The Constitution of Knowledge
- Downloads：3452
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-06-23 01:18:57
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Jonathan Rauch
- ISBN：B08CNN94G8
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Arming Americans to defend the truth from today's war on facts
Disinformation。 Trolling。 Conspiracies。 Social media pile-ons。 Campus intolerance。 On the surface， these recent additions to our daily vocabulary appear to have little in common。 But together， they are driving an epistemic crisis: a multi-front challenge to America's ability to distinguish fact from fiction and elevate truth above falsehood。
In 2016 Russian trolls and bots nearly drowned the truth in a flood of fake news and conspiracy theories， and Donald Trump and his troll armies continued to do the same。 Social media companies struggled to keep up with a flood of falsehoods， and too often didn't even seem to try。 Experts and some public officials began wondering if society was losing its grip on truth itself。 Meanwhile， another new phenomenon appeared: "cancel culture。" At the push of a button， those armed with a cellphone could gang up by the thousands on anyone who ran afoul of their sanctimony。
In this pathbreaking book， Jonathan Rauch reaches back to the parallel eighteenth-century developments of liberal democracy and science to explain what he calls the "Constitution of Knowledge"--our social system for turning disagreement into truth。
By explicating the Constitution of Knowledge and probing the war on reality， Rauch arms defenders of truth with a clearer understanding of what they must protect， why they must do so--and how they can do it。 His book is a sweeping and readable description of how every American can help defend objective truth and free inquiry from threats as far away as Russia and as close as the cellphone。
Disinformation。 Trolling。 Conspiracies。 Social media pile-ons。 Campus intolerance。 On the surface， these recent additions to our daily vocabulary appear to have little in common。 But together， they are driving an epistemic crisis: a multi-front challenge to America's ability to distinguish fact from fiction and elevate truth above falsehood。
In 2016 Russian trolls and bots nearly drowned the truth in a flood of fake news and conspiracy theories， and Donald Trump and his troll armies continued to do the same。 Social media companies struggled to keep up with a flood of falsehoods， and too often didn't even seem to try。 Experts and some public officials began wondering if society was losing its grip on truth itself。 Meanwhile， another new phenomenon appeared: "cancel culture。" At the push of a button， those armed with a cellphone could gang up by the thousands on anyone who ran afoul of their sanctimony。
In this pathbreaking book， Jonathan Rauch reaches back to the parallel eighteenth-century developments of liberal democracy and science to explain what he calls the "Constitution of Knowledge"--our social system for turning disagreement into truth。
By explicating the Constitution of Knowledge and probing the war on reality， Rauch arms defenders of truth with a clearer understanding of what they must protect， why they must do so--and how they can do it。 His book is a sweeping and readable description of how every American can help defend objective truth and free inquiry from threats as far away as Russia and as close as the cellphone。
Reviews
Russell Fox
，
Jonathan Rauch is a talented journalist and thinker， and when I ended up with a copy of his latest book I was happy to give it a read， even though I rarely agree with how Rauch gets to his conclusions， as reasonable as they often sound to me。 My experience with the arguments he makes in this book about how we've gotten ourselves into a situation where people with political disagreements seem to inhabit alternative realities， and what we can do about it， fit my past experiences with his writings: Jonathan Rauch is a talented journalist and thinker， and when I ended up with a copy of his latest book I was happy to give it a read， even though I rarely agree with how Rauch gets to his conclusions， as reasonable as they often sound to me。 My experience with the arguments he makes in this book about how we've gotten ourselves into a situation where people with political disagreements seem to inhabit alternative realities， and what we can do about it， fit my past experiences with his writings: I thought the philosophical claims he advances were weak （though somewhat admirable all the same）， and I thought his practical recommendations were mostly wise （though with some predictable gaps）。The primary thing to understand about Rauch is that he is a journalist who has drank deeply from the establishment liberalism which shaped the journalistic institutions where he found his vocation in the 1980s。 The Washington Consensus had already begun its slow crack-up by then， but the demographic shifts， technological changes， and legal and regulatory unwinding necessary to fully undo it wasn't present yet: talk radio networks and cable television and the internet were all in the future。 As it was， he came to view all social problems and political causes through a rigorously empirical and secular small-l liberal lens: 1） no one ever has the final say （every story has another point of view）; and 2） no one can ever claim an authoritative take on any story just because of their own personal experience or witness or perspective （everyone needs to bring evidence and/or additional witnesses forward if they are to be taken seriously）。 It is this lens which he still embraces decades later， and what he elaborates in this book as a "Constitution of Knowledge" which must be defended if online trolls and Twitter mobs and a Republican party mostly given over to Trumpist falsehoods are not to make the alternative information realities which characterizes so much discourse in America today permanent。 