Knowledge falsification

Last updated

Knowledge falsification is the deliberate misrepresentation of what one knows under perceived social pressures. The term was coined by Timur Kuran in his book Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. [1]

Contents

Motives

According to Kuran’s analysis of preference falsification, knowledge falsification is usually undertaken to signal a preference that differs from one’s private preference, in other words, to support preference falsification. [2] Successful misrepresentation of one's private preferences requires hiding the knowledge on which they rest. Thus, people engage in preference falsification, or bolster it, by misrepresenting their information, interpretations, and understanding.

Such misrepresentation is a response to perceived social, economic, and political pressures. The perceived pressures could be partly, if not fully, imaginary. [3] The pressures may be rooted in speech controls imposed by a state and enforced through state-enforced punishments. But, as with preference falsification, knowledge falsification need not be a response solely, or even mainly, to pressures from the state or some other organized political entity. The source of pressures is partly individuals seeking to display conformity to an agenda that appears politically popular. [4] In any given context, knowledge falsification may end abruptly, through a self-reinforcing shift in public opinion. [5]

Social effects

Among the effects of knowledge falsification is the distortion, corruption, and impoverishment of knowledge in the public domain. Society is denied exposure to what is believed to be true, and it gets exposed instead to information that its bearers consider false. [6] A further effect is widespread ignorance about policy failures and about the potential advantages of reforms. Knowledge falsification can also bring intellectual narrowness and ossification, harming innovation. Yet another possible consequence is the persistence of policies, customs, norms, fashions, and institutions that are widely disliked. [7]  

Knowledge falsification not only misinforms others about social reality, observes Learry Gagné, [8] it also leads to widespread self-deception. Because people systematically underestimate others’ motivations to keep private knowledge out of the public domain, they find it easy to accept beliefs that appear widespread. In reinforcing one another’s incentives to falsify knowledge, members of a community also keep one another from gaining awareness of the mechanisms through which they deceive themselves. [8]

Focusing on the inefficiencies of knowledge falsification, Cass Sunstein argues that societies benefit from institutions aimed at minimizing it. He observes: “Knowledge falsification, bred by the natural human inclination to defer to the crowd, can create serious problems for the crowd itself. If members of the crowd are not revealing what they know, errors and even disasters are inevitable.” [9] On that basis, he argues that leaders, legislatures, corporations, schools, and committees should deliberately promote their own exposure to dissenting discourses. Courts work better, he shows, when their decision-making bodies include people who bring to evaluations diverse information and interpretations of facts. [10]

Building on Sunstein’s insights, Graham McDonough [11] argues that knowledge falsification can undermine a central aim of moral education: making the personal judgments needed to maintain personal relationships. It can do so by impairing the communication of reasonable differences and, in the process, curtailing epistemological diversity. Airing differences in understandings facilitates the construction of politically, ethically, and epistemically satisfying moral guidelines.       

On any given issue, the prevalence of knowledge falsification may vary systematically across demographic groups that differ in endured social, cultural, and political pressures. And, the members of any given demographic group may differ in what knowledge they convey to others, depending on the audience. In this vein, Kuran and Edward McCaffery show that publicly conveyed perceptions of discrimination differ systematically depending on survey mode. On controversial matters of discrimination, Americans appear more willing to reveal pertinent knowledge online than offline. [12]        

Institutions for minimizing knowledge falsification

The observations of Kuran and Sunstein echo Friedrich Hayek’s views about the advantages of democracy. “Democracy is, above all, a process of forming opinion,” wrote Hayek, and “it is in its dynamic, rather than its static, aspects that the value of democracy proves itself.” [13] Developing Hayek’s claim, Michael Wohlgemuth argues that democratic constitutions limit the scope of both preference falsification and knowledge falsification (he coins the term “opinion falsification” as an aggregate concept that captures both knowledge and preference falsification). Democratic constitutions facilitate, on the one hand, the process of filtering out of public discourses contrived public knowledge and public preferences and, on the other, the discovery of knowledge and preferences that individuals keep private. [14]

An intellectual tradition going back at least to John Stuart Mill holds that meaningful social deliberation requires the freedoms to express thoughts and to pursue knowledge wherever it leads. Building on that tradition, Russell Blackford notes that societies need institutional defenses not only against government efforts to control knowledge but also against conformist pressures that induce knowledge falsification. [15] The latter category of institutions includes norms that enhance the social status of heretics, eccentrics, truth-tellers, artists, and comedians for the enrichment they bring to the pool of public knowledge. The celebration of disseminating controversial knowledge should be limited, Blackford holds, only in cases of dehumanizing hate speech. This exception brings into play multiple widely accepted principles, so it must be handled on a case by case basis, but always with attention to maintaining incentives to publicize useful knowledge. [16]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Austrian school of economics</span> School of economic thought

The Austrian school is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism, the concept that social phenomena result primarily from the motivations and actions of individuals along with their self interest. Austrian-school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action.

