 I see what's going on. It's, thank you, David, whoever said that. Getting the sound from a different microphone. So you've pointed me to what I needed to know to solve this. Is that very? David, yes, much, much better. OK, so let's take, here's something. Like, there's something wrong with my audio, right? What's the evidence for that in my mind? Well, people are complaining. I had an initial theory. Maybe I don't know how to use this microphone. We then get a particular suggestion. It's sounding muffled like it's the computer's microphone, rather than mine. And then we were able to test it and see. So yeah, if the claim you're initially investigating is, some people say there's election fraud. OK, is there any evidence of that? For something to be evidence of election fraud, then we can go to the other claims and is there evidence of them, right? One, you have to know that it's true, the thing that's supposed to be evidence. Or at least have good reason to believe that it's true. So all the questions about, if someone tells you, here's evidence of election fraud, Dominion's own was co-founded by Chavez and this and that and the other thing. If you don't know if any of that's true, then you don't know if any of it's evidence. Then the second thing is, so the one is, how do you know that the evidence is true in the first place? And then the other, and I think a lot of people just aren't asking that, Rudy Giuliani said this, I mean, it's not just a Republican thing. There are all kinds of claims of election fraud in 2016. Also, that kind of quickly died down, but there was a period where people worried about had the Russians not just engaged in a disinformation campaign, but got access to election computers and so forth. So it's not, this isn't one side of the political spectrum or another that has a monopoly on this. Anyway, someone claimed this is, do I have reason to believe that it's true in the first place if only if it is, is it evidence? And then second, how does it connect to the thing being proven that you're trying to prove, we're trying to have evidence for? Because in order for one fact to count as evidence of a conclusion in a person's mind, in your mind, there's always a lot of other things that you would need to know. So in assessing whether a given piece of evidence is evidence for you, you need to work out what those other things are and check whether you really know them. So if we take a particular example, there were more voters than there were registered, people registered to vote in a certain county. First of all, is that even true? Some of the claims of that, I mean that claims to me with regard to a lot of different places, it turns out at least some of the places it's been named for, it comes from somebody confusing two different states and getting the counties wrong. So it wasn't even true. But then suppose that it is true, is that evidence of voter fraud? Well, that depends. How does voter registration work? It can the roles be, is the roles that the one piece of data being taken from sometimes out of date and there's another place which is what actually counts for whether you can vote? Do they have same-day registration in the state? And if they have same-day registration, does that mean people show up and register? So you have to know something about how the registration and the other stuff works to know if this is evidence that there's voter fraud. And you can know that or you can not. So you have to think about like, what do I know? What would I need to know? To know that this fact, if it is indeed a fact, if it's true, supports this other conclusion. And do I know it? And one thing to do, often you'll be able to just tell that by yourself. Sometimes you won't because you just are so ignorant of a field, you have the sense of, I don't know how things fit together in this field. Sounds convincing, but I have the feeling by contrasting it with fields that I really understand that I'm a little bit out to see here. And then you should notice that about yourself and go sort of read up and look at people who know about the field, if you're interested in it and see what they say. Are so ignorant of a field, that you... My phone started to, oh, you know what it is? I tuned into your show earlier and... Okay, so it's on the show. All right, so what should, so if somebody's interested, right? So I'd like to know whether the legitimacy of this election, whether the election is legitimate, I think all Americans want to know that. And people are making claims, seemingly legitimate people. Now we'll get to that in a minute because who makes the claim, I think is really, really important. But let's assume a certain segment of the population believes that people like Woody Giuliani are legit and honest. And they remember them from post 9-11 when he was mayor of New York and he came across as heroic and substantive. What do I do at this point? That is, how do you deal with that? Assuming, let's say that first that the person conveying the information seems to be a legitimate source for the information. Yes, I would say there are two things you have to do in general in thinking. And it comes up here. One is recognize that knowing things takes work. So recognize that to know that the election was tampered with or to know that the election's legitimate, right? Requires outsourcing, it requires someone to do a whole lot of work. Someone has to count, just to know what's legitimate. Someone has to count the vote. Someone has to correlate the information coming from different people who are counting the votes and reach a thing. And then when somebody's claiming there's something wrong with that process, someone needs to investigate all the events. So there's work involved in knowing. And you just have to accept the fact that if it takes work to accomplish something, then if you don't do the work, you're not going to accomplish it or you're gonna have to rely on someone else to do it. So just you should drop the premise that I should just be able to know or just be able to tell. And you'll notice that when people are trying to con you or put something over on you, you'll often get it presented with the, don't you know? Doesn't everyone know? Isn't it obvious? Things aren't obvious. They take work to know them. And if you or someone hasn't done the work then you don't have the knowledge. So first notice that and