The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth by Jonathan Rauch

"The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth" by Jonathan Rauch is an exploration of the contemporary battle over truth in public discourse. Rauch explains that our society is embroiled in a struggle between two destructive forces: the spread of disinformation and the rise of enforced conformity, what he terms troll culture versus cancel culture. He argues that these twin insurgencies threaten the very foundations of our knowledge-based society, aiming to undermine the public’s ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, and stifle free, open discussion.

Opening with the impact of the Trump era, Rauch discusses how the former president and his media allies normalized lying on a grand scale, obliterating the lines between truth and untruth in the public arena. “They lied in trivial ways, when there was no point in lying except to show contempt for truth,” Rauch writes, “as when Trump claimed rain had not fallen on his inauguration. They lied in grandiose and fantastic ways, for example lying about having won the election he had demonstrably lost.” The strategy was not simply to deceive, but to overwhelm the public’s capacity to discern truth, creating a reality where distinctions between true and false no longer mattered.

In a disturbing but insightful analysis, Rauch explores how the Trump administration, supported by an echo chamber of partisan media, embraced disinformation as a political tool. The administration's goal was not merely to mislead but to erode the public's trust in any source of truth, effectively creating a new epistemic reality. Rauch explains, “Their goal was to denude the public’s capacity to make any distinctions at all,” using disinformation not just to confuse but to dominate the narrative entirely.

This manipulation of truth wasn't just about advancing specific agendas. It was about asserting dominance over reality itself. By lying about inconsequential details, like the weather during an inauguration, Trump and his supporters sent a clear message: the truth is what we say it is. This relentless assault on reality culminated in the massive falsehood of the 2020 election being stolen, a lie so pervasive and persistent that it led to widespread doubt and the events of January 6th. Rauch demonstrates how this systematic lying was not an aberration but a deliberate strategy to destabilize the public’s perception of truth, creating an environment where facts were rendered meaningless.

Rauch extends his analysis beyond the political right, examining how call-out culture on the left contributes to the erosion of free and open discourse. Drawing on the work of Jonathan Haidt, he highlights how the rise of call-out culture has created an atmosphere of fear in academic and public spaces. Haidt observes, “In 2015, call-out culture spread much more rapidly around the country. I would say that it is everywhere to some extent. Students are much more defensive and much more afraid of disagreeing with the dominant view. The nature of college as a free place with free-flowing discussion, where you can be provocative and challenge the dominant people or ideas, is weaker than it was just four or five years ago.”

Rauch identifies this trend as part of a broader societal shift towards enforced conformity, where deviation from the dominant narrative is not just discouraged but punished. This dynamic stifles the diversity of thought that is essential to the pursuit of truth. In an environment where students and professionals alike are afraid to speak openly, the marketplace of ideas is suppressed, leading to intellectual stagnation and polarization. The result is a public discourse increasingly dominated by extremes, where nuanced discussion and the search for common ground become nearly impossible.

In these first sections, Rauch sets the stage for his broader argument: that the Constitution of Knowledge—a system of norms and institutions designed to foster truth-seeking through open, rigorous debate—is under siege. The battle against disinformation and enforced conformity is not just about politics; it's about preserving the very mechanisms by which we, as a society, determine what is real and what is not.

Rauch vividly describes the ongoing conflict between two insurgencies that are eroding the foundations of public discourse: troll culture and cancel culture. On one side, troll culture thrives on the spread of viral disinformation and the creation of alternative realities. It seeks to overwhelm the truth with a deluge of lies, conspiracy theories, and inflammatory rhetoric, often without any coherent aim other than to create chaos and confusion. On the other side, cancel culture enforces ideological conformity by blacklisting and silencing those who dare to challenge the dominant narrative. This battle between troll culture and cancel culture represents a deeper struggle over who controls the narrative and what counts as truth in the public sphere.

Rauch argues that both troll culture and cancel culture exploit human cognitive and social vulnerabilities. Trolls use repetition and emotional manipulation to instil falsehoods into the public consciousness, while cancel culture leverages social pressure and fear of ostracism to enforce conformity. The result is a toxic environment where people are either bombarded with disinformation or pressured into silence, both of which stifle the kind of open, honest discourse necessary for a healthy democracy.

