Echo Chambers vs Epistemic Bubbles | Philosophy Explained

[00:00:00]hello and welcome my name is Victor heisbers and I teach philosophy at Leiden University in the Netherlands in this video I want to take a look at the article Echo Chambers and epistemic Bubbles by thenuen in this article thenuen is going to make a distinction a very important distinction according to the argument of the article between on the one hand epistemic bubbles which are relatively benign epistemic phenomena they're not good but they're not like major problems or they don't need to be major problems and on the other hand Echo Chambers which according to fenuang's definitions and definitions and analyzes are much more pernicious right there are much bigger problem if they exist and we have very good reasons to believe that they do exist so the overall structure of the article is this thinguan is going to Define epistemic Bubbles and then Define Echo Chambers and tell us something about how they how they function and then the rest of the article is going to focus mostly on Echo Chambers because that's the sort of real epistemic problem and there's going to be a part of the article where thingyang argues that Echo Chambers can explain certain phenomena that people tend to call Post truth and then in the final part of the article the nun is going to talk about how to how to solve the problem of echo Chambers whether it's possible for people to escape from Echo Chambers and if so um what that kind of Escape would look like all right so we are going to follow that structure too right we're going to look at a definition of an epistemic bubble we're going to look at the definition of an echo chamber we're going to talk a little bit about those and then we will you know delve into this idea of echo Chambers and how do you relate on the one hand to post-truth phenomena and on the other hand um to to possible Escape Routes from those Echo Chambers so here is thin Wang's definition of an epistemic bubble it is a social epistemic structure which has inadequate coverage through a process of exclusion by omission okay let me say that again and then we will delve into it an epistemic bubble is a social epistemic structure so it's it's something in the social world having to do with how we gain knowledge it's a social epistemic epistemic structure which has inadequate coverage through a process of exclusion by omission okay coverage is a very important word here and for instance in the literature on fake news people often distinguish between on the one hand problems that have to do with content and on the other hand problems that have to do with coverage and so problems that have to do with content are for instance if the information you get is is false right if it's false or misleading that will be a problem with the content but it's also possible for you to for instance have a new source or some other source of information which gives you true or mostly true you know roughly adequate truths but very selectively in a way that you know you don't get all the information that you ideally would get maybe you don't get all the information that you need maybe the selection is even such that the information that you get is very misleading right so for instance here's just an example um suppose that I follow a left-wing blog that gives me true positive news stories about left-wing politicians and true negative news stories about right-wing politicians but never the other way around right and so I might end up believing that all left-wing politicians are Saints and all right-wing politicians are devils and even though nobody has ever taught me any untruths right so that would be a problem with coverage all right so an epistemic bubble is a social epistemic structure which has inadequate coverage I don't get the information I need maybe I even get a misleading selection of information through a process of exclusion by omission so exclusion by emission means that certain voices are not heard certain sources are not encountered because they're just omitted right they're not they don't enter into into my bubble that's what makes it a bubble so how do we get into into an epistemic bubble well you know usually I get a lot of my information for instance through friends networks like people I like the people I interact with a lot they also tell me about what's going on in the world um and I might not have selected my friends like in in order to get a a good access to information in the world right I I select my friends because I like them because they're interested in the same things maybe even because they have the same opinions or moral beliefs or political beliefs or something like that and so the group of people from whom I get information about the world is very badly chosen if the purpose were to get good coverage right because I chose them not to get good coverage but for completely different reasons so that's one way I could get into an epistemic bubble um here's the second reason that the fenuang talks about in the in the paper it's um it's algorithmic filtering algorithmic personal filtering right where Google or or Twitter or Facebook or whatever website I might be using to get information and news uh decides based on some algorithm that you know focuses me on me and what I'm supposed to like or want or something like that um it gives me only the kind of news that um that I already agree with maybe or that is going to elicit a certain kind of reaction from me uh anyway there could be a problem problem of coverage something that I'm not even really aware of because I have no idea how that algorithm works for instance okay so that's also a way to get into an epistemic bubble um this is something that pinun doesn't say but it seems to me that you