This article is spot on. And it made me wonder to what extent the Internet has not increased the level of misinformation people have to navigate, but that by increasing the range and volume of it and all the hew and cry about it, it hasn't just made manifest that before the Internet, misinformation was so controlled and monopolized that it wasn't generally possible to see it as such.
Yes, the blessing and the curse-- both more gems and more junk to wade through, necessitating better skills but also encouraging people to develop them.
These are all interesting and valid points -- but I think the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education covered most of these already: that authority is constructed, that research is a process, that some benefit more than others from information etc.
I think of "fact-checkers", "misinformation experts", "media watchdogs" as being the only form of propaganda that is new. An exciting form of meta-propaganda that nobody would have bothered with 100 years ago.
Thanks, Michael, for mentioning the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy--I co-chaired the group that wrote it ten+ years ago. In part it deals with some of the issues raised here but with more complexity and nuance than the previous ACRL Information Literacy Standards did--the checklist approach which often reinforced notions of "good/bad" about information sources. to considerations of the entire information ecosystem and how to inquire more productively within in and how to participate ethically and responsibility within it. The Framework is now being revised and updated--from what I hear, it will certainly be addressing issues of data literacy and privacy, surveillance, and better understandings of the slippery term known as "misinformation"--and with more approaches that take into account epistemic virtues.
I have to say that I find the Stylman piece a good example of a familiar genre in recent years in its focus on distrust of experts in general and the rise of "citizen empowerment" in guarding against the the nefariousness of experts and the thought control they supposedly impose on all of us. The one major figure cited in the article that I'd defer to more than the others is Lippman because of his theory of "pseudo environments" which are created for most citizens by policy experts in order to live with the complexities of a modern liberal democracy. In my view, this doesn't preclude a better use of critical faculties--reasoning abilities--of those who are motivated enough to understand more and not to be prisoners of the "Information Machine"--and that in turn involves an appropriate understanding, and use of, experts and scholarship when appropriate (and it's often appropriate). Hence, a better information literacy (or whatever we might want to call it--critical reasoning in using the current information environment--which is much polluted and full of distractions from many "influencers" who are most definitely not experts. We're likely to find out just how much further the "influencer culture" can take us into conspiracism and departures from reality in the next few years as incentives toward tribalism and naive realism combine to make public discourse even more challenging.
I may be missing something, but my quick check on Stylman tells me that he's a tech entrepreneur--as if we don't have enough of them in the ascendancy right now--do they always possess some special ability in truth-seeking? I think not. It's an interesting piece but I am more persuaded by scholars in philosophy, psychology, and political science about our current state of both individual and collective efforts in understanding reality--in politics, science, climate change , immigration, and numerous other areas where there are contested views and opinions (yes, even among experts, in some cases). I think that the dark side of epistemic populism where experts are distrusted uniformly will not work to our societal benefit.
In any case, I trust experts such as these who may help us develop better understandings of human psychology, and society, in dealing with a very uncertain information ecosystem, in the future:
Matthew Motta--(political scientist): specializes in health policy and misinformation; and working to increase understanding between health experts and the broader public
Also author of a new book, Anti-Scientific Americans, which takes off from Hofstader's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, to address contemporary deficits in public understanding of science
There are real experts, I have met some. But unfortunately, at this time fake expertise in the form of credentialism is rampant. And anonymous and nebulous "experts" are invoked all the time in newspaper articles. The very word "expert" has been devalued by its use to describe persons who would more properly be described with the word "pundit". Moreover, even true expertise can be narrowing to the viewpoint and distract from the larger picture.
I agree. Often the term "expert" is conflated with pundits or public celebrity-intellectuals. It also seems to me that people who are able to see the larger picture may come from outside more traditional expert domains, and have more heterodox viewpoints which are worth considering.
This article is spot on. And it made me wonder to what extent the Internet has not increased the level of misinformation people have to navigate, but that by increasing the range and volume of it and all the hew and cry about it, it hasn't just made manifest that before the Internet, misinformation was so controlled and monopolized that it wasn't generally possible to see it as such.
Yes, the blessing and the curse-- both more gems and more junk to wade through, necessitating better skills but also encouraging people to develop them.
These are all interesting and valid points -- but I think the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy in Higher Education covered most of these already: that authority is constructed, that research is a process, that some benefit more than others from information etc.
