Some book titles in 2021, in chronological order.
February. Adam Grant, Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know
March. Gary Saul Morson and Morton Schapiro, Minds Wide Shut: How the New Fundamentalisms Divide Us
April. Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don’t
May. Cass Sunstein, Daniel Kahneman, and Oliver Sibony. Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment
June. Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth
September. Steven Pinker, Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters
So far, I have only read Galef and Sunstein, et al. I read some of Morson and Schapiro, but it was less than I hoped for. I expect to read Rauch and also Pinker when they become available. But what does it say about contemporary culture that so many heavyweights are writing on epistemology? This seems to me an indictment of: social media, certainly; political discourse, certainly; higher education, probably; journalism, probably.
This may fit with a historical pattern. The barbarians sack the city, and the carriers of the dying culture repair to their basements to write.
Not exactly on this topic, but pertinent, I am curious to read Heying-Weinstein A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century, due in September. And McWhorter’s Woke Racism, due in October.
Another great book is “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”.
The benign somewhat conciliatory title belies the absolutely enraging nature of its contents, which is replete with chapters upon chapters and sections of how political, business, and quasi new-age religious fanaticism has completely hijacked the environmental movement – every aspect of it – going back almost 50 years.
If you want an example of how things start secular and end up cultish, this is the book for you.
Rauch’s new book “Constitution of Knowledge” is another data point in the trend.
https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/the-scaffolding-of-truth/
Epistemology is popular because there is relentless, fractally-detailed computer-enabled information warfare conducted over basically every available subject (some of which are just collateral damage from “real” offensives) and legacy sources of information (not just the mainstream media but things like a typical social circle) *won’t even admit that there is a problem*. Some of these “heavyweights”, to their credit, have noticed that this is a problem.
Just as an illustrative example: has the Syrian government used chemical weapons during the ongoing war there? I’m not even asking whoever is reading this to give a definitive answer, I’m just asking them to take a look at how this is determined or even why it’s important (for instance, it was used to justify a policy of overthrowing the Syrian government in the United States). Another good candidate is “did Russia/the democrats rig the 2016/2020 election”.
It’s likely that going forward, being unable to do basic epistemology (“why am I seeing this?”) is going to be about as convenient and conducive to fitness for political participation as being unable to read or do arithmetic at a basic level — both things once considered special skills irrelevant to the average human.
Very good, ivvenalis, e.g. on “did Russia/the democrats rig the 2016/2020 election”, and “basic epistemology (“why am I seeing this?”) is going to be… conducive to fitness for political participation….”.
Part of the problem is, that skill at basic epistemology takes time/ study to acquire, e.g. by honing one’s “eye” for the diff, between reliable vs. dubious “authorities”.
In my view, Greenwald track record towers above most other authorities, about such matters as (MSM coverage of) whether Russia rigged the 2016 election.
I got to this view, partly from having followed his writing for over 15 years, and having seen no (major) cases of him dropping the ball.
I can understand why most folks, not having followed his writing for such a length, wouldn’t give his words *much* more cred, than they give to, say, Maddow.
Most “educated” folks know virtually nothing, about how conscientious lawyers, historians, journalists etc., try to weigh such things as the reliability of testimony.
But, with the explosion of dubious charges being hurled via social media, even the “educated” are putty in the hands of demagogues.
“Science” has replaced religion as the de facto source of knowledge. I’m completely cool with reason, science, open debate etc. to guide the way. Those are enlightenment values, which I fully support.
But, in the wrong hands, “science” starts to resemble a religion because in the short term, it’s just as noisy and controversial. Let’s absolutely find the truth, however let’s not pretend that it’s so easy to discover without multiple iterations. In other words, it requires epistemological humility and a willingness to suspend judgment.
If the virus has taught us anything, it’s that we are much less smart than we think we are. And, the “science” is being used as a political weapon to end debates vs. discovering the truth.
I am all for science, but deeply disappointed at how politicized it has become. And deeply disappointed in the big science organizations and societies for going along with that. Many scientific groups seem more interested in partisan politics than in science these days.
Science is searching. Scientists are liars.
So are most MSM “journalists”.
How many of them dared to ask, let alone pursue, any tough questions, to hacks like Fauci?
Case in point regarding the virus and knowledge.
I’m still being mandated to wear a mask on airplanes and in Ubers and airports.
“Follow the science” is an empty political appeal meant to gain compliance as opposed to discovering the truth.
***
Do the math. Even at the height of the epidemic, if masks mainly stop spreaders from spreading, 300 million-plus Americans were being asked to wear masks to protect against perhaps 1% who might be infectious at any given moment. And this as-sumes all infected people were out and about when the real risk would have been mostly from the 0.4% who were infected but asymptomatic.
Universal mask com-pliance (and the U.S. came fairly close), by multiple models, might have slowed transmis-sion by a modest 30%. Add it all up and we were calling on Americans school-age and up to wear masks to have a negligible impact on their own risk in most circumstances, for a disease that’s flu-like in 85% of cases.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/dr-fauci-and-the-mask-disaster-11624398991?st=gogj9ijrc2swxnc&reflink=article_copyURL_share
Social epistemology among academic philosophers has been gaining steam for many years, developing or appropriating new tools. From that perspective, it is an advance. Your perspective appears to assume that social epistemology is all figured out, or was, until, what, social media? Certainly there are new channels and dynamics of information transfer which one might expect to prompt new interest in social epistemology regardless of its valence. This seems like prior pessimism seeking out a rationale in the cited phenomenon.
“Social epistemology among academic philosophers has been gaining steam….”
More so, than hyper-politicization of almost all disciplines, and MSM coverage of it (and almost everything else)?
Education, certainly.
Critical thinking is incompatible with Critical Race Theory.
Point out that Hans Christian Heg was an abolitionist, and the response from your racist professor is that pointing this out is racist.
The thinking of the anti-thinkers is this: If the mob has attacked his statue then that’s the new truth. We must support the pitchfork-wielding, racist, know-nothing mob. Epistemology chases after whatever the latest act of violence is.
Your racist professor (and your racist CEO, and your racist NYT editorial board) can’t say out loud that, in reality, Hans Christian Heg was an abolitionist. That would constitute an argument, and make use of historical facts.
But logic and evidence are mere tools of power. Supporting a claim with words is what the race theorists call racism.
Just started on Rauch’s book. I am disappointed by his Trump Derangement Syndrome. He is guilty of what he claims the Right is doing–ignoring facts inconvenient to him.
He claims the mainstream media, academia, and the intelligence agencies became the bastions of truth in reaction to Trump. Where the Hell has he been for the past two years, as we have found out that they all lied about “Russian collusion,” the Steele dossier, Ukraine, etc? That the FBI lied to get warrants to spy on American citizens, that the CIA colluded with the media to leak, and that it was all done expressly to bring down a president?
He propounds upon the “Big Lie” that the election was fraudulent–I wonder how he reconciles that with the facts that are coming to light about meaningful and troubling problems in Fulton and Maricopa counties?
I hope the book gets better–all it is now is the usual self-congratulation of the traditional journalist.
“I hope the book gets better–all it is now is the usual self-congratulation of the traditional journalist.”
Spoiler alert: it doesn’t get better.
Thanx for the word, Arnold.
Seeing much of what Rauch has been recently producing, I’m not shocked.
Where to begin?
Ahhh…forget it….
My book will be titled,
“Why All Books Have a Colon in the Title: The Colon-ization of Book Titles”
Side note. Why is it when ASK is at his gloomiest…I agree with him the most?
Maybe ASK and his readers should chuck it for the South Sea Islands….