In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority. Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Karl Popper</span> Austrian–British philosopher of science (1902–1994)

Sir Karl Raimund Popper was an Austrian–British philosopher, academic and social commentator. One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science, Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can be scrutinised with decisive experiments. Popper was opposed to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism, namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy".

Distributive justice concerns the socially just allocation of resources, goods, opportunity in a society. It is concerned with how to allocate resources fairly among members of a society, taking into account factors such as wealth, income, and social status. Often contrasted with just process and formal equal opportunity, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes. This subject has been given considerable attention in philosophy and the social sciences. Theorists have developed widely different conceptions of distributive justice. These have contributed to debates around the arrangement of social, political and economic institutions to promote the just distribution of benefits and burdens within a society. Most contemporary theories of distributive justice rest on the precondition of material scarcity. From that precondition arises the need for principles to resolve competing interest and claims concerning a just or at least morally preferable distribution of scarce resources.

Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Islamic economics</span> Handling of economics based on Islamic jurisprudence

Islamic economics refers to the knowledge of economics or economic activities and processes in terms of Islamic principles and teachings. Islam has a set of special moral norms and values about individual and social economic behavior. Therefore, it has its own economic system, which is based on its philosophical views and is compatible with the Islamic organization of other aspects of human behavior: social and political systems.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Applied philosophy</span> Branch of philosophy

Applied philosophy is a branch of philosophy that studies philosophical problems of practical concern. The topic covers a broad spectrum of issues in environment, medicine, science, engineering, policy, law, politics, economics and education. The term was popularised in 1982 by the founding of the Society for Applied Philosophy by Brenda Almond, and its subsequent journal publication Journal of Applied Philosophy edited by Elizabeth Brake. Methods of applied philosophy are similar to other philosophical methods including questioning, dialectic, critical discussion, rational argument, systematic presentation, thought experiments and logical argumentation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Obscurantism</span> Practice of obscuring information

In philosophy, the terms obscurantism and obscurationism identify and describe the anti-intellectual practices of deliberately presenting information in an abstruse and imprecise manner that limits further inquiry and understanding of a subject. The two historical and intellectual denotations of obscurantism are: (1) the deliberate restriction of knowledge — opposition to the dissemination of knowledge; and (2) deliberate obscurity — a recondite style of writing characterized by deliberate vagueness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cass Sunstein</span> American legal scholar, writer, blogger (born 1954)

Cass Robert Sunstein is an American legal scholar known for his work in constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. He is also The New York Times best-selling author of The World According to Star Wars (2016) and Nudge (2008). He was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pluralistic ignorance</span> Incorrect perception of others beliefs

In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly believe that others predominantly hold an opinion different from their own. In this phenomenon, most people in a group may go along with a view they do not hold because they think, incorrectly, that most other people in the group hold it. Pluralistic ignorance encompasses situations in which a minority position on a given topic is wrongly perceived to be the majority position, or the majority position is wrongly perceived to be a minority position.

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own discourse. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences of others and often without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors including individuals who use social media.

Discourse ethics refers to a type of argument that attempts to establish normative or ethical truths by examining the presuppositions of discourse. The ethical theory originated with German philosophers Jürgen Habermas and Karl-Otto Apel, and variations have been used by Frank Van Dun and Habermas' student Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Timur Kuran</span> American economist

Timur Kuran is a Turkish-American economist and political scientist currently serving as a Professor of Economics and Political Science, and Gorter Family Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University. His research lies at the intersection of economics, political science, history, and law.

Sissela Bok is a Swedish-born American philosopher and ethicist, the daughter of two Nobel Prize winners: Gunnar Myrdal who won the Economics prize with Friedrich Hayek in 1974, and Alva Myrdal who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1982. She is considered one of the premier American women moral philosophers of the latter part of the 20th century.