That's good to know-- since I didn't work in academic libraries I was less familiar with that one.
Stylman's latest piece brought to mind some of your past writing. https://stylman.substack.com/p/when-civil-rights-organizations-abandon?
I think of "fact-checkers", "misinformation experts", "media watchdogs" as being the only form of propaganda that is new. An exciting form of meta-propaganda that nobody would have bothered with 100 years ago.
NewsGuard.
Thanks, Michael, for mentioning the ACRL Framework for Information Literacy--I co-chaired the group that wrote it ten+ years ago. In part it deals with some of the issues raised here but with more complexity and nuance than the previous ACRL Information Literacy Standards did--the checklist approach which often reinforced notions of "good/bad" about information sources. to considerations of the entire information ecosystem and how to inquire more productively within in and how to participate ethically and responsibility within it. The Framework is now being revised and updated--from what I hear, it will certainly be addressing issues of data literacy and privacy, surveillance, and better understandings of the slippery term known as "misinformation"--and with more approaches that take into account epistemic virtues.
I have to say that I find the Stylman piece a good example of a familiar genre in recent years in its focus on distrust of experts in general and the rise of "citizen empowerment" in guarding against the the nefariousness of experts and the thought control they supposedly impose on all of us. The one major figure cited in the article that I'd defer to more than the others is Lippman because of his theory of "pseudo environments" which are created for most citizens by policy experts in order to live with the complexities of a modern liberal democracy. In my view, this doesn't preclude a better use of critical faculties--reasoning abilities--of those who are motivated enough to understand more and not to be prisoners of the "Information Machine"--and that in turn involves an appropriate understanding, and use of, experts and scholarship when appropriate (and it's often appropriate). Hence, a better information literacy (or whatever we might want to call it--critical reasoning in using the current information environment--which is much polluted and full of distractions from many "influencers" who are most definitely not experts. We're likely to find out just how much further the "influencer culture" can take us into conspiracism and departures from reality in the next few years as incentives toward tribalism and naive realism combine to make public discourse even more challenging.
I may be missing something, but my quick check on Stylman tells me that he's a tech entrepreneur--as if we don't have enough of them in the ascendancy right now--do they always possess some special ability in truth-seeking? I think not. It's an interesting piece but I am more persuaded by scholars in philosophy, psychology, and political science about our current state of both individual and collective efforts in understanding reality--in politics, science, climate change , immigration, and numerous other areas where there are contested views and opinions (yes, even among experts, in some cases). I think that the dark side of epistemic populism where experts are distrusted uniformly will not work to our societal benefit.
In any case, I trust experts such as these who may help us develop better understandings of human psychology, and society, in dealing with a very uncertain information ecosystem, in the future:
Dan Williams (philosopher)--https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/ substack
Lionel Page (behavioral economist)--https://www.optimallyirrational.com/
Joe Uscinski (political scientist, expert on conspiracy theories, epistemology of misinformation)
Special issue of Current Opinion in Psychology deals with the large issue of misinformation in society:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/special-issue/10XFDXCG968
Brendan Nyhan (political scientist): noted for his work on health policy and political psychology
https://www.brendan-nyhan.com/about.html --likely a better guide in this arena than some of the individuals mentioned in the Stylman piece
Matthew Motta--(political scientist): specializes in health policy and misinformation; and working to increase understanding between health experts and the broader public
https://www.mattmotta.com/
Also author of a new book, Anti-Scientific Americans, which takes off from Hofstader's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, to address contemporary deficits in public understanding of science
There are real experts, I have met some. But unfortunately, at this time fake expertise in the form of credentialism is rampant. And anonymous and nebulous "experts" are invoked all the time in newspaper articles. The very word "expert" has been devalued by its use to describe persons who would more properly be described with the word "pundit". Moreover, even true expertise can be narrowing to the viewpoint and distract from the larger picture.
I agree. Often the term "expert" is conflated with pundits or public celebrity-intellectuals. It also seems to me that people who are able to see the larger picture may come from outside more traditional expert domains, and have more heterodox viewpoints which are worth considering.
I propose the awesome "Intellectuals and Society" by Thomas Sowell for an understanding of the problem of "expertise".
Neil Stephenson's novel "Anathem", which is great, has a hilarious take on AI (Artificial Inanity)-generated pseudo-information.