We’ve been hearing a lot about misinformation in the news lately…but how do we know when we come across misinformation? What’s the difference between misinformation and disinformation? The truth is about to creep in Is there room? If so many people believe something that’s not true, shouldn’t we try to correct it? Not necessarily, says Arnold, our guest on this episode. Kling says.
Kling has almost no monolithic concept of truth, but rather sees truth as a process, the result of a process of truth-seeking. Through such a process, Kling argues, many things will ultimately turn out to be wrong. For this reason, he considers those who claim to have discovered “the truth” to be the most dangerous. Part of the reason is that such claims allow them to think they have the right to censor anything that is not “true.”
Roberts sees disagreements about what is “truth” as a conflict between those who support the process and those who support the outcome. He likens disagreements over rules and discretion to economic policy. So what is the best way to search for truth, and perhaps more importantly, how can we best identify what is not true?
Consider the prompts below and share your thoughts with us online or start a conversation in the real world. Let’s keep the conversation going!
1- Both Kling and Roberts (rightly so!) value competition in economics: trial and error, profits and losses, and seem to want a similar process to exist in the marketplace of ideas. Roberts wonders why such feedback loops occur. [market] Maybe not so much when it comes to information, but what about competitive work? Simply put, why can’t bad information be “put out of business”?
Or can it? Consider Kling’s claim that “by deciding who we believe, we decide what we believe.” What does he mean by this? To what extent do you agree? How do information intermediaries build credibility?
2- Roberts brings up disagreements over social media and censorship issues. Should there be standards for what can be posted on social media? If so, what would those standards look like? What is Roberts’ biggest problem with social media censorship?
When asked about social media regulation, Kling said he favors a softer, bottom-up approach to regulation. Again, what does this look like? How does this compare to the answer given by Reason’s Katherine Mang-Ward (~15:00) when Mitch Daniels asked a similar question? What is your answer to this difficult question? (And to what extent should we view social media as a “public sphere” today?)
3- The conversation turns to the coronavirus pandemic as an example of misinformation and information suppression. Roberts discusses three possible reasons for holding truth. One of these he thought was reasonable and the other he thought promoted the establishment of public health. What are these three reasons? Which do you think is more reasonable and why? (To answer this question, it may be helpful to ask yourself who was the Baptist and who was the bootlegger in this situation.)
4- What role do scientific institutions and academies play in determining and disseminating truth? What did Kling mean when he said “you get what you choose” in organizations? What is the difference between a prestige hierarchy and a dominance hierarchy? Is the academy more or less reliable than before? why?
5- Towards the end of the conversation, Roberts and Kling return to Kling’s three languages of politics. According to Roberts, how do these three languages (conservative, progressive, liberal) become political blind spots? Roberts and Kling describe this process with regard to police brutality and the war in Israel. I’m explaining. What other problems can this framework be applied to? Explain.
