9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So imagine that you had[br]your smartphone minituarized 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and hooked up directly to your brain. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 If you had this sort of brain chip, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you'd be able to upload and download[br]to the Internet at the speed of thought. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Accessing social media or Wikipedia[br]would be a lot like -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 well, from the inside at least -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 like consulting your own memory. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It would be as easy[br]and as intimate as thinking. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But would it make it easier[br]for you to know what's true? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Just because a way[br]of accessing information is faster 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 doesn't mean it's[br]more reliable of course, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and it doesn't mean that we would all[br]interpret it the same way. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It doesn't mean that you would be[br]any better at evaluating it, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in fact you might even we worse 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because, you know, more data,[br]less time for evaluation. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Something like this is already[br]happening to us right now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We already carry a world of information[br]around in our pockets, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but it seems as if the more information[br]that we share and access online, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the more difficult it can be 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 for us to tell the difference between[br]what's real and what's fake. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's as if we know more[br]but understand less. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Now, it's a feature of modern like, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I supposed, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that large swaths of the public [br]live in isolated information bubbles. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We're polarized not just over values[br]but over the facts, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and one reason for that[br] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is that the data analytics[br]that drive the Internet 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 get us not just more information[br]but more of the information that we want. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Our online life is personalized, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 everything from the ads we read 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to the news that comes down[br]our Facebook feed 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is tailored to satisfy our preferences. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And so while we get more information, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a lot of that information ends up[br]reflecting ourselves 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as much as it does reality. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It ends up, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I suppose, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 inflating our bubbles rather[br]than bursting them. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And so maybe it's not surprise 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that we're in a situation -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a paradoxical situation of thinking[br]that we know so much more 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and yet not agreeing[br]on what it is we know. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So how are we going to solve[br]this problem of knowledge polarization? 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 One obvious tactic is to try[br]to fix our technology -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to redesign our digital platform 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 so as to make them less[br]susceptible to polarization. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And I'm happy to report that many[br]smart people at Google and Facebook 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 are working on just that. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 These projects are vital. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think that fixing technology[br]is obviously really important, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but I don't think[br]that technology alone -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 fixing it is going to solve the problem[br]of knowledge polarization. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I don't think that because I don't think, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 at the end of the day, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it is a technological problem. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think it's a human problem, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 having to do with how we think[br]a what we value. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 In order to solve it, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think we're going to need help. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We're going to need help from psychology[br]and political science, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but we're also going to need help,[br]I think, from philosophy. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Because to solve the problem[br]of knowledge polarization, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we're going to need to reconnect with one[br]fundament, philosophical idea -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that we live in a common reality. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The idea of a common reality is like, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I suppose, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a lot of philosophical concepts -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 easy to state, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but mysteriously difficult[br]to put into practice. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To really accept it, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think we need to do three things, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 each of which is a challenge right now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 First, we need to believe in truth. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You might have noticed that our culture 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is having something of a troubled[br]relationship with that concept right now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It seems as if we disagree so much that, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as one political commentator[br]put it not long ago, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it's as if there are no facts anymore. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But that thought is actually an expression 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of a sort of seductive line[br]of argument that's in the air. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It goes like this: 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we just can't step outside of our[br]own perspectives; 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we can't step outside of our biases. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Every time we try, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we just get more information[br]from our perpesctive. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So, this line of thought goes, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we might as well admit[br]that objective truth is an illusion, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or it doesn't matter, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because either we'll never know what it is[br]or it doesn't exist in the first place. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That's not a new philosophical thought -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 skepticism about truth. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 During the end of the last century, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as some of you know, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 it was very popular in certain[br]academic circles. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But it really goes back all the way[br]to the Greek philosopher Protagoras, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if not father back. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Protagoras said that objective[br]truth was an illusion 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because man is the measure of all things. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Man is the measure of all things. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That can seem like a bracing bit[br]of real politic to people, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or liberating because it allows each of us[br]to discover or make our own truth. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But actually, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think it's a bit of self-serving[br]rationalization disguised as philosophy. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It confuses the difficulty of being[br]certain with the possibility of truth. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Look, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of course it's difficult[br]to be certain about anything, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we might all be living in "The Matrix," 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you might have a brain chip in your head[br]feeding you all the wrong information. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But in practice, we do agree[br]on all sorts of facts. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We agree that bullets can kill people. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We agree that you can't flap[br]your arms and fly. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We agree -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or we should -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that there is an external reality, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and ignoring it can get you hurt. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Nonetheless, skepticism[br]about truth can be tempting 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because it allows us to rationalize[br]away our own biases. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 When we do that, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we're sort of like the guy in the movie[br]who knew he was living in "The Matix," 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but decided he liked it there anyway. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 After all, getting what you[br]want feels good. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Being right all the time feels good. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So often it's easier for us to wrap[br]ourselves in our cozy information bubbles, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 live in bad faith, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and take those bubbles[br]as the measure of reality. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 An example I think of how[br]this bad faith gets into our action 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is our reaction to the[br]phenomenon of fake news. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The fake news that spread on the Internet 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 during the American[br]presidential election of 2016 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 was designed to feed into our biases, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 designed to inflate our bubbles. