KNOW-IT-ALL SOCIETY

A philosophy professor tackles our society’s increasingly arrogant embrace of convictions that are often misguided and not reasonably supported.

In this relevant new book, Lynch (Director, Humanities Institute/Univ. of Connecticut: The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data, 2016, etc.) expands on the issue he addressed previously: how our reasoning skills are being undermined by the vast yet unprocessed amount of information found on the internet. He shows how the internet and social media are damaging our ability to process facts, particularly in relation to politics, instilling rigid views that often quickly escalate into an unwavering rejection of those who may have alternate views. Ultimately, we come to believe we can no longer learn from one another. As an example of how social media can stir up outrage—rather than reasonable thinking—Lynch considers Facebook’s response emoticons to news events or claims of fact and suggests a more useful commenting structure: “justified by the evidence,” “not justified by the evidence,” and “need more information.” The author readily supports his argument by referencing philosophical ideas culled from the works of Montaigne, Bertrand Russell, Hannah Arendt, and Socrates. Lynch ultimately remains objective in assessing arguments on both sides of the political landscape, asserting that the right and left can each learn from the other. His bottom-line resolution is to accept with humility what we do know. “To strive after truth and humility means that we must always be ready to consider new evidence and new experiences, and that we cannot rest content in our convictions,” he writes. “Part of being intellectually humble is treating truth, not just agreement, as a goal of inquiry.” Though the author’s argument is cogent, his academic approach, while not overly opaque, may miss a wider audience of readers—on all areas of the political spectrum—who could most benefit from his message.

Lynch offers an insightful, timely message that may be too intellectually articulated to appeal to those it could best serve.