Jetzt kostenlos testen

Nach 30 Tagen 9,95 € pro Monat. Jederzeit kündbar.

ODER
Im Warenkorb

Bist du Amazon Prime-Mitglied?

Audible 60 Tage kostenlos testen

    Inhaltsangabe

    Arming Americans to defend the truth from today’s war on facts.

    Disinformation. Trolling. Conspiracies. Social media pile-ons. Campus intolerance. On the surface, these recent additions to our daily vocabulary appear to have little in common. But together, they are driving an epistemic crisis: a multifront challenge to America’s ability to distinguish fact from fiction and elevate truth above falsehood.

    In 2016, Russian trolls and bots nearly drowned the truth in a flood of fake news and conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump and his troll armies continued to do the same. Social media companies struggled to keep up with a flood of falsehoods and too often didn’t even seem to try. Experts and some public officials began wondering if society was losing its grip on truth itself. Meanwhile, another new phenomenon appeared: “cancel culture”. At the push of a button, those armed with a cellphone could gang up by the thousands on anyone who ran afoul of their sanctimony.

    In this pathbreaking book, Jonathan Rauch reaches back to the parallel 18th-century developments of liberal democracy and science to explain what he calls the “Constitution of Knowledge” - our social system for turning disagreement into truth.

    By explicating the Constitution of Knowledge and probing the war on reality, Rauch arms defenders of truth with a clearer understanding of what they must protect, why they must do - and how they can do it. His book is a sweeping and listenable description of how every American can help defend objective truth and free inquiry from threats as far away as Russia and as close as the cellphone.

    ©2021 Jonathan Rauch (P)2021 Blackstone Publishing

    Das sagen andere Hörer zu The Constitution of Knowledge

    Bewertung
    Gesamt
    • 4.5 out of 5 stars
    • 5 Sterne
      4
    • 4 Sterne
      2
    • 3 Sterne
      0
    • 2 Sterne
      0
    • 1 Stern
      0
    Sprecher
    • 4.5 out of 5 stars
    • 5 Sterne
      3
    • 4 Sterne
      2
    • 3 Sterne
      0
    • 2 Sterne
      0
    • 1 Stern
      0
    Geschichte
    • 4 out of 5 stars
    • 5 Sterne
      4
    • 4 Sterne
      0
    • 3 Sterne
      0
    • 2 Sterne
      0
    • 1 Stern
      1

    Rezensionen - mit Klick auf einen der beiden Reiter können Sie die Quelle der Rezensionen bestimmen.

    Sortieren nach:
    Filtern:
    • Gesamt
      5 out of 5 stars
    • Sprecher
      5 out of 5 stars
    • Geschichte
      5 out of 5 stars

    Clearly written and well argued.

    I had all ready read “Kindly Inquisitors” of Rauch. But I actually liked this book even more. It felt as if an understanding of what is wrong with social media and the humanities, and why and how they can be bettered, found its expression on these pages. How do we insure that we learn and are guided by knowledge producing, error-correcting institutions. How do we level critique of ideas without sliding into cancelling (culture). Sapere Aude, have the courage to know, was the motto according to Kant. Rauch encourages us to stop being moderate and truth-oriented snowflakes, and stand up and out for what we believe. If we have good reasons for our believes, others will understand them, and we are unlikely to stand alone with them. A vocal, irrational, incoherent and cancel-eager minority can too easily silence an unorganised majority.

    • Gesamt
      4 out of 5 stars
    • Sprecher
      4 out of 5 stars
    • Geschichte
      1 out of 5 stars

    Ein parteiischer Akteur

    Statt einer kritischen Auseinandersetzung mit dem aktuell grassierenden Verfall der Wahrheit und des Wahrheitsanspruchs in Öffentlichkeit und Politik ergießt sich der Autor ausschließlich in einseitiger Schuldverschreibungen gegen den bösen Trump.

    Das Buch, dass ja immerhin den Anspruch erhebt Grundlagen im Sinne einer Verfassung zur Wahrheit zu schaffen, ist ein politisch einseitiges Hitpiece.

    Ich finde das sehr schade, da eine neutrale und tiefe Auseinandersetzung mit dem Thema Wahrheit, Politik und Journalismus gerade von enormer Wichtigkeit wäre.