{"id":1149,"date":"2021-03-22T10:00:21","date_gmt":"2021-03-22T10:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=1149"},"modified":"2021-03-22T14:07:06","modified_gmt":"2021-03-22T14:07:06","slug":"the-ethics-of-belief-its-not-just-trump-supporters-who-believe-wrongly-its-all-of-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-ethics-of-belief-its-not-just-trump-supporters-who-believe-wrongly-its-all-of-us\/","title":{"rendered":"The Ethics of Belief: It\u2019s not just Trump supporters who believe wrongly\u2014it\u2019s all of us"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

As the dust settles on the Trump presidency, we are left to reflect on its many themes. One of its most fundamental was this: believing without adequate evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Many aspects of the last four years fit this theme, but we saw this most vividly with Trump\u2019s repeated denial of the election results. This denial culminated in the unprecedented riot and attack on the Capitol by Trump\u2019s supporters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

From the beginning, headlines declared there was \u201cno evidence<\/a>\u201d and \u201cno credible or reliable evidence<\/a>\u201d to support Trump’s claims of fraud. Trump\u2019s mid-riot Tweets\u2014insisting his \u201csacred landslide election victory<\/a>\u201d was stolen\u2014were met with a chorus of \u201cagain, no evidence!\u201d by TV news anchors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

That Trump\u2019s claims were made on the basis of no evidence is unremarkable\u2014he has a long, well-documented history of making claims that are false<\/a>\u00a0and contrary to evidence.<\/p>\n

What is remarkable though is that so many of us would suddenly care so much about evidence. We often just don\u2019t care about evidence. That\u2019s a problem.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Evidence is information relevant to determining whether a belief is true or false. Without evidence, a belief cannot be knowledge<\/a>. Some evidence is so strong that we call it \u201cproof\u201d; other evidence is weak, merely suggesting a belief might be true. Some evidence is from our own experience and reflection, but a lot of it comes from what other people tell us\u2014their testimony<\/a>\u2014and our trusting<\/a>\u00a0that what they say is true.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Evidence of all types, however, has an ethics.\u00a0While the concept of ethical (or unethical) behavior is well-known, there is also an \u201cethics of belief<\/a>.\u201d The idea is that we shouldn\u2019t be just concerned with whether our beliefs are true or false; we should also be concerned about whether we formed them in responsible, ethical manners. And on most views, this ethics is determined by evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

According to a common understanding of the ethics of belief, we should only believe ideas that are supported by strong evidence. So if we lack adequate evidence for a claim, we should not believe it: believing that claim is wrong. Believing against the evidence\u2014believing a claim when there is strong evidence that it is false\u2014is an even graver wrong.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Why is there an ethics of belief? Because, as the insurrection at the Capitol made clear, beliefs have consequences. Beliefs guide how we act. Believing against the evidence tends to have bad results\u2014harms, damage, disrespect\u2014and believing what\u2019s supported by strong evidence tends to yield positive outcomes. This is why, for example, a doctor needs strong evidence that nothing else will work before proposing a high-risk surgery and why you want an independent mechanic to check a used car before you decide it\u2019s reliable enough to be a safe buy.<\/p>\n

People who care about the ethics of belief in the first place would have never supported Trump for so long: they would have recognized that they didn\u2019t have strong evidence to accept Trump\u2019s claims, especially about election fraud. Trump\u2019s supporters believed they had strong evidence for their beliefs, but they were mistaken: their evidence was not strong, given the reasons to doubt\u2014all the counterevidence against any conspiracy, which included the independent certification of results by 50 different states and rebuffing by at least nine federal judges<\/a>\u00a0many of whom are members of Trump\u2019s own political party.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But it is also incorrect to say they had no\u00a0evidence: Trump\u2019s words\u2014testimony from their hero, although itself based on little to no evidence\u2014and the repeated reports from sources they trust provided some evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But what if Trump\u2019s followers had demanded strong evidence just for his election fraud claims? The riots would have never happened: adherence to the ethics of belief would have prevented unethical action.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Many people, especially those critical of Trump, are apt to judge MAGA insurrectionists harshly<\/a>\u00a0for having beliefs that are not supported by evidence, and for acting rashly, and wrongly, on the basis of those beliefs. The problem with this judgment though is that almost everyone has beliefs that are not supported by strong evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Many of people\u2019s most cherished beliefs\u2014on important matters such as religion, health, science, ethics, justice, and more\u2014are not based on strong evidence. How often do we undertake careful, unbiased research to thoroughly assess the trustworthiness of who and what we accept as sources of good information? Not often. We usually just accept the beliefs of people we consider \u201clike us\u201d and then \u201crationalize<\/a>,\u201d dismissing evidence that our beliefs are inaccurate or, when challenged, seeking out any support we can find, no matter how flimsy.<\/p>\n

