Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang
too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat intoForown bubbles, whether in our neighborhoodsourcollege campuses or places of worship or ourormedia feeds, surrounded by people whosociallike us and share the same political outlooklooknever challenge our assumptions. The riseandnaked partisanship, increasing economic andofstratication, the splintering of our mediaregionala channel for every taste—all this makes thisintosorting seem natural, even inevitable. Andgreatwe become so secure in our bubblesincreasingly,we accept only information, whether true or not,thatts our opinions, instead of basing our opinionsthatthe evidence that’s out there.onlast decade has witnessed repeatedTheto a post-truth politics, in whichreferencesis framed by appeals to emotiondiscourseof policy details or facts. Politicalinsteadare able to continue with talking pointsfigureswhen media, experts and opposingevenhave provided proof that contradictsfiguresThe internet is commonly invoked asthem.enabled this political culture to gatherhavingwith post-truthers being said tomomentum,political outcomes in Brazil, India,influencethe United States and the UnitedRussia,“Post-truth” was made the OxfordKingdom.2016 Word of the Year owing to itsDictionaries’in the context of Brexit and the USprevalenceelection.Presidentialsome have claimed the term isHowever,For example a New Scientist articlemisleading.“a cynic might wonder if politicians arestated:any more dishonest than they usedactuallybe” (New Scientist 2016). Others believe thattoconfuses the ideas of empirical and ethicalitwhereas what is actually happeningjudgments,a rejection of expert opinions in favour ofispolitical signalling. Politicallyvalues-basedfigures have also criticized theconservativeuse of the term by liberal commentatorsselectiveattack what are matters of ideology, not factto2016) and for selectively protecting(Youngfacts” (Mantzarlis 2016).“liberalis a great irony of our time that we do notItagree about whether we live in a post-truthevenbecause the political right accuses theworld,left of making it up. TOK exists to helppoliticalwith this very dilemma. We can and shouldusto know truth and navigate problems ofstriveand resist succumbing to views suchknowledge,“nothing is true and everything is possible”,asby the way, is the title of a memoir of lifewhich,Russia under Vladimir Putin.incourse, it cannot be claimed that large sectionsOforganized society have suddenly given up on,ofstopped caring about, truth. Post-truth refersora civil discourse where expertise and “facts”toto be insufficient to sway beliefs; whereappearappear to choose their experts andindividualsothers as politically and ideologicallydismissThere is some behavioural research tobiased.that facts alone do not change deeplysuggestbeliefs.heldMantzarlis, Poynter Institute’s head ofAlexiosstated the following.fact-checking,news became a catch-all term to mean anythingFakewe don’t particularly like to read.thatin this chapter we explore how news mediaLaterprioritize impartiality can understate thethatscientific consensus, leaving theoverwhelmingwith what appears to be a scientific debatepublicII. PerspectivesII. PerspectivesII.2 Is there a post-truth public sphere?(Obama 2017)(Mantzarlis quoted in Kestler-D’Amours 2017)31
II. Perspectivesopposed to scientific fact. Robert Eshelmanasargued that, beginning in the 1990s, fossil-hasindustry groups seized this opportunity andfuelreporters of bias if they portrayed globalaccusedas a settled fact, while funding researchwarmingprove it was not. The tobacco industry usedtotactics in the decades before. Thesesimilarsucceeded in politicizing the issue andindustriesdecades of public debate though thespawningconsensus had been clear. This is thescientificof “false balance” implicated in manyproblemcontroversies on scientific issues.publicJayson Harsin has argued that aProfessorset of recent developments is creatingconvergentpost-truth society. These developments includeafollowing.theScientifically and technologically•methods of politicalsophisticatedand persuasion are used (ascommunicationexplore later in the Facebook-Cambridgeweepisode) as well as strategic use ofAnalyticaand disinformation.rumoursAn “attention economy” exists, characterized•information overload combined with a lackbysociety-wide trusted sources of news. Usergeneratedofcontent within social networks hasmore influential, while at the samebecomethere appears to be less attention for, ortimeFilter bubbles curate content delivered via•media and search engines accordingsocialrecent studies have suggested that liesTwospread faster than the truth. As you readcandetails, though, consider the warningtheChapter 8, III.1, about sampling biases ininat MIT investigated 126,000Researchersstories, shared by 3 million peopleTwitter4.5million times. The researchers’overwas that lies spread further, faster,conclusionwhat a user “likes”, as opposed to what istoWe explore filter bubbles and echofactual.What are the significant political issues1.debated in your community?beingTo what extent is your opinion about2.issues influenced by:theseopinions of close family andthefriends?Have you noticed people in your network3.the claims of experts? If so, inquestioninginformation. Interestingly, fake politicalofspreads faster than fake news aboutnewsdisasters, terrorism, science or financialnaturalThe authors specifically found thatmarkets.and not Twitter bots, are more likelyhumans,spread fake news. Why is this the case? Thetospeculate that false informationresearchersto be more original than true news andtendspeople are more likely to share surprisingthat(Vosoughi et al 2018).information2chambers in II.4.For reflectionA post-truth society(a)(b)the newsopinions of friends shared onthemediasocial(c)what context, and on what grounds?trust in, fact-checking websites.Box 2.2: Do lies spread faster than the truth?behavioural science research.deeper and wider than truth in all categories32
