Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
'transparency' where important information is, according to some, more
When the German philosopher Immanuel Kant famously asked the ques-
tion 'What is Enlightenment?' back in 1784, he could not have foreseen a
world in which so many people's knowledge would be shaped by so wide
an array of organisations, groups and individuals communicating via such a
multiplicity of media. In this light, the issue is not how we can become truly
'independent knowers' - because this is strictly impossible. Instead, the key
question is how, precisely, should we relate to all those who seek to shape
our thoughts, beliefs, norms, feelings and actions? The answer has practical
implications for realising Kant's famous and stirring injunction '
aude sapere
'
('Dare to know!'). I'll attend to these implications in
Chapter 3
, and return
to them more fully in the final chapter.
NATURE'S SPOKESPERSONS: EPISTEMIC COMMUNITIES AND
EPISTEMIC DEPENDENCE
It's often said of advanced capitalist countries that their citizens aremore 'edu-
cated' and 'informed' than ever before. Indeed, we're frequently told that we
inhabit a 'knowledge society' and live in 'the information age' (see
Box 2.1
).
In part, this reflects the unprecedented number of university graduates being
produced, and the sheer volume, accessibility and diversity of both 'informa-
tion' and 'knowledge' on offer these days. In the West, more of us possess a
bachelor's degree comparedwithour parents' generation.Moreof us utilise the
considerable resources of both the Internet and the media (print and broad-
cast, mass and niche, mainstream and 'alternative'). In addition, more of us
work in jobs that involve the gathering, analysis and production of facts, evi-
dence, ideas and various symbolic forms. Think of management consultancy,
web design, magazine publishing and product advertising, for instance. But
are we as educated and informed as some say we are?
My own answer is 'yes', but only if 'educated' and 'informed' mean that
more of us are deriving our attitudes, opinions, preferences, prejudices and
understandings from a wider range of epistemic communities than perhaps
ever before. As I said previously, however much (we think) we know about
the world, one cannot get around the fact that a very great deal of our
understanding and (even) lived experience is 'second hand' and 'indirect'. In
Steve Fuller's words, 'We have more beliefs than we can justify, and hence
we must rely on
others to justify those beliefs' (Fuller, 2007a: 4). Consider
the case of Wikileaks, which is credited with democratising knowledge and
exposing corruption, malpractice and duplicity in politics, business and the
media. Wikileaks, for all its revelatory benefits, in no way reduces people's
dependence on unknown others for knowledge and information. Instead,
it renders people less reliant on a range of 'official' sources by challenging
those sources' versions of events.
...
