Truth, Lies, and the Internet
Truth, Lies, and the Internet
Two things compete for control over our beliefs: facts and falsehoods. That is, people form beliefs sometimes as a result of facts—in which case their beliefs are true—and sometimes as a result of lies they have been told—in which case their beliefs are false. The factual falsehood of lies is no impediment to their being believed; indeed, it sometimes seems that the efficacy of lies in producing beliefs is at least the equal of the efficacy of facts. Why is this—what accounts for the efficacy of lies in the formation of human belief? Why are lies such efficient shapers of belief? The main reason is surely that lies are commonly designed so as to conform to human psychology: the liar constructs his lie so as to fit the emotions, prejudices, tribal loyalties, and wishes of the recipient of the lie. Facts, on the other hand, enjoy no such power: the world is not designed so as to accommodate human psychology. Facts are what they are independently of human psychology or individual preference. They are not agents at all; they don’t set out to generate beliefs intentionally. They are not a type of propaganda. So, they don’t have the advantage of catering to what people want to believe, or can’t help believing, or are amused to believe. But the lie can be calibrated and calculated to reflect the vagaries of the human mind; so it enjoys a power not possessed by facts. Facts can easily produce cognitive dissonance in the human mind, but lies can readily be constructed so as to soothe and satisfy the mind. We can be reluctant to accept the facts, given our antecedent state of mind, but the skilled liar knows how to make his falsehoods welcome. Thus, lies have an inbuilt advantage over facts as belief generators. Facts are not even trying to convince you of anything, but liars use every resource to get you to accept their assertions.
In addition to this, there is an asymmetry in the consequences of challenging facts and challenging lies. No fact is insulted if you challenge it: the equal lines in the Muller-Lyer illusion are not affronted when you claim they are unequal, but the liar will take umbrage if you suggest that he is purveying a falsehood. There is a social cost in challenging the liar that does not exist in the case of facts. If you call someone a liar, expect them to take offence (or pretend to): for it is generally regarded as wrong to lie (but it is not wrong of physical objects to mislead you by their appearance). This is because (as Kant insisted) lying takes place against a background of generally accepted testimony: we hear what people say and we generally accept it as truthful. Society depends on such a practice (which is why the habitual liar is abhorred). The liar is parasitic on the truth-teller. And the lie is inherently indistinguishable from the true statement: there is no mark or sound to signal that a lie is being told. The lie takes place within a respectable social context, it carries no sign of its status as a lie, and it is designed so as to accommodate human psychology. But the fact enjoys no such privileges: facts don’t care about the social costs of disbelief, or about whether we trust them or not. Lies, on the other hand, carry heavy psychological baggage: it is difficult to recognize them as such, and there are social costs to calling them by their proper name. Then too, lies can be targeted toward susceptible groups, whereas facts don’t do any targeting at all (though truth-tellers may select which facts to convey to recipients). Nor can facts avail themselves of the devices of rhetoric, not being linguistic items at all, while lies can dress themselves in rhetorical finery. The fact is on its own, so speak, in generating belief, and it is indifferent as to what beliefs it generates. It is underpowered compared to the lie, lacking in belief-generating resources. Nor is it always accessible to our cognitive faculties: many facts are completely unobservable and can only be known by shaky inference. It can be a laborious process to discover the facts, whereas the lie promises to give us the truth with no effort at all—just believe what you are told! Thus, lies seem to have a distinct advantage when it comes to belief formation: facts can’t compete with their inherent power to persuade. And, of course, we are fallible about facts, so we can’t guarantee that truth will be the result of seeking them out; the lie, by contrast, is presented immediately to the mind, inviting belief. No wonder lies are so widely believed and facts regularly ignored or denied.
