Is This An Overview?
Knowledge is a communal process, a journey, rather than a
destination. To find each other’s
errors, then correct them. To discard
ideas that have been disconfirmed. The
constitution of knowledge is meant to provide guidance on how to handle
differences of perspectives. Viewpoint
diversity is needed, with each claim going through challenges and accommodation
to enable a social convergence. To hear
different viewpoints, requires tolerance of a contentious intellectual
culture. Making claims and validating
ideas without personal attacks, and without anyone having a final say. Not even personal authority can validate
claims, as everyone is fallible. The
constitution of knowledge creates an epistemic environment where people are protected,
but their ideas are not.
While the constitution of knowledge is meant to enable
society to have better information, society can face an epistemic crisis in
which the quality and sources of information have been degraded. As people are not able to tell the difference
between truth and falsehood. Some ways
that information can be degraded is through ideological tribalism, trolling,
and canceling. An epistemic crisis comes
about when people attack the informational environment, not just people or
facts.
Humans are social animals that depend not on forming true
beliefs, but beliefs that lead to social success. What matters is what the group believes. As people want to belong to a tribe, there is
a willingness to purposefully interpret information incorrectly, to protect the
tribe. Internet trolls confuse and
disrupt, while cancelers coerce. Rather
than seek to improve the knowledge base, trolls weaponize outrage to capture
attention which demobilizes people through demoralization. Cancelers signal tribal support, by
expressing public outrage that is meant to isolate and intimidate the
opposition rather than provide fair criticism.
Through attacks on epistemic sources, viewpoint diversity has become
endangered.
What Is Knowledge And The Effect Biases?
Certainty might be sought after, but certainty is not
compatible with knowledge. Alternatively
there is fallibilism, that any belief is to be discarded when there is
experience against them. With
fallibilism, uncertainty is ubiquitous but obtaining knowledge is still
possible. Knowledge is always
provisional. Fallibilist search for
errors, as disconfirmation can be found.
What remains by removing the errors, is the best available knowledge.
It is through the communal process of error correction that
each scientist’s biases can be limited. Scientists
are biased, and they might not recognize their own biases, but they can spot
other people’s biases. By having
different biases, each scientist can see the mistakes of the others.
What Is The Constitution Of Knowledge?
The constitution of knowledge is meant to compel and
organize social negotiation. To accept
challenges to claims, and seek to compromise or accommodate. To be resilient and innovate without the
system breaking down. Competition with
belief systems provides a need to compromise them.
Constitution of knowledge does not require people to agree
on facts. It requires people with
different views towards social convergence.
Real intellectual pluralism and viewpoint diversity need to be actively
sought for. Agreement on ideas is not
viewpoint diversity.
Reality-based (error-seeking) communities are accountable to
each other, not a higher authority. There
is a separation between the idea and the person. Ideas can be attacked, but not the character
of the person.
The constitution of knowledge has commitments to
fallibilism, objectivity, exclusivity, disconfirmation, and
accountability. There is also an
internal value of epistemic conscience of not selecting favorable data or
hiding unfavorable data. Fallibilism is
about accepting being wrong. Objectivity
is about the empirical rule, that people are interchangeable. Exclusivity is about using the constitutions
rules for objectivity. Disconfirmation
is needed to challenge claims rather than just confirm already accepted claims. Accountability is about making mistakes
acceptable, not to punish them too harshly.
How Tribal identity Effects Intelligence And Intelligence
Effects Tribal Identity?
People defer to their tribes for beliefs and attitudes. Groups establish a shared perception of
reality. People are tribal and change
their belief system to the tribe’s views, to prevent a loss of social
reputation and group identity.
Evolutionary habituated to defend the group’s ideas, to prevent
alienation from the group. When the
group’s values are threatened, people interpret evidence incorrectly to protect
the group.
Reason does not override group identity. Group solidarity creates ideological
conflict. Creating epistemic tribalism. People publicly conform to information they
privately know is false. Totalitarian
regimes require everyone to pretend to believe ideas, that they know privately
to be false. Ideological tribes believe
that only one side can prevail, requiring the destruction of the other side’s
political force.
With neutral data that is not part of an ideological
background, a person can interpret data well.