Rauch delves into the evolutionary origins of human reasoning, explaining that our cognitive faculties developed not solely for survival, but for persuasion within social groups. In early human societies, survival often hinged on one's ability to secure a place within the group, gain resources, and protect one's offspring. High status within a tribe brought with it greater access to resources and mating opportunities, making the ability to persuade others a crucial skill. Rauch notes that being shunned or cast out of the group could be fatal, so humans evolved to be highly attuned to social cues and skilled in the art of persuasion.

However, this evolutionary background also explains why humans are prone to cognitive and perceptual biases. Our reasoning is not purely a quest for objective truth; it is deeply influenced by the need to maintain social harmony and protect our social identities. Intuitions often come first, with strategic reasoning used to justify our pre-existing beliefs, particularly in matters that provoke strong moral or emotional reactions. This tendency leads to confirmation bias, where people are more likely to seek out information that supports their beliefs and ignore or reject information that challenges them.

Rauch highlights a 2017 study that illustrates this phenomenon: two-thirds of participants were willing to pay to avoid exposure to opposing political views, preferring comfort over cognitive dissonance. This aversion to challenging information underscores how our cognitive biases can reinforce ideological divisions, making it harder for individuals and society as a whole to reach a shared understanding of reality.

Building on the discussion of evolutionary psychology, Rauch explores how various cognitive biases—such as confirmation bias—impede our ability to seek and recognize the truth. He points out that, from an evolutionary perspective, forming beliefs that lead to social success is often more advantageous than forming beliefs that are objectively true. As a result, people are more concerned with aligning their beliefs with those of their social group, reinforcing a collective identity rather than pursuing objective reality. This is what Rauch refers to as "identity-protective cognition," where the primary goal is not to discover the truth, but to protect one's social standing and group identity.

Group solidarity can exacerbate ideological conflicts and even create them. When people unite into teams, they often become more polarized, as each side becomes more entrenched in its beliefs and less willing to consider alternative viewpoints. Rauch explains that cognition is influenced not only by our own biases but also by the biases of others in our social environment. This collective bias can lead to a situation where entire groups become disconnected from reality, as they reinforce each other's misconceptions and dismiss any evidence that contradicts their shared beliefs.

Despite these challenges, Rauch argues that humans are not doomed to be gullible or easily manipulated. Evolution has also equipped us with the capacity to think critically, to evaluate large amounts of information, and to reject falsehoods when it is in our best interest to do so. However, our ability to think well is heavily influenced by the social environment in which we find ourselves. In a well-designed social environment that values truth, openness, and rigorous debate, we are more likely to overcome our biases and reach accurate conclusions. But in a toxic environment dominated by disinformation and enforced conformity, our cognitive biases can lead us astray, making us more susceptible to manipulation and less capable of discerning the truth.

Rauch emphasizes that a functioning epistemic regime—a public system for adjudicating differences in belief and perception—must deliver three essential public goods: knowledge, freedom, and peace. These are the pillars on which a society's capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood rests, and they are crucial for maintaining a stable, truth-seeking community.

• Knowledge is the foremost good that such a regime must provide. It ensures that the public has access to shared, warranted conclusions about what is true. This requires a commitment to reality-based rules and the maintenance of institutions that uphold these standards, allowing knowledge to be built, tested, and disseminated broadly. Without a common foundation of knowledge, society loses its ability to function cohesively, as individuals and groups drift into separate realities.

• Freedom is equally vital, as it protects the rights of individuals to express their views, challenge prevailing ideas, and explore diverse perspectives. Intellectual pluralism is not just a value but a necessity for discovering truth. If freedom is curtailed, the marketplace of ideas withers, and the search for truth becomes constrained by the limits of what is deemed acceptable by those in power.

• Peace is the third public good, fostering a societal environment where differences in belief can be resolved without resorting to violence or coercion. Peace is not just the absence of conflict but the presence of a system that allows for constructive disagreement and consensus-building. In a peaceful society, people can engage in debates and discussions knowing that their differences can be addressed through reasoned discourse rather than force.

The Commitments of the Constitution of Knowledge

Rauch outlines several key commitments that are fundamental to the Constitution of Knowledge, a system designed to preserve the integrity of truth-seeking in society. These commitments act as safeguards against the erosion of truth and help maintain a public discourse grounded in reality.

Fallibilism is the recognition that our knowledge is always provisional and subject to revision. This commitment acknowledges that no belief is beyond scrutiny and that we must remain open to the possibility of being wrong.