Many of Rauch's practical reflections on how publicly reliable knowledge is achieved and what it means for how we handle propaganda and lying and disinformation and intellectual intimidation are really quite thoughtful。 The middle section of the book， where he is most frank about how establishing usable knowledge claims necessarily involves exclusion， standards， and controlling institutions （"the reality-based community。。。cannot depend on individuals to know the facts。。。。[but] it does require an elite consensus。。。。on the method of establishing facts"--p。 116）， and how the digital media revolution， over a period of twenty years， mostly wrecked all of those， was the section that I found most persuasive， but there is good stuff throughout。 （The point when he's talking about "cancel culture" and then challenges his own definitions， leading him to thoughtfully lay out the sometimes unclear line between criticizing someone you disagree with and attempting to shut them down， was actually quite wise。） Unfortunately， I found all that good stuff mostly disconnected， as the history and philosophy through which he attempts to weave all his observations together didn't persuade me at all， and sometimes didn't even make sense。I'm not his target audience for such historical and philosophical narratives， of course: I've read a great deal of this stuff， and have rather complex and critical opinions about a lot of it， so his sometimes rather potted descriptions of the intellectual achievements of his heroes John Locke， Adam Smith， and James Madison （particularly that last one， on which he imposes a Whig reading which ignores all the best historical scholarship that's been done over the past half-century on the man and his intellectual debts to classical republicanism， realist statecraft， and the Virginian slave aristocracy he was born into） occasionally made me roll my eyes。 To his credit， though， he doesn't stop there， but really doubles-down on the （to my mind） most boring and unambiguously pragmatic and elitist liberal epistemologies imaginable--he spends whole pages talking about Charles Sanders Pierce and Karl Popper， for heaven's sake。 Pragmatic， because truth is a process and an orientation， not a thing， and elitist， because it is vital that people believe （or at least act like they believe） the institutions which ground those processes and orientations really are determining the truth， not matter what the real Big Brains out there say behind closed doors。 The two-fold conclusions he comes to in these weighty matters aren't in the least bit coy; on the contrary， unlike some hypothetical Straussian code， he's utterly straightforward。 First， he thinks that all the postmodern and Marxist and religious and homeopathic and whatever arguments you can imagine should be perfectly legal and even encouraged in liberal society， but must not be allowed to operate on the same argumentative plane as evidence-based "liberal science" （because if people start to take them seriously in the public sense--that is， if we no longer "resolve to conduct ourselves as if reality were out there and objective truth were possible" （p。 108）--then the institutions of liberal science will be threatened， and the next thing you know we'll have President Trump falsely claiming that the crowd which attended his inaugural speech was larger than it was， and the National Park Service will be so cowed and hesitant and confused that it will stop doing something as perfectly reasonable as publishing official estimates of crowd size on the basis of actual photographs， because hey， that's "political。"）。 Second， while Rauch admits it is important to be aware and even sympathetic to the fact that the evidentiary requirements and institutional biases of the reality-based community are always going to make it hard for ideological and religious and racial and sexual minorities to be heard and taken seriously， as far as he's concerned you must， for their own sake， never compromise on these rules， but rather must tell the trans woman that， yes， she absolutely should come up with evidence-based arguments to rebut the bigot who denies the legitimacy of her existence， because if she doesn't come up with such arguments， but instead sticks with "feelings，" it'll be worse for her in the long-term。 （Interestingly， Rauch doesn't actually come up with a systematic， evidence-based argument that the unrestricted marketplace of ideas is actually good， in the long run， for oppressed minorities， but rather throws out a bunch of quotes and anecdotes which supposedly prove it， the most touching of which is his own story of learning to live with hatred and abuse from the good people of Arizona as he grew up there gay in the 1970s and 1980s。 His description of his moral triumph is profoundly Whiggish: "Every demonstration of hatred or ignorance was a chance to show love and speak truth。 Every encounter， every explanation， moved the social needle a little bit toward justice"--p。 257。 The man is a frustratingly confident--dare I say。。。privileged？--20th-century liberal to the very end。）In summary， Rauch's book is filled with some smart， practical recommendations about how we should adjust internet platforms， assess journalistic sources， and basically fight back against all the flood of misinformation which surrounds us。 But philosophically， I don't think it achieves anything more than that; he never addresses in any remotely substantive way any of the philosophical critiques of liberalism which he accuses the Trumpists of having learned from the postmodernists to use against us all。 Frankly， I'd love to put him alongside some of thoughtful conservative anti-liberal thinkers out there: folks that think liberalism is a bankrupt philosophy， but also have total contempt for both Trumpian trolls on the right and "emotional safetyism" （Rauch's term） on the left。 Would they grant the value of his arguments， or think because he gets there through good old-fashioned 20th-century American pragmatic liberalism， that his arguments won't do the trick？ I wonder。 。。。more
Rick Lee Lee James
，