THIS CONTENT IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY University of Oslo - read more

Philosopher: “To gain new knowledge, we must understand how other people view the world”

Do we get new knowledge just by seeking out new sources of information and engaging with people we disagree with? It’s not that simple, says philosopher.

Line of people using laptops and phones against a plain white wall
Only when we understand what the world looks like to others can conversation give us something new, says philosopher Joey Pollock.
Eivind Torgersen Freelance JOURNALIST
Presented by: Presented by: Presented by: University of Oslo
Published

“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 Joey Pollock, a philosopher 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's important to understand that person’s perspective,” she says.

But that's not easy, and Pollock believes it's even more difficult than philosophers have previously assumed.

Closed echo chambers

In what we call echo chambers, where people seek out ideas and interests of like-minded individuals, there is very little hope of getting through with information that does not align with the 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.

Philosopher Joey Pollock believes we must take the time to establish common ground if we are to understand one another.

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 worldview,” 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 from, 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.

She adds that we often end up reading news sources we are familiar with, which may reflect our established political views.

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's 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's 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,” she says.

This is because you lack what Pollock 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, but that is not the goal either.

“This doesn’t mean you have to end up with the same opinions and convictions. It’s not about having the same worldview, but about being able to understand a different worldview. 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 a 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 from a long-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," she says.

“Even though it's 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:

Pollock, J. Epistemic Bubbles and Contextual Discordance, Philosophy, vol. 99, 2024. DOI: 10.1017/S0031819124000093

More content from the University of Oslo:

society and culture ethics sociology university of oslo philosophy partner
Powered by Labrador CMS