![]() ![]() As a number of studies have reminded us, our current era of misinformation is but the most recent episode in a much longer liaison between the arts of “spinning” the truth and the pursuit of any number of political or personal ends (Bloch, 1921 Jay, 2012 Snyder, 2017 Zagorin, 1996). History, however, paints a different picture (Cmiel & Peters, 2020). Namely, they rest on the idea that more widely disseminated “solid facts” constitute the best defense against the spreading of falsehood, whether due to unintended error or willful dissimulation. And yet, even bracketing the question of the relationship between truth and justice, quests to take up a more dedicated practice of fact-checking as method for safeguarding journalistic or political honesty might rest on a misconception. It’s a tantalizing ideal, is it not? Especially in this current age of so-called “fake news,” where the ability to pursue stable, peaceful and yet “open societies,” seems to be at odds with the daily circulation of all manner of prevarications, false advertisements and even rampant presidential hyperboles. What a confident, reassuring statement, which arrives now shrouded in the serenity of a past long ago settled, resolved, and put to rest. “Justice will overtake fabricators of lies and false witnesses.” So said Heraclitus, ancient Greece’s celebrated historian. The essay ends by suggesting that the move towards STEM educational models to the exclusion of humanities may-in the long term-undermine our ability to “out-think” misinformation.Further research and interventions should then focus on identifying what kind of “needs” denialism fulfills, instead of solely trying to patch it with facts.By understanding the dynamics of uncertainty and denial-such as holocaust denial and climate change denial-we can better grasp the anatomy of our “fake news” moment.Rather than looking at past examples of “fake news,” it ponders instead forms of belief and “denial” that refuse to engage with bodies of evidence. ![]() It offers a historical and philosophical approach, not with an eye to fixing the prevalence of that which is false, but by exploring why some people may continue to believe what they believe despite what the “facts” might say.This essay seeks both a deeper and a longer-term perspective on the fundamental problem of “misinformation.”.How can educational programs offer effective longer-term strategies for addressing the problem of misinformation?.How does understanding the dynamics of “denial” help illuminate the appeal and so the prevalence of misinformation?.How did the birth of information systems foster the human desire for knowing, believing and feeling reassured?.In the end, the essay suggests that the current trend towards STEM education, to the growing exclusion of the humanities, may be slowly undermining the very analytical skills the public needs to be able to counter the tides of misinformation. While understanding what “needs” falsehoods meet may not provide an immediate solution to the problem of misinformation, it does open a different perspective on the question. While such approaches see the problem of misinformation in terms of a contest between truth and falsehood, history suggests that people believe falsehoods, because they need to for a variety of psychological or socio-cultural reasons. This essay explores the historical process by which the birth and expansion of information systems transformed the relationship between “faith” and “fact.” The existence of recurring forms of credulity and conversely denial-from holocaust denial to climate change denial-suggests that patterns of belief and disbelief will not be easily resolved either with fact-checking or with the regulation of the press.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |