But do all our opponents know less or reason more poorly than we do?  On honest reflection, we should admit that, no matter what our political views, there are people who know at least as much about the issues as we do and are at least as good as we at drawing conclusions from this knowledge. Most of us, for example, would not fare well in a debate with, say, Paul Krugman or David Brooks.On most political matters, then, we have what philosophers call “epistemic peers” — people at least our equals in the intellectual qualities needed to made good judgments about a given matter — who disagree with us. What should we make of this fact?Many of us may well claim it doesn’t matter at all.  I have a right to my opinion, no matter who might disagree with me.  That’s what we mean by freedom of thought.

freedom of thought does not imply correctness of thought: my political right to assert my views does not mean that I have good reasons for holding them.