"Being presented with new information, for example by reading a post on social media, is often not enough to actually acquire knowledge. Even when this information is shared by a reliable source or is grounded in solid scientific research," says philosopher Joey Pollock at the University of Oslo.
Pollock researches, among other things, how we share and acquire knowledge in digital networks such as social media.
"If you want to gain knowledge from another person, or share your own knowledge with them, it is important to understand that person's perspective," she says.
But this is not easy, and Pollock believes it is even harder than philosophers have previously assumed.
Closed echo chambers
In what we call "echo chambers", where people seek out the ideas and interests of the like-minded, there is very little hope of getting through with information that does not match members' established truths.
"Philosophers such as C. Thi Nguyen say that inside an echo chamber people are manipulated into distrusting certain sources of information. Bringing in new information doesn't help, because people in there have reason to believe that this information is untrustworthy," says Pollock.
In an echo chamber that is sceptical of climate research, for example, the intentions and independence of the researchers will be called into question.
"Nguyen says that the same mechanisms exist within a cult, where there are internal rules for how to deal with information that conflicts with the cult's world view," says Pollock.
"These structures existed before the internet as well, but social media makes it more intense, since we are constantly connected to so many more sources."
Epistemic bubbles
While echo chambers are seen as very difficult to escape, philosophers have been a bit more optimistic about what they call "epistemic bubbles".
In an epistemic bubble you also lack information, but you are not as dismissive of new knowledge - at least not in principle.
"Inside your epistemic bubble you lack sources of information that could be relevant for you. This usually doesn't happen on purpose or with intent, as it can in an echo chamber, but your networks tend to contain people and information sources that fit perspectives you already hold," says Pollock.
"We often end up reading news sources we are familiar with, which may reflect our established political views," she says.
The bubble doesn't burst so easily
An epistemic bubble doesn't sound as bad as an echo chamber, and it isn't. But the bubble doesn't burst as easily as some philosophers have previously claimed.
However, some still argue that it is relatively simple to improve and expand these bubbles - if you want to, and if you take the time.
You can actively follow people who have different opinions from your own. You can read newspaper articles from media outlets with other perspectives than the ones you usually turn to.
"It is good to do those things. But it's not as simple as saying that if you do this, then you've automatically added these sources and the information they share to your bubble and your information network," says Pollock.
"You will probably develop a better understanding than you had before, but you can still misunderstand what is meant, or make assumptions about what is being said and why people are saying what they do."
What you are lacking, Pollock says, is what she calls common ground - a shared basis for understanding.
The tip of the iceberg
It is easy to forget how much the context shapes the meaning of what we say. The simplest statements can mean very different things depending on where, when and by whom they are uttered.
"We don't notice it when it works well, but written and spoken words are only the tip of the iceberg. Underneath lies all the knowledge we share about the context and the utterance, which helps us understand what the person means to say," Pollock points out.
"It's part of the nature of social media that you get short posts with very little context."
She thinks this is important to keep in mind when we try to understand others - and not least when we want others to understand us. Misunderstandings can arise even in our closest relationships; with people we know well.
"It's useful to see that the picture is more complicated. It can be frustrating when people don't accept the facts you present to them, but they can't simply read your mind based on what you say. You first have to build a shared basis for interpretation, otherwise you risk talking past each other," says Pollock.
It takes time, a lot of time
Taking the time to establish a shared basis of knowledge will help you understand each other. Not necessarily to agree - and that is not the goal.
"This doesn't mean you have to end up with the same opinions and convictions. It's not about having the same world view, but about being able to understand a different world view.
"To communicate with someone, you first need to understand what the world looks like to them, and how they understand what you are telling them," says Pollock.
When you interpret what someone has said, you can only draw on the information that is already inside your epistemic bubble. If that person is in the same bubble as you, communication will be easier, because you are drawing on the same information - the same common ground.
"The further outside your bubble a person is, the less common ground you have to start from," says Pollock.
The problem is that it takes a huge amount of time to establish shared understanding - and there are so many different bases for understanding that would need to be built. It sounds discouraging.
"I'm not necessarily optimistic about how this will go, but I think it's important to look at it in a longer-term perspective," says Pollock.
She finds a source of hope in the history of how the harms of tobacco became widely recognised.
"Back then too, there were powerful forces trying to block access to this knowledge, actively undermining it. But in the end we got there."
"Even though it is difficult for an individual to acquire knowledge of new areas, it helps a lot to be part of a broader community of people with different kinds of expertise. Then we can still benefit from each other's knowledge, even when it is challenging to communicate that knowledge," says Pollock.
Reference
Joey Pollock: "Epistemic Bubbles and Contextual Discordance" (Cambridge.org), Philosophy, Volume 99, Special Issue 3, July 2024.
