Searching for Truth in a Social Media World

We’ve heard a lot about misinformation in the news of late…but how do we know when we encounter it? What’s the difference between misinformation and disinformation, and is there any space for truth anymore? If too many people believe things that aren’t true, shouldn’t we try to fix that??? Not necessarily, says this episode’s guest Arnold Kling.

Kling holds little stock in a monolithic notion of truth, but rather sees truth as the result of a process , a process of searching for truth. Through such a process, Kling argues, many things ultimately turn out to be wrong. Because of this, he thinks that people who claim to have found “the truth” are the most dangerous- in part because such claims allow them to think they have a right to censor what is not “true.”

Roberts regards disagreements about what is “true” as a conflict between people who favor process versus people who favor outcomes; he draws an analogy to economic policy- the disagreement over rules versus discretion. So what’s the best way to seek truth- and perhaps more importantly, how might one be best able to identify what is NOT true?

Consider the prompts below, and share your thoughts with us online, or start your own real-world conversation. Let’s keep the conversation flowing!

1- Both Kling and Roberts (obviously!) appreciate competition in economics- trial and error, profit and loss- and seem to wish there were a similar process in the market for ideas.  Roberts wonders why feedback loops in this sort of [market] competition work, while perhaps less so with regard to information? Put simply, why can’t bad information “go out of business?”

Or can it? Consider Kling’s assertion, “We decide what to believe by deciding who to believe.” What does he mean by this, and to what extent do you agree? How do brokers in information build up credibility?

2- Roberts brings up his disenchantment with social media and the issue of censorship. Should there be standards for what can be posted on social media? If so, what might such standards look like? What are Roberts’ biggest issues with social media censorship?

When asked about regulation social media, Kling states he’d prefer a softer, more bottom-up approach to regulation.  Again, what might this look like? How does this compare with the answer Reason’s Katherine Mangu-Ward gives when asked a similar question by Mitch Daniels (~15:00)? What’s YOUR answer to this thorny question? (And a follow-up question, to what extent ought we regard social media as today’s “public square?”)

3- The conversation turns to the COVID pandemic as an example of misinformation and information suppression. Roberts describes three possible reasons for withholding truths- one of which he finds reasonable, and another which he thought was driving the public health establishment. What are these three reasons? Which do you find reasonable, and why? (In answering this question, it might be useful to ask yourself who were the Baptists and who were the Bootleggers in this situation?)

4- What role does the science establishment and the academy play in determining and disseminating truth? What does Kling mean when he says, “you get what you select for” in an organization, and what’s the difference between prestige and dominance hierarchies? Does the academy have more or less credibility than in the past? Why?

5- Toward the end of the conversation, Roberts and Kling return to Kling’s Three Languages of Politics. How do these three languages (conservative, progressive, libertarian) become political blind spots, according to Roberts? Roberts and Kling describe this process with regard to police brutality and the war in Israel. What other issues can you apply this framework to? Explain.