This is true of everyone whether they identify as \u201cconservative\u201d or \u201cliberal\u201d<\/a>: we are all<\/a><\/i>\u00a0inclined to accept beliefs not on the basis of strong evidence, including scientists. So deep is the desire to believe certain ideas\u2014which support membership in our \u201ctribes<\/a>,\u201d the groups that form our social identities<\/a>\u2014that we cancel the search for good evidence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

We readily recognize the errors of believing without good evidence in others, especially when the consequences are extreme. But we should also recognize this tendency in ourselves: our believing without adequate evidence is risky and wrong. Thankfully, this error doesn\u2019t usually lead to violence, as was seen at the Capitol, but it\u2019s the same type of faulty believing that leads to a false dichotomy between us and \u201cthem,\u201d that we are the rational ones and everyone else is \u201ccrazy\u201d or worse.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

This isn\u2019t \u201cwhataboutism<\/a>\u201d: I\u2019m certainly not defending the MAGA rioters, nor claiming that Biden supporters are generally more likely to hold beliefs supported by strong evidence. Rather, to improve everyone\u2019s ability to make thoughtful judgments, we need to first recognize the mistaken, and flawed, ways that everyone forms and sustains many of their beliefs. Perhaps recognizing that commonality is a key to healing our divides.<\/p>\n

So what can we do about the problematic ways we often come to hold our beliefs about important matters, including our beliefs about which beliefs to act on? Unfortunately, many common proposed solutions are themselves problematic.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

One long-term proposal is to increase our nation\u2019s\u00a0<\/a>critical thinking<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/a>media literacy<\/a>\u00a0skills.\u00a0Better<\/a> education<\/a>\u00a0would not fully solve the problems\u2014\u201ceducated\u201d people also believe on insufficient evidence and are as subject to vice as anyone else is\u2014but this could have some positive impact. The difficulty though is this: how could we convince a population that widely rejects these skills that they need them, especially since these skills are often rejected across the political spectrum? How can they be introduced in\u00a0<\/a>schools<\/a>\u00a0if too many parents often reject them? This proposal is good in theory, but the mechanisms to make it happen might be hard to realize.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

A related response encourages evidence-seekers and evidence-deniers to\u00a0<\/a>interact more, in positive ways<\/a>, so that the latter comes to appreciate the importance of strong evidence. But this \u201csolution\u201d requires that the need for strong evidence is already widely appreciated, by those who don\u2019t seem to care much about evidence. Given widespread rejection of expertise<\/a>, it\u2019s unlikely that most people would enthusiastically accept the thought that some basic orientations toward evidence are better than others.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Maybe our tendencies toward ignoring and disrespecting evidence can\u2019t be taught or socialized out of us: we haven\u2019t been able to do it yet. If we can\u2019t be changed, maybe our\u00a0<\/a>environments can be altered<\/a>\u00a0such that we interact with less disinformation and have fewer opportunities to organize around it. The challenge though is making that happen without wrongly restricting freedom of thought and association. And who would control this information and manage interactions? And how could they gain the power to make this happen, if someone decides (who?) that they should? Great answers here are hard to find.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Another proposal involves changing our political system so that people with strong evidence and knowledge have political power and those without strong evidence or the abilities to engage with it have little political influence. This is \u201cepistocracy<\/a>,\u201d proposed in Plato<\/a>\u2019s Republic. But who is deemed a genuine knower? Who would know who knows that? Since knowledge can\u00a0<\/a>corrupt<\/a>\u2014there\u2019s no clear connection between being knowledgeable and fair\u2014we\u2019d need a way to keep these ruling knowers in check, and we don\u2019t know what would be.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The willingness to try epistocracy might most depend on how it works for people deemed to lack knowledge: if it works well for them, materially, and they are respected and feel respected, maybe it\u2019d be a viable solution. Maybe even just improved economic and status changes would be enough to dissolve what motivates people to believe against the evidence, at least on political matters, and so big political change wouldn\u2019t even be needed. However,\u00a0<\/a>money and status<\/a>\u00a0don\u2019t always buy decency either.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

So solutions to our problems with believing won\u2019t come easy. In his Inaugural Address<\/a>, though, President Biden said that \u201ceach of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans\u201d to \u201cdefend the truth and defeat the lies.\u201d Determining how we might meet this duty requires evidence. Biden also proclaimed this election was about America\u2019s \u201csoul<\/a>.\u201d Our minds, however, are part of that soul and working to better use our minds\u2014in seeking and evaluating evidence \u2014will help\u00a0<\/a>restore<\/a>\u00a0our souls. To adapt a saying from many Christian churches, \u201cEvidence is good, all the time.\u201d Let us agree and get to seeking strong evidence for beliefs on these matters, as the ethics of belief requires.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Nathan Nobis, PhD<\/a><\/i>, is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Morehouse College, Atlanta, Georgia.<\/i><\/p>\n