But when data is shown to be about a passionate topic attached to an
ideological background, the person interprets the data based on ideological
background. Emotionally charged issues
enable the exploitation and manipulation of people. Although emotions rationalize political
loyalties, people claim that policy views were formed through reason.
More intelligent people were better able to interpret
neutral data, but had more biased interpretations for the passionate topics. Intelligence enables people to better
rationalize false beliefs. Intelligence
does not necessarily make people open-minded, or self-critical thinking. Motivated reasoning weaponized intelligence
against reality. Seeing others as a
wrong, while not seeing the individual as biased.
How Epistemic Crisis Are Formed?
Journalists are meant to seek accuracy, obtain a comment
from the target, consider varied viewpoints, among other factors to avoid a
conflict of interest. There are times
when the news are wrong and therefore retract the entries. Errors are meant to signal integrity, but
those attacking information see error correction as proof of corruption.
Digital media reverses the social incentives of the
reality-based community. Rather than
slowing down information flow by reviewing and testing before sharing, digital
media favors instantaneity and impulsivity.
Anonymity makes people lose accountability and become sociopathic. Misinformation tends to be more inflammatory
and shared then boring reality. Digital
media promotes ad hominem attacks rather than marginalizes them. Digital media attacks the person rather than
the idea.
For internet trolls, the point is capturing attention,
rather than the quality of the content.
Troll epistemology is destructive.
It does not create knowledge, trust, or settle disagreements. What troll epistemology does is reduce the
information environment of reality-based communities. Propaganda creates the condition in which
people cannot tell the difference between truth and falsehood, or even methods
of distinguishing between them.
Demoralization is a source of political power, as it demobilizes people. Demotivating people to feel helpless, that
they cannot change anything, that there is no alternative to the totalitarian
regime.
Cancelers do not even read the content that they are
canceling. What canceling is about is
signaling support for their group rather than any targeted idea or person. Cancel campaigns are meant to isolate,
intimidate, and demoralize rather than provide fair criticism. While criticism wants to influence through
rational persuasion. Canceling is
propaganda warfare that shapes the informational battlefield against knowledge.
Emotional safetyism is problematic as it prevents having
conversations about ideas that makes people feel unsafe. Turing all experiences into threats. Creates conflict through perpetual
anger. While reality-based community
rewards challenging claims, safety-based community rewards emotional
demonstrations that hinder challengers. Rather
than preventing harmful ideas, they enabling harmful ideas. Enabling a censorship of every idea and
person. Creating conditions for
self-censorship through norm police, has the consequence of building resentment
that becomes expressed by voting for a demagogue.
Caveats?
There is an idealism about science,
about error correcting systems. As error
correcting is a community function, there is a conflict between the ideal
outcomes and group dynamics. The referenced
tribal biases, and weaponizing intelligence against reality. The focus is on the ideal outcomes, the
benefits of error correcting, while not referencing the potential consequences
of error correcting. Skepticism about
information is needed for error correcting, but skepticism can be misused. Troll epistemic attacks leverage uncertainty
and turn it against the community.
Creating the referenced epistemic crisis of not knowing what information
to trust.
The author’s claims about tribal biases, causing people to
confirm ideas favorable to the tribe while disregard ideas unfavorable to the
tribe. Tribal biases effect the author
as well. The author is a journalist, and
in this book fought for journalistic integrity.
The author and many journalists might have integrity, but not every
journalist. The author defends news
making retractions after an error, and how journalists are fact based. The problem is that published news tend to be
viewed way more than the retractions, therefore the errors are not actually
corrected for the public. Journalists
might be fact based, but they can deliver some facts while avoiding other facts
which changes how the information is interpretated.
The author blames social media with quick spread of information,
and misinformation. Being quick to
spread means not being able to check and validate the information as much as
the slower news mediums. The problem is
that the slower news are not ideal either.
In part, the author makes the case that personal authority
is antagonistic to knowledge development.
But then the author wants professionalism and institutionalism which
enable an authority, even as they are described as being without. Disapproves of amateurs, but that is
contradictory to the claims of error correcting. People start as amateurs and then improve
themselves through error correcting.
