We heard it a lot of about misinformation in the news lately… but how do we know when we’re confronted with it? What is the difference between disinformation and disinformation, and is there room for that? truth more? If too many people believe things that aren’t true, shouldn’t we try to fix that??? Not necessarily, says this episode’s guest Arnold Kling.
Kling has little confidence in a monolithic concept of truth, but rather sees truth as the result of a process, a process of to search for the truth. Through such a process, Kling argues, many things ultimately turn out to be wrong. For this reason, he thinks that people who claim to have found “the truth” are the most dangerous, in part because such claims allow them to think they have the right to censor what is not “true.”
Roberts views disagreements about what is “true” as a conflict between people who prefer processes versus people who prefer results; he draws an analogy with economic policy: the disagreement about rules versus discretion. So what is the best way to seek the truth – and perhaps more importantly, how best to determine what is NOT true?
Consider the prompts below and share your thoughts with us online, or start your own conversation in the real world. Let’s keep the conversation going!
1- Both Kling and Roberts (obviously!) value competition in economics – trial and error, profit and loss – and seem to wish a similar process existed in the marketplace for ideas. Roberts wonders why feedback persists in these types of situations [market] competitive work, but perhaps less so when it comes to information? Simply put, why can’t bad information go bankrupt?
Or is it possible? Consider Kling’s statement: “We decide What believing by deciding WHO to believe.” What does he mean by this, and to what extent do you agree? How do information brokers build credibility?
2- Roberts brings up his disillusionment with social media and the issue of censorship. Should there be standards for what can be posted on social media? If so, what might such standards look like? What are Roberts’ biggest issues with social media censorship?
When asked about the regulation of social media, Kling says he prefers a softer, more bottom-up approach to regulation. Again, what might this look like? How does this compare to the answer Rode Katherine Mangu-Ward gives when Mitch Daniels (~3:00) asked a similar question? What is YOUR answer to this tricky question? (And a follow-up question: to what extent should we consider social media as today’s “public square”?)
3- The conversation turns to the COVID pandemic as an example of disinformation and information suppression. Roberts describes three possible reasons for withholding truths; one of which he considers reasonable, and another that he thought drove public health care. What are these three reasons? Which ones do You find reasonable, and why? (In answering this question, it may be helpful to ask yourself who were the Baptists and who were the smugglers in this situation?)
4- What role do the scientific establishment and the academy play in establishing and disseminating the truth? What does Kling mean when he says “you get what you select for” in an organization, and what is the difference between prestige and dominance hierarchies? Does the academy have more or less credibility than in the past? Why?
5- Towards the end of the conversation, Roberts and Kling return to Kling’s Three languages of politics. How can these three languages (conservative, progressive, libertarian) become political blind spotsaccording to Roberts? Roberts and Kling describe this process in relation to police brutality and the war in Israel. What other issues can you apply this framework to? Explain.