Originally posted at https:\/\/www.politicalanimalmagazine.com\/2021\/02\/02\/the-ethics-of-belief\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As the dust settles on the Trump presidency, we are left to reflect on its many themes. One of its most fundamental was this: believing without adequate evidence. Many aspects […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":1151,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Nobis \"The Ethics of Belief: It\u2019s not just Trump supporters who believe wrongly\u2014it\u2019s all of us\" on Open for Debate","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[289,288,7,28],"custom_author":[287],"class_list":["post-1149","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-ethics-of-belief","tag-evidence","tag-politics","tag-trump","custom_author-nobis-nathan"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-ix","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":426,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/trust-and-trump-investigating-sincerity-and-accuracy-in-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1149,"position":0},"title":"TRUST and Trump: investigating sincerity and accuracy in discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"When exploring discursive untruthfulness, modern American politics is an obvious example. Donald Trump\u2019s presidency has been continuously criticised for his use of falsity, with the aim of promoting his own biased views. However, untruthfulness is irrefutably underpinned by the notion of \u2018lying\u2019, an act that is near impossible to identify:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/trump.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1492,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/thats-not-what-i-didnt-say-some-thoughts-on-silence-and-deniability\/","url_meta":{"origin":1149,"position":1},"title":"\u201cThat\u2019s not what I didn\u2019t say\u201d. Some thoughts on silence and deniability","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"July 25, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In June 2020, there was a long moment of silence, when Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau was asked a question about his views on US president Donald Trump\u2019s reaction to Black Lives Matter protesters in a press conference: \u201cYou\u2019ve been reluctant to comment on the words and actions of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2022\/07\/volodymyr-hryshchenko-V5vqWC9gyEU-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1112,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/honesty-and-radically-opposing-views-flat-earthers-apocalyptic-preachers-and-2020-american-election-deniers\/","url_meta":{"origin":1149,"position":2},"title":"Honesty and Radically Opposing Views: Flat-Earthers, Apocalyptic Preachers, and 2020 American Election-Deniers","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"January 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"One of the common labels used to condemn the other side is \u2018dishonest.\u2019 They are a bunch of liars. Or cheaters. Or deceivers. Don\u2019t trust anything they say. We see this kind of rhetoric in political debates especially, but it shows up all over the place, including in discussions of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/01\/element5-digital-T9CXBZLUvic-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/01\/element5-digital-T9CXBZLUvic-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/01\/element5-digital-T9CXBZLUvic-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/01\/element5-digital-T9CXBZLUvic-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/01\/element5-digital-T9CXBZLUvic-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/01\/element5-digital-T9CXBZLUvic-unsplash-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1208,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/legal-character-evidence-prohibitions-and-the-opacity-of-character\/","url_meta":{"origin":1149,"position":3},"title":"Legal Character Evidence Prohibitions and the Opacity of Character","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 14, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"We tend to think another person\u2019s character helps explain why she acts as she does. When we observe patterns in how others act, we take this to be evidence of a trait or disposition. We attribute loyalty to hose we can rely on, generosity to those who donate significant time\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/06\/Screenshot-2021-06-19-at-10.21.28.png?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":432,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/poisonous-words-arrogance-bullshit-and-accusations-of-lying-in-public-discourse\/","url_meta":{"origin":1149,"position":4},"title":"Poisonous Words: Arrogance, Bullshit and Accusations of Lying in Public Discourse","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"April 23, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"As is common with international incidents today, the Skripal case, in which a Russian double agent and his daughter were poisoned with a nerve agent in Salisbury, England, has generated an abundance of fake news, conspiracy theories, deceptions, misleading, bullshit and lying. There have been many accusations of lying and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/04\/all-explanations-arerubbish4754734_43ced6dc.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":1080,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/not-so-ignorant-after-all-metaknowledge-matters-more-than-knowledge\/","url_meta":{"origin":1149,"position":5},"title":"Not so Ignorant After All: Metaknowledge Matters More than Knowledge","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 14, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In one way or another, democracies put political power in the hands of the people.\u00a0 A perennial worry about democracy, voiced almost as soon as it was invented, is that it places power in the hands of the ignorant. To some extent, this worry reflects an elitist condescension, but there\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2020\/12\/vote.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2021\/03\/Minds-3.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1149","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1149"}],"version-history":[{"count":21,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1149\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1154,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1149\/revisions\/1154"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1151"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1149"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1149"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1149"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=1149"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}