know we're we're in a sense always in an epistemic bubble just by you know living in a certain country belonging to a certain culture and so on and so forth right I mean I live in the Netherlands like Dutch issues Loom really large in the news in what I hear um if you ask me well okay and so what exactly is is going on right now in oh you know some countries I hear something about like maybe Belgium because it's very close or the United States of America because that just happens you know news media tend to have a big interest in the United States of America but I don't hear a lot about what's happening in in Nigeria maybe or Argentina or you know so many countries in the world about which I am relatively ignorant um and also maybe I don't follow a lot of people on social media for instance who who come from those countries again I have a lot of people from sort of neighboring countries and from the United States of America so um that's a bubble too right I would say that that's you know I don't get like the kind of world news coverage that maybe would be ideal if I wanted to have a good grasp of what's going on in the world what people are sort of really dealing with and so on and so forth Okay so these problems of coverage can on the one hand mean that I'm just missing out on certain information it can also through a process that tinuang calls bootstrap corroboration um give me give me wrong epistemic ideas right it can give me wrong ideas about what's true and and the reliability of my own beliefs uh bootstrapped confirmation a corroboration the idea of bootstrapping it's from the tales of the baron of Munchausen it's the idea that you can sort of pull yourself out of a swamp by pulling on your bootstraps right so there's really no no solid basis you're just sort of pulling yourself up into the air and the idea of bootstrapped corroboration would be that oh you know I believe something because I hear a lot of people around me saying it and then I say it to the people around me think ah well you know Victor is saying it too must be true and so we sort of all strengthening our beliefs even though there's there's not much basis for that in reality okay so epistemic bubbles we can see how they come into existence we can see that they can be epistemically problematic but then you end says they're kind of fragile right as soon as I'm confronted with other people who are not in this bubble and they give me this information that I'm lacking the bubble pops right I get this information that I'm lacking okay it's relatively easy right if today I decided I really want to know more about what's going on in Nigeria I can I can read up on that right I mean there's even an English language newspaper I believe or probably many um I can I can I can I can get that information it's it's in a sense easy so I could just run into the information or I could search it out relatively easily these bubbles it might be a problem but they're not like a terrible problem it's not they're not very resilient well that's very different for Echo Chambers and that's why most of the articles about Echo Chambers so what's the point of echo Chambers well Echo Chambers are sort of social structures that sort of lock you in but if you're in the Echo chamber you start believing like it's part of being in the Echo chamber that you start believing that any information coming from inside the echo chamber is good and reliable and any information coming from outside the echo chamber is bad and unreliable so here's the definition that then you end gives of an echo chamber it's a pretty long definition so I'll I'll talk about each of the parts of the definition as we go through it okay so the first part of the definition definition is this an echo chamber is an epistemic Community which creates a significant disparity in trust that's important a disparity in trust between members and non-members so an echo chamber is a social structure where if I'm in it I have high trust in other members of the echo chamber and low trust in members in known members in people outside of the echo chamber so it's an epistemic Community which creates a significant disparity in trust between the in-group and the out Group by this is the second part of the definition by excluding non-members through epistemic discrediting so the echo chamber functions in such a way that people who don't belong to it are discredited right what we tell each other maybe or what the authority figure in the Echo chamber tells me and what the echo chamber says to reinforce is the idea that these outside sources they're unreliable you can't trust them right they're they're there's epistemic discrediting going on I'm actively being told not to trust those people outside so an echo chamber like I might be part of some um you know listening to some some some like very politically motivated News Channel and all the time they tell me don't believe the mainstream media they are corrupt they're lying to you that would be this that's excluding non-members through epistemic discrediting third part of the definition and amplifying members epistemic credentials so that's the other side you discredit the people outside of the echo chamber you give extra credit to people inside the echo chamber like we are the Warriors for Truth uh who stand opposed to the lying liberal mainstream media right that would be one way uh one kind of echo chamber you know engages in that kind of uh discourse a lot number four fourth part of the definition that this is about what it takes to be a member General agreement with core beliefs is a prerequisite for membership including beliefs that support the disparity and Trust right so you're only really accepted as a member if you believe certain core tenants are usually there