"Pick any recent op-ed lamenting the demise of contemporary democracy and you will most likely read claims about how a toxic combination of widespread misinformation, pernicious algorithms, and the biased media is to blame. The idea here is that cleaning up the media sphere and improving how people consume information would amount to a crucial step towards safeguarding our cherished democratic institutions. In other words, the path to democratic integrity is paved by a reliable information environment and responsible epistemic agency."
"This question has started to gain traction in light of recent work in political epistemology. For instance, Alex Worsnip has persuasively argued that being a responsible epistemic agent can unfairly shift political power to one's political opponents. In addition, Michael Hannon has argued that more knowledgeable citizens are more likely to hold biased and dogmatic political beliefs, and in joint work with Ian Kidd, they argue that exercising intellectual humility can lead to political apathy."
Many assume that correcting misinformation and improving information consumption will safeguard democratic institutions. Responsible epistemic practices can, however, produce unintended political effects. Being epistemically responsible can shift political power to opponents, make more knowledgeable citizens susceptible to biased and dogmatic beliefs, and cause intellectual humility to generate political apathy. Exercising thorough evidential responsiveness can also require suspending political beliefs or withdrawing from political engagement, thereby weakening self-government. These dynamics show that epistemic virtue and a reliable information environment do not automatically translate into stronger democratic participation or healthier democratic outcomes.
Read at Apaonline
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]