杏吧原创

LITERARY agent and provocateur John Brockman has turned popular science into a sort of modern shamanism, packaged non-fiction into gobbets of smart thinking, made stars of unlikely writers and continues to direct, deepen and contribute to some of the most hotly contested conversations in civic life.

This Idea Is Brilliant is the latest of Brockman鈥檚 annual anthologies drawn from edge.org, his website and shop window. It is one of the stronger books in the series. It is also one of the more troubling, addressing, informing and entertaining a public that has recently become extraordinarily confused about truth and falsehood, fact and knowledge.

Edge.org鈥檚 purpose has always been to collide scientists, business people and public intellectuals in fruitful ways. This year, the mix in the anthology leans towards the cognitive sciences, philosophy and the 鈥渇reakonomic鈥� end of the non-fiction bookshelf. It is a good time to return to basics: to ask how we know what we know, what role rationality plays in knowing, what tech does to help and hinder that knowing, and, frankly, whether in our hunger to democratise knowledge we have built a primrose-lined digital path straight to post-truth perdition.

Many contributors, biting the bullet, reckon so. Measuring the decline in the art of conversation against the rise of social media, anthropologist Nina Jablonski fears that 鈥減eople are opting for leaner modes of communication because they鈥檝e been socialized inadequately in richer ones鈥�.

Meanwhile, an applied mathematician, Coco Krumme, turning the pages of Jorge Luis Borges鈥檚 short story The Lottery in Babylon, conceptualises the way our relationship with local and national government is being automated to the point where fixing wayward algorithms involves the applications of yet more algorithms. In this way, civic life becomes opaque and arbitrary: a lottery. 鈥淭o combat digital distraction, they鈥檇 throttle email on Sundays and build apps for meditation,鈥� Krumme writes. 鈥淚nstead of recommender systems that reveal what you most want to hear, they鈥檇 inject a set of countervailing views. The irony is that these manufactured gestures only intensify the hold of a Babylonian lottery.鈥�

鈥淚n democratising knowledge, we may have built a primrose-lined path to post-truth perdition鈥�

Of course, IT wasn鈥檛 created on a whim. It is a cognitive prosthesis for significant shortfalls in the way we think. Psychologist Adam Waytz cuts to the heart of this in his essay 鈥淭he illusion of explanatory depth鈥� 鈥� a phrase describing how people 鈥渇eel they understand the world with far greater detail, coherence and depth than they really do鈥�.

Humility is a watchword here. If our thinking has holes in it, if we forget, misconstrue, misinterpret or persist in false belief, if we care more for the social consequences of our beliefs than their accuracy, and if we suppress our appetite for innovation in times of crisis (all subjects of separate essays here), there are consequences. Why on earth would we imagine we can build machines that don鈥檛 reflect our own biases, or don鈥檛 鈥� in a ham-fisted effort to correct for them 鈥� create ones of their own we can barely spot, let alone fix?

Neuroscientist Sam Harris is one of several here who, searching for a solution to the 鈥渢ruthiness鈥� crisis, simply appeals to basic decency. We must, he argues, be willing to be seen to change our minds: 鈥淲herever we look, we find otherwise sane men and women making extraordinary efforts to avoid changing [them].鈥�

He has a point. Though our cognitive biases, shortfalls and the like make us less than ideal rational agents, evolution has equipped us with social capacities that, smartly handled, run rings round the 鈥渃leverest鈥� algorithm.

Let psychologist Abigail Marsh have the last word: 鈥淲e have our flaws鈥� but we can also claim to be the species shaped by evolution to possess the most open hearts and the greatest proclivity for caring on Earth.鈥� This may, when all鈥檚 said and done, have to be enough.

This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淲ays of knowing鈥