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But what was really striking about it 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 was not just that it[br]fooled so many people. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 What was really striking to me[br]about fake news, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the phenomenon, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is how quickly it itself became[br]the subject of knowledge polarization. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So much so that the very term -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the very term, "fake news," 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 now just means "news story I don't like." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That's an example of the bad faith[br]towards the truth that I'm talking about. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But the really, I think, dangerous thing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 about skepticism with regard to truth 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is that it leads to despotism. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Man is the measure of all things"[br] 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 inevitably becomes "the man[br]is the measure of all things." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Just as, "every man for himself" seems[br]to turn out to be 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "only the strong survive." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 At the end of Orwell's "1984," 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 the thought policeman O'Brien[br]is torturing the protagonist, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Winston Smith, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 into believe two plus two equals five. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 What O'Brien says is the point 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is that he wants to convince Smith[br]that whatever the party says is the truth, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and the truth is whatever the party says. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And what O'Brien knows is that[br]once this thought is accepted, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 critical descent is impossible. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 You can't speak truth to power 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if the power speaks truth by definition. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 OK, so I said that in order to accept[br]that we really live in a common reality 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we have to do three things. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The first thing is to believe in truth. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 The second thing can be summed up 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by the Latin phrase that Kant took[br]as the motto for the enlightenment. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Sapere aude, or "dare to know," 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or as Kant [.... it], 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 "Dare to know for yourself." 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I think in the early days of the Internet, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 a lot of us thought that information[br]technology was always 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 going to make it easier[br]for us to know for ourselves, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and of course in many ways, it has. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But as the Internet has become[br]more and more a part of our lives, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 our reliance on it, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 our use of it has become[br]often more passive. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Much of what we know today[br]we Google now. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We download prepackaged sets of facts 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and sort of shuffle them along[br]the assembly line of social media. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Google knowing is useful 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 because it involves a sort of[br]intellectual outsourcing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We offload our effort onto a network[br]of others and algorithms. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And that allows us of course[br]to not clutter our minds 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 with all sorts of facts. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We can just download them[br]when we need them, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and that's awesome. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But there's a difference between[br]downloading a set of facts 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and really understanding how[br]or why those facts are as they are. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Understanding why[br]a particular disease spreads, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or how a mathematical proof works, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or why your friend is depressed 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 involves more than just downloading. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's going to require, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 most likely, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 doing some work for yourself. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Having a little creative insight. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Using your imagination, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 getting out into the field, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 doing the experiment, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 working through the proof, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 talking to someone. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I'm not saying of course that we[br]should stop Google-knowing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I'm just saying we shouldn't[br]overvalue it either. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We need to find ways of encouraging[br]forms of knowing that are more active 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and don't always involve passing off[br]our effort into our bubble. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Because the thing about Google-knowing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 is that too often it ends up[br]being bubble-knowing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And bubble-knowing means[br]always being right. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But daring to know, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 daring to understand, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 means risking the possibility[br]that you could be wrong. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It means risking the possibility 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 that what you want and what's true[br]are different things. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Which brings me to the third thing[br]that I think we need to do 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if we want to accept that we live[br]in a common reality. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That third thing is[br]have a little humility. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 By humility here, I mean[br]epistemic humility, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 which means, in a sense, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 knowing that you don't know at all. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But it also means something[br]more than that. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It means seeing your worldview[br]as open to improvement 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by the evidence and experience of others. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Seeing your worldview[br]as open to improvement 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 by the evidence of experience of others. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That's more than just being[br]open to change. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's more than just being open[br]to self-improvement. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It means seeing your knowledge[br]as capable of enhancing 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 or being enriched by[br]what others contribute. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That's part of what is involved 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 in recognizing that there's[br]a common reality, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 you too are responsible for. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 I don't think it's much of a stretch 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to say that our society is not[br]particularly great 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 at enhancing or encouraging[br]that sort of humility. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 That's partly because, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 well, we tend to confuse[br]arrogance and confidence. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And it's partly because, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 well, you know, arrogance is just easier. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's just easier to think[br]of yourself as knowing it all. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 It's just easier to think of yourself[br]as having it all figured out. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But that's another example 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 of the bad faith towards the truth[br]that I've been talking about. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 So the concept of a common reality, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 like a lot of philosophical concepts, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 can seem so obvious that we[br]can look right past it 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and forget why it's important. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Democracies can't function[br]if their citizens don't stive, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 at least some of the time, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to inhabit a common space. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 A space where they can pass[br]ideas back and forth when -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 and especially when -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 they disagree. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 But you can't strive to inhabit that space 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if you don't already accept[br]that you live in the same reality. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 To accept that we've[br]got to believe in truth, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we've got to encourage[br]more active ways of knowing. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 And we've got to have the humility 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 to realize that we're not[br]the measure of all things. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 We may yet one day realize the vision[br]of having the Internet in our brains, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 but if we want that to be liberating[br]and not terrifying, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 if we want it to expand our understanding[br]and not just our passive knowing, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 we need to remember[br]that our perspectives, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 as wondrous, as beautiful as they are, 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 are just that -- 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 perspectives on one reality. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 Thank you. 9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000 (Applause)