then think about what work am I willing to do? Then if you notice that the work requires specialized knowledge in some of the cases, you're going to have to outsource it to experts and decide which experts you can trust and whether you trust them and so forth. And there's a whole, a lot to say about how to tell who's an expert. But the one thing that I wanna stress here that's really important is you've gotta be honest in your thinking about how you know this. So if or why you think it? So if the thing is you trust Rudy Giuliani and you have reasons to, I mean, he was the mayor of New York. You think he did a good job. Before that he was a prosecutor. So we know he's the law and he's had cases. We can debate how good or bad he was at any of these things but he's not some, you know, why know off the street who just spoke some theory, right? If your reason for believing it is Rudy Giuliani has made this claim and you think of him as a person of substance then you should hold it in your mind as I take this seriously because Rudy said it. Rather than hold it in your mind as I take it seriously because there were all these affidavits like Rudy's given you his chain of reasoning and you don't wanna think like you've done that reasoning and you can prove it the way he does. Because you haven't, you haven't done that work. You've just heard Rudy give a press conference. So you say Rudy gave this press conference. I trust Rudy and Rudy claims he'll be able to back it up in court and you can hold it like that. But then if somebody else says, why do you think this? You shouldn't go to, well, this affidavit and that affidavit and there are more things in this and more people in this county in Georgia to say, you know, I trust Rudy and that's what I'm going on. And that can be perfectly legitimate. You can't do all the work and research yourself. And then you should say, here's how credible I think this guy is. I don't think I know this but I think it's a plausible investigation because I think Rudy's a serious person and he said it if that's what you think and then have a view about what you're gonna do going forward. Like, I think this, he said he's gonna prove it in court. I'll wait to see what happens with the judge. But the issue that I want to stress is the kind of honesty with yourself of, how do you know this? What's your chain of evidence personally? And it goes through Rudy and your judgment of his character rather than thinking you've done the work that he purports to have done. Yeah, and one of the things that is important in something like this is, so let's say you start out with opposition. You know, I trust Rudy, Rudy said this. And then case after case, the courts, the entity that's supposed to do the work to figure this out say, no, there's no evidence here. There's nothing in the throat out. Or you start reading on Twitter or Facebook or whatever, kind of the counter evidence to what Rudy's saying. The fact that there are fact checkers out there and that even Rudy's retracting some of his earlier claims because it turns out there's this one example where there's a tweet, let me just find this. There was a tweet where there were a hundred and something thousand votes, right? A hundred and something thousand votes that supposedly like this just flipped, increased in Biden's case. So there was a tweet and there were Facebook announcements saying, look, here's the picture before and then 10 minutes later, nothing's changed and Biden has an extra hundred and fifty, six thousand votes or something like that. And what's up with this? And then everybody retweets it and people comment on it and everything. And then later on it turns that yes, there was an adjustment made because of some clerical error and somebody had forgot a zero and they adjusted it and they made the adjustment. It also turns out that they got the two screenshots the other way around and actually the extra hundred and fifty six thousand votes went to Trump, not to Biden. And it turns out that everything about the story was wrong, right? And yet the same people who are arguing every other theory about fraud were arguing this theory just as passionately, just as with as much conviction and once these things start accumulating, you should start doubting your sources of information. Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. You've got to be, if your judgment is in part based on someone's character, you have to update as you learn new things about their character. And what we all have here is kind of, unless you've actually read all these affidavits yourself and done all the network yourself, that work yourself, you're relying on other people's claims. You're relying in effect on expert testimony from various lawyers and things and you should be checking how reliable is when they predict something's going to happen. Does it happen? How right are they? How often are they right? And then even if you do try to read it all yourself you might lack the expertise to do it. If nothing is easier than to make what seems like a convincing case to somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about. There's an old aphorism, a little learning is a dangerous thing and it's true if I tell you a little bit about COVID-19 and how it spreads and you only know these couple of things it's easy to then prove things to you beyond any doubt in your mind. I mean, not necessarily you but it's easy to prove things to someone beyond any doubt in that person's mind if they think they know more than they do and they've just learned a few facts and they don't know any of the context and any of the things they need to keep in mind. That's why we need experts. You shouldn't be a slavish kind of you believe whatever the expert says but you can't, you know, doing a Google search or learning two or three things doesn't put you in the possession of being an expert on the subject. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist roads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now, 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I figure at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it, but at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share. And you can support the show at yourunbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or Subscribestar or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one, all of those, please.