity, and a conscience aligned with eternal principles can one cut through the fog of lies and deception that pervades this world. Truth yields only to those who love it more than comfort, more than approval, and more than their own self-image. Thus, as has been said time and again, honesty, humility, and courage are not optional—they are the sacred virtues by which all objectivity is maintained, and by which the soul draws nearest to God Himself, the source and embodiment of all truth.

---