Objectivity involves striving for impartiality and fairness in evaluating evidence and forming beliefs. It requires individuals and institutions to separate personal biases from their assessment of facts, aiming to see reality as it is, rather than how we might want it to be.

Exclusivity refers to the adherence to rules that exclude beliefs or claims that cannot be substantiated. In other words, not every idea deserves a platform; only those that meet certain standards of evidence and reasoning should be included in serious discourse.

Disconfirmation is the active search for evidence that could disprove our beliefs. This commitment is crucial for avoiding the pitfalls of confirmation bias, as it encourages us to test our assumptions against reality rather than simply seeking out information that supports them.

Accountability ensures that individuals and institutions are held responsible for their adherence to the rules of evidence and reason. This commitment creates a system of checks and balances, where claims and decisions can be challenged and reviewed by others.

Pluralism is the respect for a diversity of viewpoints, acknowledging that truth often emerges from the clash of different ideas. This commitment is essential for fostering an environment where innovation and progress can occur through debate and discussion.

Professionalism involves upholding high standards of expertise and competence in the pursuit of truth. Professionals in various fields play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of knowledge by adhering to ethical guidelines and best practices.

Civility is the commitment to engaging in respectful discourse, even in the face of disagreement. Civility ensures that debates remain productive and focused on ideas rather than personal attacks.

Institutionalism refers to the trust in and reliance on established institutions that maintain epistemic standards. These institutions, whether in academia, journalism, or other fields, provide the structure needed for the systematic pursuit of knowledge.

No Bullshitting is a commitment to honesty and clarity, rejecting deceit, obfuscation, and the manipulation of truth for personal or political gain.

Rauch places today's challenges to truth within a historical context, showing how the media landscape has evolved and how these changes have influenced public discourse. He notes that during America's founding era, journalism was notoriously partisan and unreliable. With low to nonexistent standards, anyone could start a newspaper, and the press often published what we would now recognize as "fake news." The public was bombarded with sensationalism and misinformation, making it difficult to discern fact from fiction.

However, the latter half of the nineteenth century saw significant changes in the media landscape. Urbanization and advancements in printing technology transformed small presses into powerful urban newspapers with the capacity to reach millions of readers. While these newspapers were more influential, they often focused on gossip and sensation rather than serious newsworthy events. Reporting was more of a trade than a profession, with journalists frequently prioritizing sales over the accuracy of their content.

Rauch argues that the legacy of these early practices can still be seen today, where media outlets often prioritize sensationalism and entertainment value over thorough, factual reporting. This history helps explain the current struggles with disinformation and the erosion of trust in media institutions, as the lines between news and entertainment, fact and opinion, have become increasingly blurred.

Rauch explores the challenge posed by sociopathic behaviour to any social order, particularly within liberal societies that depend on shared rules and norms. While some level of rule-breaking and shamelessness can inspire breakthroughs in various fields—such as industry, politics, science, and the arts—too much of it can lead to the downfall of a peaceful social order.

In a liberal society, where freedom and individual rights are paramount, everyone is expected to internalize and follow a basic set of rules. These rules are what keep society functioning smoothly, ensuring that freedom does not descend into chaos. However, when sociopathic behaviour—characterized by a blatant disregard for these shared norms—becomes widespread, it threatens the very fabric of society. Rauch warns that while liberal orders are resilient, they are not invulnerable. Too much tolerance for rule-breaking can lead to a breakdown in trust and the erosion of the social contract that underpins democratic governance.

This section underscores the importance of maintaining a balance between allowing creative, disruptive behaviour that can drive progress and enforcing the rules necessary to preserve social order and peace. Rauch argues that a healthy liberal society must be vigilant against those who seek to exploit its freedoms for selfish or destructive ends, as unchecked sociopathy can unravel the shared commitments that make civil society possible.

Rauch examines the tactics of "troll epistemology," particularly as it relates to organized disinformation campaigns, using the anti-vaccination movement as a prime example. This movement, which dates back to the early 1800s, has consistently employed a well-funded and technically savvy approach to spreading misinformation. The themes of their disinformation have remained remarkably consistent over the centuries, relying heavily on repetitive messaging, emotional appeals, endorsements by celebrities and influencers, and junk science.