are core tennis that have to do with you know whatever this Echo chamber is about maybe it's an echo chamber about right-wing politics maybe it's an echo chamber about climate science denial maybe maybe it's an echo chamber about um oh I don't know a certain diet being the greatest best diet in the world I mean it doesn't have to be political um so General agreement with core beliefs is a prerequisite for membership I mean I have to believe that that diet is like the real thing the only healthy thing for your body um including beliefs that support the disparity and Trust right so it only becomes a real Echo chamber if to be a member I have to I have to sign on well more literally but I have to sort of sign on to this idea that I can only trust the in-group right and that the out group I mean that's the um that's the mainstream food establishment trying to cast doubts on my raw vegetables only diet that's that's sort of part of of being in the Echo chain so it's not just about believing something it's about believing that you are a member of a special in-group who knew the truth and who have to defend themselves against this hostile outside world that's trying to sort of um lead you into full suit okay Echo chamber so I mean there can be political Echo Chambers there can be Echo Chambers about diets or sports regimes or ways of parenting that it can be religious uh Echo Chambers I would say quite obviously and so on and so forth okay here's one special feature that's not part of the definition but kind of important for a thinguan's overall story is what he calls a disagreement reinforcement mechanism and um that's not the most you know maybe obvious term a disagreement reinforcement mechanism but what is what is I think quite clear is the way that is what he means and the way that it works so the idea is that most Echo Chambers have this sort of mechanism where hearing people disagree with the echo chamber with what the the core beliefs of the echo chamber are actually serves to strengthen members beliefs in them right so suppose that I'm part of this sort of echo chamber that always rails against the mainstream media and so now I watch the mainstream media and they they tell a completely different story right a completely different story from what I hear in my echo chamber well what am I going to do I'm going to think oh whoa wait a second maybe maybe my echo chamber is wrong right maybe my beliefs are wrong no of course not right because I've been told I mean it's part of what I believe that the mainstream media are always lying and so the fact that they disagree with me actually strengthens my conviction right and so this is we can here already see why Echo Chambers are really hard to escape from um if you encounter people who disagree with you and you're just in an epistemic bubble that sort of Pops the bubble but if you are in an echo chamber and you meet people who disagree with you whoa that actually strengthens this we versus them right this US versus them this trust versus untrustworthiness uh narrative and so it might actually strengthen your beliefs right disagreement might actually strengthen your own beliefs and make you exclude other people all the more okay so those are the definitions the analysis and now in the final two parts of the paper thinguen is going to talk about uh well first how Echo Chambers allow us to understand like certain phenomena that people have called post-truth and thenuen is going to claim that using like this this theory of echo Chambers actually gives you a much more natural um a much more natural explanation of certain things that are going on than the explanations that are often given so here is something you might might believe about your own society that there's a pretty large group of people who just just denied effects right I mean there are Overworld there's overwhelming evidence for one thing or another maybe there's overwhelming evidence for climate man-made climate change or there's overwhelming evidence that um oh I don't know certain elections were were you know um legitimate or illegitimate or you know it can depend on on the country and so on and so forth so it seems to you that certain groups in society are just they just deny the plane facts so here's one explanation it's to say look we have entered a sort of post-truth society where a lot of people are completely irrational right they don't care about truth anymore they're completely irrational well that's pretty disconcerting but it's also it's also kind of unlikely right I mean are there really so many people who don't believe in truth like I mean do they really just are they totally irrational do they just say whatever they like then why does it sound like they are making claims giving arguments and so on and so forth um it's a it's it's maybe it's a right explanation but it's it's not obviously the right explanation okay so here's what thing you win says he says no look we can explain this with Echo Chambers right I mean once people have entered an echo chamber an echo chamber that tells them that the election was stolen from them or an echo chamber that tells them that climate change is unreal or something like that well that even being epistemically virtuous like caring about truth I mean given that you trust the people inside and that you don't trust the people outside you know it's actually it actually makes epistemic sense to only believe the people inside and not believe the people outside so if you really are sort of caught up in an anti-climate change Echo chamber then you actually seem to have good reasons right even if you are sort of motivated by pursuing the truth you might believe well I shouldn't believe the mainstream media I shouldn't believe the scientists I should believe