Jonathan Rauch on Free Speech, Truth, and the Constitution of Knowledge
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 сер 2021
- Brookings Senior Fellow Jonathan Rauch discusses topics from his book, "The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth" with IHS President and CEO Emily Chamlee-Wright. They discuss the importance of the scientific method, free speech, debate, open inquiry, and persuasion in the process of gaining knowledge and seeking truth, and why these things are essential to a free and flourishing society. They discuss attacks on free speech, academic freedom, civil discourse, and truth-seeking from both the left and the right of the political spectrum, and concerns about increasing polarization, and concerns about the future of liberalism and liberal democracy. They explore the relationship of his latest book to an earlier book he wrote 20 years ago, "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought."
At the end of their conversation, Rauch answers questions submitted by the audience. Q&A was moderated by Dr. Bradley Jackson, Senior Program Officer at IHS.
This conversation took place via livestream with an online audience on July 9, 2021. IHS thanks the Hewlett Foundation for sponsoring the event.
Jonathan Rauch is a senior fellow in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution, and the author of eight books and many articles on public policy, culture, and government. He is a contributing writer of The Atlantic and recipient of the 2005 National Magazine Award, the magazine industry’s equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize.
In 2020 Rauch was named a Distinguished Fellow for the Study of Liberalism and a Free Society at the Institute for Humane Studies.
Subscribe to our channel to see upcoming videos: ua-cam.com/users/TheIHSorg?s...
About Us: theihs.org/who-we-are/
Twitter: theihs?lang=en
Facebook: / instituteforhumanestudies
LinkedIn: / instituteforhumanestudies
Instagram: / theihs
35:08 “The constitution of knowledge is doing very much what the US constitution is doing, which is taking public decision-making and turning it over to a rules-based process in which people are forced to negotiate with each other in structured ways. Now, that’s a mouthful but it’s the difference between war and peace, between democracy and oppression, between knowledge and superstition.”
40:40 “But then the challenges you laid out …”
51:48
“You double down on objective truth as the thing we’re all aiming to achieve”
“Objective knowledge”
Jonathan never goes in his concept of truth, which is in the subtitle of the book. Would love to know how these terms are ordered
In response to Emily's point about the tribal mentality I just want to say that tribalism is not an "instinct." We are not programmed to be tribal. There is no tribal gene. Just look at individuals now and across different time periods, some behave tribally and others don't. Some behave tribally and change their behaviour over time, others don't change their behaviour. In the case of some individuals they might even descend into a state of tribalism as they get older. This rule out a genetic cause. Tribalism is a particular state of consciousness. it's when an individual refuses to think for himself and defaults to whatever he considers to be true as dictated by a tribe that he has chosen to affiliate himself with, be it a racial tribe, a national tribe, religious tribe etc. The individual is either scared to think for himself, or evades that responsibility for some other reason. The point is, rationality - a commitment to the facts and to objective truth at all times and in all places - is an achievement. It's not automatic, it takes effort to do and many people don't want to do it, or at least choose not to exert that effort. Certainly public education is blameworthy for causing an anti-effort mentality for many students. I never got taught rational thinking methods at school, fortunately for me I discovered philosophy and the value of formal logic and rational thinking methods later in life, However, if you're young and you don't feel capable of dealing with a very complex world then the easy thing to do is to look to some group or leader to tell you what to think. I served in the army for 12yrs and I can tell you that many people enjoy following orders and not needing to think for themselves.
The interviewee’s privilege at 39 minutes is bizarrely hyperbolic. After all the discussion of humility, not having final answers, the need for debate, we are told that it is only Soviet style disinformation that can explain the concerns of a large portion of the country; that even though the debate on the topic has been highly censored, it is troubling so many people aren’t sure what to believe. Is discussion of improving the transparency of the political process, by implication, to be thrown out with the bathwater? In another interview, with Steven Pinker, we are told that we must seek truth not by jailing our adversaries. Yet in this case, where is the concern for people held in solitary confinement-for the apparently politically motivated ramping up of the criminal justice system? I’m tempted to believe this small part of an otherwise excellent discussion is esoteric trolling. But, it’s hard to tell. If you hear yourself saying the word “misinformation,” check yourself for bias. To quote Glenn Greenwald, “Indeed, when it comes to melodrama, histrionics, and exploitation of fear levels from the 1/6 riot, there has never been any apparent limit.”
Yes, the theory that trolling was a special technique of Trump rings true. He’s a master at moving the debate to favorable terrain using exaggerations. But, there’s a reason the terrain is favorable. In many cases it contains important truths. Accordingly, I’m much less concerned with trolling than cancel culture. I’m also not so sure trolling is more generally a right wing phenomenon, but I’m open to look for that.
ultraboring. lets wait when smb smart will read it and sum up in a good and useful 10 minutes length.