- Page 1 and 2: THEORY OFO X F O R D I B D I P L O
- Page 3 and 4: University Press is a department of
- Page 5 and 6: ContentsCORE THEMEOPTIONAL THEMESiv
- Page 7 and 8: lucky circumstance brings you to th
- Page 9 and 10: I. Scopecan seem abstract, intimida
- Page 11 and 12: I. Scopeis complicated by power and
- Page 13 and 14: I. ScopeWhat factors limit our know
- Page 15 and 16: I. ScopeII. PerspectivesTOK we exam
- Page 17 and 18: II. Perspectivesmay have inherited
- Page 19 and 20: II. Perspectivesto Quassim Cassam,
- Page 21 and 22: III. Methods and toolsterms: NYT Ne
- Page 23 and 24: III. Methods and toolsof it? What m
- Page 25 and 26: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethics(b)
- Page 27 and 28: IV. Ethicsin TOK is about the explo
- Page 29 and 30: Knowledgeand politics 2is concerned
- Page 31 and 32: I. Scopehas been great concern, esp
- Page 33 and 34: I. Scopeadministrative systems, had
- Page 35 and 36: I. Scopethis book we engage with th
- Page 37: II. Perspectives“Overton window
- Page 41 and 42: II. Perspectivesobjective “fact o
- Page 43 and 44: II. Perspectives7 deals with public
- Page 45 and 46: II. Perspectiveshe adds, ‘It wasn
- Page 47 and 48: II. Perspectivesargued that interne
- Page 49 and 50: II. Perspectivesmedia users report
- Page 51 and 52: III. Methods and toolsLorde said yo
- Page 53 and 54: III. Methods and toolsShould we tes
- Page 55 and 56: III. Methods and toolsend of the po
- Page 57 and 58: III. Methods and toolsIV. Ethicsthe
- Page 59 and 60: IV. Ethicsoffence enters the pictur
- Page 61 and 62: IV. Ethicsenabled by technology. Pr
- Page 63 and 64: IV. Ethicsa 2018 article for the Ne
- Page 65 and 66: Knowledgeand technology 3does it me
- Page 67 and 68: I. Scopereach of human-made objects
- Page 69 and 70: I. Scopeterms:SearchSubmarineTelege
- Page 71 and 72: section explores what we know about
- Page 73 and 74: 3.5a shows Margaret Hamilton,Figure
- Page 75 and 76: II. Perspectivesterms: How weSearch
- Page 77 and 78: the challenges outlined in the disc
- Page 79 and 80: 2013 a team of researchers publishe
- Page 81 and 82: III. Methods and toolsAccuracy (sel
- Page 83 and 84: that object is a black hole, from w
- Page 85 and 86: IV. Ethicsand when those who stand
- Page 87 and 88: are instances in which the“[There
too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into
For
own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods
our
college campuses or places of worship or our
or
media feeds, surrounded by people who
social
like us and share the same political outlook
look
never challenge our assumptions. The rise
and
naked partisanship, increasing economic and
of
stratication, the splintering of our media
regional
a channel for every taste—all this makes this
into
sorting seem natural, even inevitable. And
great
we become so secure in our bubbles
increasingly,
we accept only information, whether true or not,
that
ts our opinions, instead of basing our opinions
that
the evidence that’s out there.
on
last decade has witnessed repeated
The
to a post-truth politics, in which
references
is framed by appeals to emotion
discourse
of policy details or facts. Political
instead
are able to continue with talking points
figures
when media, experts and opposing
even
have provided proof that contradicts
figures
The internet is commonly invoked as
them.
enabled this political culture to gather
having
with post-truthers being said to
momentum,
political outcomes in Brazil, India,
influence
the United States and the United
Russia,
“Post-truth” was made the Oxford
Kingdom.
2016 Word of the Year owing to its
Dictionaries’
in the context of Brexit and the US
prevalence
election.
Presidential
some have claimed the term is
However,
For example a New Scientist article
misleading.
“a cynic might wonder if politicians are
stated:
any more dishonest than they used
actually
be” (New Scientist 2016). Others believe that
to
confuses the ideas of empirical and ethical
it
whereas what is actually happening
judgments,
a rejection of expert opinions in favour of
is
political signalling. Politically
values-based
figures have also criticized the
conservative
use of the term by liberal commentators
selective
attack what are matters of ideology, not fact
to
2016) and for selectively protecting
(Young
facts” (Mantzarlis 2016).
“liberal
is a great irony of our time that we do not
It
agree about whether we live in a post-truth
even
because the political right accuses the
world,
left of making it up. TOK exists to help
political
with this very dilemma. We can and should
us
to know truth and navigate problems of
strive
and resist succumbing to views such
knowledge,
“nothing is true and everything is possible”,
as
by the way, is the title of a memoir of life
which,
Russia under Vladimir Putin.
in
course, it cannot be claimed that large sections
Of
organized society have suddenly given up on,
of
stopped caring about, truth. Post-truth refers
or
a civil discourse where expertise and “facts”
to
to be insufficient to sway beliefs; where
appear
appear to choose their experts and
individuals
others as politically and ideologically
dismiss
There is some behavioural research to
biased.
that facts alone do not change deeply
suggest
beliefs.
held
Mantzarlis, Poynter Institute’s head of
Alexios
stated the following.
fact-checking,
news became a catch-all term to mean anything
Fake
we don’t particularly like to read.
that
in this chapter we explore how news media
Later
prioritize impartiality can understate the
that
scientific consensus, leaving the
overwhelming
with what appears to be a scientific debate
public
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
II.2 Is there a post-truth public sphere?
(Obama 2017)
(Mantzarlis quoted in Kestler-D’Amours 2017)
31