Rauch explains that the power of disinformation lies in its ability to exploit repetition bias—a cognitive tendency where repeated information is more likely to be believed, regardless of its truth. He references Hitler's strategy in propaganda, which emphasized that messages must focus on a few key points and be repeated persistently. According to Rauch, persistence is the most crucial factor in the success of disinformation campaigns. By constantly reinforcing the same falsehoods, disinformation operatives can create a perception of truth that is difficult to dislodge.

This tactic is not limited to fringe groups but has been adopted by political operatives as well. For instance, Steve Bannon, a senior strategist for Trump, famously said, "The Democrats don't matter. The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with shit." This strategy, though crude in its phrasing, encapsulates the essence of modern information warfare: overwhelm the public with so much noise that distinguishing fact from fiction becomes nearly impossible. The goal is not necessarily to persuade people of a particular falsehood but to sow confusion and mistrust, making it harder for anyone to determine what is true.

Rauch further explores the concept of "mal-information," where disinformation campaigns are designed not just to deceive, but to demoralize, deplatform, isolate, or intimidate adversaries. He highlights how social media has become a powerful tool in these efforts, allowing bad actors to manipulate the online environment to their advantage. By creating a constant stream of misleading or false information, they can undermine public trust in institutions and create a sense of epistemic helplessness—a state where people no longer know where to turn for reliable information.

The firehose of falsehood, a strategy used in these disinformation campaigns, aims not to convince but to confuse. Rauch cites the famous observation by Hannah Arendt that "the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between true or false no longer exists." This approach is designed to create uncertainty, disorientation, and cynicism. A 2017 study found that while 10 to 20 percent of Americans believed fake news stories they encountered, an even larger percentage—two to three times as many—were left unsure of what to believe. This state of being adrift from factuality makes the public more susceptible to manipulation, as they lose confidence in their ability to judge what is true or plausible.

Rauch also references Yuri Bezmenov, a defector from Russian intelligence, who warned that a demoralized population loses the ability to assess true information. Even when presented with overwhelming evidence, people in such a state are unable to recognize the truth, having been worn down by the constant bombardment of lies and half-truths.

Rauch delves into how social dynamics influence the formation of beliefs, particularly in the context of disinformation and misinformation. He explains that humans have a natural tendency to conform their beliefs to those of others in their social environment. This is particularly evident on social media, where trolls can exploit this tendency by swarming platforms and using software to impersonate masses of people. By creating the illusion of a consensus around a marginal belief, trolls can "spoof our consensus detectors," making it seem as though a belief held by very few is actually widely accepted.

This manipulation of social dynamics is a powerful tool in disinformation campaigns because it taps into a basic human instinct to fit in with the group. When people perceive that a belief is shared by a large number of others, they are more likely to adopt it themselves, even if it contradicts their previous views or objective reality. Rauch emphasizes that this process of belief formation is not just about individual cognition but is deeply influenced by the social environment in which one is immersed.

However, Rauch also argues that humans can outwit these biases and think critically, but this depends heavily on the design of the social environment. In a society that values truth and fosters open, rigorous debate, individuals are more likely to overcome their biases and reach accurate conclusions. But in a toxic environment, where disinformation and conformity pressures dominate, these biases can lead people astray, making them more vulnerable to manipulation and less capable of discerning the truth.

Rauch's analysis highlights the importance of maintaining institutions and social norms that support the pursuit of truth. Without these safeguards, society risks descending into a state of epistemic chaos, where belief is driven more by social dynamics and manipulation than by evidence and reason.

Rauch critiques the concept of emotional safetyism, arguing that it poses a significant threat to open discourse and the pursuit of truth. Emotional safetyism, which prioritizes protecting individuals from emotional discomfort over fostering robust debate, has become increasingly influential in academic and social environments. Rauch contends that this mindset silences dissent and discourages the free exchange of ideas, as people become afraid to express views that might be deemed offensive or triggering.

He outlines several consequences of emotional safetyism:

• Silencing Effect: Emotional safetyism stifles conversation by creating an atmosphere where people are afraid to speak their minds, fearing backlash for any perceived transgression.

• Neuroticism: By constantly focusing on potential emotional harm, emotional safetyism fosters a culture of hypersensitivity, making individuals more anxious and less resilient to differing opinions.

• Conflict Escalation: Instead of resolving disagreements through dialogue, emotional safetyism often exacerbates conflicts by encouraging overreaction and dramatization of minor issues.