An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing cycle that explains the development of certain kinds of collective beliefs. A novel idea or insight, usually one that seems to explain a complex process in a simple or straightforward manner, gains rapid currency in the popular discourse by its very simplicity and by its apparent insightfulness. Its rising popularity triggers a chain reaction within the social network: individuals adopt the new insight because other people within the network have adopted it, and on its face it seems plausible. The reason for this increased use and popularity of the new idea involves both the availability of the previously obscure term or idea, and the need of individuals using the term or idea to appear to be current with the stated beliefs and ideas of others, regardless of whether they in fact fully believe in the idea that they are expressing. Their need for social acceptance, and the apparent sophistication of the new insight, overwhelm their critical thinking.

Conformity is the act of matching attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors to group norms, politics or being like-minded. Norms are implicit, specific rules, guidance shared by a group of individuals, that guide their interactions with others. People often choose to conform to society rather than to pursue personal desires – because it is often easier to follow the path others have made already, rather than forging a new one. Thus, conformity is sometimes a product of group communication. This tendency to conform occurs in small groups and/or in society as a whole and may result from subtle unconscious influences, or from direct and overt social pressure. Conformity can occur in the presence of others, or when an individual is alone. For example, people tend to follow social norms when eating or when watching television, even if alone.

Political ethics is the practice of making moral judgments about political action and political agents. It covers two areas: the ethics of process, which covers public officials and their methods, and the ethics of policy, which concerns judgments surrounding policies and laws.

Preference falsification is the act of misrepresenting a preference under perceived public pressures. It involves the selection of a publicly expressed preference that differs from the underlying privately held preference. People frequently convey to each other preferences that differ from what they would communicate privately under credible cover of anonymity. Pollsters can use techniques such as list experiments to uncover preference falsification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Post-truth politics</span> Political culture where facts are considered irrelevant

Post-truth politics, also described as post-factual politics or post-reality politics, amidst varying academic and dictionary definitions of the term, refer to a recent historical period where political culture is marked by public anxiety about what claims can be publicly accepted facts.

A purity spiral is a theory which argues for the existence of a form of groupthink in which it becomes more beneficial to hold certain views than to not hold them, and more extreme views are rewarded while expressing doubt, nuance, or moderation is punished. It is argued that this feedback loop leads to members competing to demonstrate the zealotry or purity of their views.

References

  1. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Harvard University Press. pp. 19, 157–243. ISBN   978-0-674-70758-0.
  2. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press. pp. 19, 177–178. ISBN   9780674707580.
  3. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press. pp. 76–83. ISBN   9780674707580.
  4. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press. pp. 119–123. ISBN   9780674707580.
  5. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press. pp. 247–288. ISBN   9780674707580.
  6. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press. pp. 176–195. ISBN   9780674707580.
  7. ↑ Kuran, Timur (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies. Harvard University Press. pp. 196–243. ISBN   9780674707580.
  8. 1 2 Gagné, Learry (2007). "Non-rational compliance with social norms: sincere and hypocritical". Social Science Information. 46 (3): 457. doi:10.1177/0539018407079726. ISSN   0539-0184. S2CID   144128186.
  9. ↑ Sunstein, Cass R. (2003). Why Societies Need Dissent. Harvard University Press. p. 20. ISBN   978-0-674-01768-9.
  10. ↑ Sunstein, Cass R. (2003). Why Societies Need Dissent. Harvard University Press. ISBN   9780674017689.
  11. ↑ McDonough, Graham P. (2010). "Why dissent is a vital concept in moral education". Journal of Moral Education. 39 (4): 431. doi:10.1080/03057240.2010.521373. ISSN   0305-7240. S2CID   144036733.
  12. ↑ Kuran, Timur; McCaffery, Edward J. (2004). "Expanding Discrimination Research: Beyond Ethnicity and to the Web*". Social Science Quarterly. 85 (3): 713–730. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00241.x. ISSN   0038-4941.
  13. ↑ Hayek, F. A. (2020). The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition. Routledge. pp. 174, 57–198. ISBN   978-0-429-63797-1.
  14. ↑ Wohlgemuth, Michael (2002-09-01). "Democracy and Opinion Falsification: Towards a New Austrian Political Economy". Constitutional Political Economy. 13 (3): 223–246. doi:10.1023/A:1016156332351. ISSN   1572-9966. S2CID   146608600.
  15. ↑ Blackford, Russell (2019). The Tyranny of Opinion: Conformity and the Future of Liberalism. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 92. ISBN   978-1-350-05602-2.
  16. ↑ Blackford, Russell (2019). The Tyranny of Opinion. Bloomsbury. pp. 7, 9–11, 195–226. ISBN   9781350056022.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.