True Enough by Farhad Manjoo
Manjoo's book has inspired quite a bit of thinking from me over the last few days. Of course, plenty of what he's arguing I'd considered before in loose terms, but his extensions have proven to be particularly eye-opening and rewarding for the sake of pragmatic conversation. I was primarily focused on aspects and implications of globalization, which he discusses in the introduction. Along with that aspect, I found myself drawn to inherent biases, which he discusses in some depth between the end of chapter one and chapter two. Lastly, in chapter one, Manjoo discusses facts, the topic of the book, of course, and different versions of the truth as we've come to understand them. For me this brings about a few philosophical protestations circling what, conversationally, we've allowed to become the truth in relation to the Internet and the globalized connections we've established.
Globalization is a disturbing conception, I think, and although I am inclined to acknowledge how important it is that the globe be connected this way, I also fear it's consequences, the consequences of, how shall I say, "too many opinions." Think about science for a moment, and the importance of empiricism for proving that we've made a repeatable and consistent discovery. Globalization, in these terms, is essential for the success of mankind. The more thoughts on this matter, the more opportunities to compare notes for the progression of man, the better off one would think he would be as a species, right? Manjoo, in the introduction, addresses this point saying that people, closer together through globalization, don't debate and argue issues of the globe, but they actually just break down and argue over the facts. No headway can be made by arguing over the facts, and if it can, please tell me how that's possible.
But, back to my point that "comparing notes," so to speak, would be amazingly useful for mankind. The more minds the better, yes? No. Unfortunately, that's only theoretically speaking, that comparing notes would be helpful for mankind, kind of the same way people think about Marx's communism, where theoretically, it's a wonderful idea, but upon closer inspection and when the immoral people, as this is their nature, are added to the mix communism is a nightmare, depending on many factors, of course, but for the sake of illustration, I'm certain you're following me.
The problem with globalization is all about perspective and human nature, that is, pride, etc. Think about, for instance, an American scientist comparing notes with a German scientist. Let's say they both go about studying cellular meiosis using a different method but have a relatively similar result. According to Manjoo, rather than discussing the result and the factors utilized to achieve this result on either side, an argument would occur about the differing methodologies, and I'm certain this would be rooted in an element of pride on either side, that is, who developed the more effective method. Perhaps this is what Manjoo means, but this is how I've thought about it.
In philosophy, there are three "forms" of truth. They are coherence theory, correspondence theory, and consensus theory, which is the one I'll focus on this time. Consensus theory of truth probably explains itself. It basically suggests that because so many individuals observe the same thing in the same way, say a tree is purple, for example, then that must be the truth. Therefore, in that example, the tree would be determined to be purple, which seems unlikely if you ask me. My point in bringing up the consensus theory of truth is to address Manjoo's thoughts on information spreading through the Internet, and how those pieces of information somehow earn credibility for the sake of the "real-life" conversations that are occurring as a result of that information. So how do we decide the truth when we enter into these conversations? How do we discern fact from non-fact? Philosophers have been asking those questions since the dawn of time, but in relation to the Internet, it probably comes down to a few factors including persuasion, research, and perhaps, as I said before, consensus, ruefully misinformed consensus, ignorance.
Now! The problem of inherent biases, also popularly thought of in science, is mentioned by Manjoo is chapters one and two. He explains that despite globalization, the surplus of perspectives and opinions that differ from our own, we prefer to stay in our niche, where our own thoughts and opinions are reinforced, essentially, by seeking similar-minded individuals or opinions. He says that we basically read what we want to read to hear what we want to hear, and we'll stay comfortable in a global Internet community where every opportunity you'd have to branch away from your comfort to see from a different perspective is declined. So globalization... is it helpful? or is it simply reinforcing some notions of individualism by proving time and time again that it's "too loud" with opinion and it'll perpetually be rudely debating facts rather than solving any global issues.