what I hear on on this Reddit group or that Facebook group or you know that that might be the way that you yourself have actually sort of learned to understand epistemic space um and so thin Yuen says you know if that's what's going on then we don't need to ascribe to those people like brute irrationality or or they don't care for truth or something like that no the problem is they've been caught up in an echo chamber which colors how they think about truth and where they think they can find true and that is also very relevant if we want to understand what we can do with those people because just giving them the evidence it ain't gonna work right you can't just say well here's the evidence right it's from the scientific journals just read it because you know those people don't trust the scientific journals and that means that this is not going to do anything right you can give them the evidence but if they don't trust it it's not going to change their mind so what we know I mean if this is right um if what's going on here are Echo Chambers then we know that increased exposure to the facts or the truth or something like that ain't gonna work that's not really going to help us at all um okay so that brings us to the final part of the uh of the article um well what if people are trapped in Echo Chambers right I mean is it their own fault um can they escape how can they escape what can we do to help them Escape you know those are those are serious practical questions so on the first thing is their own fault uh thinguan says you know it could be it could be their own fault I mean if you decide to only listen to one source of news because you like it and it fits your political beliefs and you you believe it's sort of uncritically until you're sort of being sucked into the echo chamber then you made some mistakes right you made some epistemic mistakes um but even if you stop making epistemic mistakes now it's hard to see how to how to get out and it doesn't have to be that way right it doesn't have to be your own fault I mean you could be sort of born into an echo chamber grow up in an echo chamber so we don't necessarily need to blame people for being in an echo chamber so how do we how how could you get out well we've already seen it's going to be really hard right just engaging with the evidence isn't going to do it because you have no reason to trust the evidence so really what you need in order to get out of an echo chamber is you need something that um calls a reboot right you sort of need to to throw away your old beliefs and start acquiring them Anew and he Likens this to Descartes procedure in the meditations where Descartes says it's pretty much an anti-eco chamber tract in a sense he says you know I have learned so many wrong things since I was young let's throw everything out and start from scratch well that's kind of unrealistic the idea that you by yourself I mean this is what they constantly want to do sort of as an individual start from scratch and get to knowledge uh well you don't have to do that thingy Wang says uh you can rely of course on other people but you have to rely on people outside of the echo chamber right so what you would have to do is you would have to say okay I'm gonna throw away all my old beliefs I'm gonna listen to people outside of my echo chamber um I'm gonna you know maybe not take them completely on trust but I'm I'm gonna approach them with a base level of trust and then maybe I can sort of Reform my beliefs in a way that is more adequate but can we expect people to do that I mean part of the problem is that once you're inside an echo chamber it all seems all right right it seems like you have the right beliefs and the others have the wrong beliefs who else has senior and there's really only sort of well I don't know whether he says that there's only one possible route of Escape but he he talks about one plausible route of Escape um which starts with um with gaining the trust of some people like starting to trust some people outside of your own chamber right and that could could happen maybe in many ways I mean if I'm only if my entire life is spent on this one um corner of the internet where everybody has this sort of echo chamber set of beliefs then it's going to be hard to even find anyone uh who's outside of it but you know probably I meet people in in daily life in all kinds of circumstances if some of them gain my trust right if they become my friends maybe or at least I think of them as you know serious people and it turns out that they don't agree with me about certain of these these core beliefs of my echo chamber um you know then maybe maybe slowly I start becoming a little bit less certain of what's going on how effective this is how exactly we have to do this in practice I mean he says you know this is something that we have to think about a lot more um but I think his core idea here is pretty plausible it's what I would call the trust first idea right I mean you can't you can't come with the truth or the facts or the evidence or something like that you've got to have trust in people first you've got to get people to trust you first and only once there is sort of a baseline of human communication and people assume that at least what you say is set in good faith and so on and so forth right only then can you sort of really get into the content and maybe change people's minds so overall I think uh theme Wang's distinction between epistemic Bubbles and Echo Chambers is very useful and I think the analysis of echo Chambers like the role that they play in in post-truth phenomena and this idea of the the Primacy of trust as I have called it I think those are very good points so um I hope this was enjoyable and useful to you and I'll see you in another video