• Overreaction Incentives: It rewards those who react most strongly to perceived slights, leading to a culture where exaggeration and outrage are valued over reasoned discussion.

• Ignoring Consequences: Emotional safetyism often overlooks the broader implications of censoring speech, such as the erosion of intellectual diversity and the suppression of critical thinking.

• Censorship Machine: It systematically suppresses any discourse that could cause discomfort, effectively acting as a form of censorship.

• Politicization: Emotional safetyism is frequently weaponized for political purposes, where accusations of harm are used to silence opposition and control the narrative.

• Catastrophizing: Everyday interactions are blown out of proportion, creating a constant sense of crisis where none exists.

• Trivializing Physical Violence: By equating hurtful words with physical violence, emotional safetyism diminishes the gravity of actual violent acts.

• Excusing Real Violence: In some cases, emotional safetyism justifies physical violence as a response to verbal offences, undermining the principle of non-violence.

• Patronizing Minorities: It assumes that minority groups are too fragile to handle open debate, thereby infantilizing them and denying them agency.

• Distracting from Real Issues: Emotional safetyism often shifts focus away from substantive problems, concentrating instead on managing perceived emotional harm.

• Undermining Pluralism: By discouraging the expression of diverse viewpoints, emotional safetyism erodes the pluralism that is essential to a healthy, functioning democracy.

  
  

Rauch argues that while civility and considerateness are important, they should be seen as best practices rather than enforceable rights. The Constitution of Knowledge thrives on intellectual pluralism and the freedom to offend; without these, the search for truth is stifled.

In his discussion on cancel culture, Rauch makes a crucial distinction between legitimate criticism and the tactics of cancellation. Criticism, he asserts, is a constructive part of intellectual discourse. It involves presenting arguments or evidence to influence opinion through rational persuasion. Criticism belongs in the realm of truth-seeking, where the focus is on challenging ideas and refining understanding.

Cancel culture, on the other hand, operates in the realm of propaganda warfare. Its primary objective is not to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas, but to demoralize, deplatform, isolate, or intimidate opponents. Like disinformation and trolling, cancellation seeks to manipulate the social or media environment to achieve a particular social effect, often at the expense of truth.

Rauch emphasizes that cancel culture is more concerned with the social consequences of an idea than with the idea's validity. It aims to stigmatize and punish those who deviate from the dominant narrative, often without engaging with the substance of their arguments. This approach is antithetical to the principles of the Constitution of Knowledge, which values open debate and the rigorous testing of ideas.

Rauch also highlights the importance of questioning as a tool for truth-seeking. The goal of questioning should always be to uncover the truth, not to humiliate or silence. Shared purpose in civil discourse is key to maintaining a healthy intellectual environment, where ideas can be challenged without personal attacks.

Rauch argues that one of the most effective ways to combat the polarizing effects of both troll culture and cancel culture is to actively seek out viewpoint diversity. This means going beyond demographic diversity and ensuring that different perspectives and ideas are represented in discussions. Viewpoint diversity is essential for fostering intellectual rigour and preventing the formation of ideological echo chambers, where dissenting opinions are excluded or ignored.

Rauch advocates for engaging with thinkers who challenge our assumptions, even if their ideas seem unorthodox or uncomfortable. He warns against the dangers of a "demographically diverse roomful of people with identical views," which he sees as just another form of intellectual homogeneity. True viewpoint diversity requires the presence of conflicting ideas, which can stimulate debate and lead to a deeper understanding of complex issues.

In promoting civility, Rauch suggests practical measures such as keeping notes and creating records of meetings or discussions. This practice not only demonstrates a commitment to the dialogue but also helps keep people honest in how they represent the conversation to others. Civility, according to Rauch, is not just about being polite; it is about creating an environment where ideas can be freely exchanged, and where truth can emerge from the clash of differing opinions.

I can’t recommend "The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth" enough if you’re as concerned as I am about the state of public discourse today. Rauch really gets to the heart of how disinformation and cancel culture are warping our ability to distinguish truth from lies. It’s a book that made me think deeply about the conversations we’re having—or avoiding—in society, and why it’s so crucial to protect the principles that keep our dialogue honest and open. If you care about truth and the future of our democracy, this is a must-read. It left me with a renewed sense of urgency to engage more thoughtfully in the world around me