The Internet is well designed to capitalize on these properties of lies. For it allows lies to be spread with all the resources of propaganda; it allows for targeting of susceptible recipients; and it promotes lies without the possibility of cross-examination. This last point is important: one disadvantage of the lie is that an audience can challenge the liar by asking questions; but on the Internet, there is no such confrontation. The liar can be anonymous, and he is not face to face with the person he is trying to mislead and thus open to cross-examination. Couple this with judicious targeting and you remove the possibility of exposing the lie. What the Internet has added to traditional lying is distant lying: lying with minimal risk of embarrassing exposure. The Internet liar is spared the problem of defending his lie in the face of skeptical listeners, or at least this problem can be more easily deferred and deflected than in a face-to-face encounter. The Internet has greatly empowered the liar, given him greater scope and immunity to correction. What we now call “social media” is the perfect environment for the propagation of lies. The lying meme survives and spreads in this digital ecosystem. Facts are remote from it; words are the medium in which belief is formed. The virtual world is thus a world of lies, or can easily become so. One wonders whether facts can retain their old hold on belief in this new world, or whether lies will maintain their grip on belief, even strengthening it. We must not underestimate the power of lies given the right environment. Lies are actively opposed to facts, but facts are not actively opposed to anything, and don’t have the best PR.
Colin McGinn
I think you have hit the nail on the head, though I don’t think facts help themselves. I’ve lost count of the many things that were facts in my lifetime, that are now no longer facts – transitory facts. If a fact can be challenged and disproved, it could never have been a fact in the first place I suppose, but it felt like one at the time . Thus many facts appear to be built on shaky ground and no fact seems safe. Of course there are many facts that we can rely on, because we have first hand experience, but farther away it’s hard to feel certain.
God and religion must have seemed factual to those who were brought up in that way. The various interpretations of God have fallen away for many and even though these were never facts, there is a loss of certainty that influences us at some level I think, anything can be challenged.
Scientific discoveries are revised or subsequently proven to be incorrect. Things we thought the universe did – it doesn’t, scientists baffled by new discovery – how many times have I read that.
Israel and Palestine – Wikipedia is the new battleground, will I ever know or believe anything written about them ever again? I suppose somewhere out there – there are all the little bits of paper, film footage, eye-witness accounts, dead bodies, pieces of bomb, but it’s all so complex – can any description of it ever truly be truth or are they all just interpretations to be argued over.
And now to liars…,,,everybody wants to be looked up to or feel important, be the star, win the argument. I don’t know about the reality of the ego, but ego seems to me to be the driving force on the net – making the owner feel good about themselves. Facts and lies don’t matter in that context, they’re just tools – winning the argument does. Long before the internet, people were taught how to win arguments (in the great debating chambers) or learnt how to in the playground or the pub- you can win an argument and be completely wrong. It’s just showing off your technique.
One thing that gives me hope, is that with advent of AI and deepfakes (Johnny cash singing Barbie Girl etc) – the internet will be mortally wounded. Never again will anyone be able to trust a single thing on it. The currency of internet “facts” will go the way of the Tulips as they were only worth anything when people believed in their value – confidence in that currency will collapse and we will have to find our facts in a non-digital manner. The internet will just be for pure entertainment (if it isn’t already) and facts can sit comfortably, gathering dust in a library (at least for the time they remain facts).
I do think the Internet has almost reached a tipping-point where it loses all credibility except in mundane matters. We must of course distinguish real facts from putative facts, and real facts never change.
I remember reading a book review once with a paragraph featuring example after example of how natural and widespread it is to find “lying” in nature. The angler fish. Octopuses changing color. Moths signaling “No, I’m not a moth, I’m a piece of bark on a tree. Trap-door spiders. Invisible spider’s webs signal “No, there’s no cause for concern here!” It’s sad to reflect on how prevalent dishonesty and deceit is in the natural world. Concerning H. sapiens, I’ve long wished to see polygraphing used more frequency. For example, for engaging in studies. How much of what people say is true, is not true? It bugs me when for example the NY Times writes “___% of the American public believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen.” No. That percentage of Americans *say* they believe the election was stolen. You can’t know what they believe based on what they *say* they believe. (It’s also ironic, since Trump was the one who literally did attempt to steal it.) Same with religion. Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many people actually *believe* what they say they believe?
You are quite right: not only do people not always believe what they say they do; it is also unclear quite what belief is. The word might cover many types of psychological state.