Saving Knowledge: A Conversation Between Jonathan Haidt and Jonathan Rauch 

Wonderful conversation between two inquisitive and open minds - and why I love the Heterodox Academy so much!

Thank you for having this conversation. I thought professional ethics were extinct, thank you for restoring faith in Journalism and Academia.

"How much we need to hold our conclusions tentatively and send them out for social testing" Dr. Haidt, I appreciate that comment, as it highlights a essential element of science in the social sciences and related fields. As Karl Popper said, "The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever." Restoring that rigor, and healthy self-doubt in scientists, would be an enormous step in restoring public confidence.

I love being a part of Heterodox Academy! Immensely thankful for this guild and the value it’s brought to my life.

One problem here is that even faculty under attack sometimes do not want to be helped or supported publicly. Until the process is over and they have finally been exiled (or maybe even after!) they fear further "retaliation." Remarkable how vulnerable faculty can be.

Technical query for anyone! Jonathan Rauch, in his conversation with Steven Pinker, says that when he’s talking about ‘truth’, really he’s talking about objective knowledge (and again here at 13:25). But if ‘knowledge’ is defined as justified true belief, does that make ‘truth’ objectively justified true belief? It’s at slight risk of being a circular definition, but perhaps it’s about the shift from ‘true’ as an adjective to ‘truth’ as a noun. I’ve never really been a fan of ‘truth’ as a noun, including truth tables in logic because they regard both true AND false values, not just true values. We wouldn’t call a heads and tails table a heads table, we’d call it a coin table. I otherwise accept objective knowledge as the thing that the reality community seeks and protects, but perhaps it has less public brand power than the already established word ‘truth’

Imense gratitude for your insightful and powerful conversation…I viewed this twice more.

This was a great conversation between two of my favorite Jonathans (other than me).

Gentlemen , thank you for such reasonable reasoning . I really wish that my daughter would listen closely to this podcast . She is really a very decent person ...

Thank you for the conversation, very insightful. I tend to agree with Mr Haidt, the problem in American media is larger than Academia, specially because it impacts a wider range of people and the economic incentives making it harder to revert the trend. I think that the issue in Academia is not extended to all universities and it is possible to mitigate. My question is why is this much worse in America than continental Europe (both Media and Academia).

10:38 what happens without TCoK 14:56 analogy with US constitution 27:57 silence people to falsify consensus

Thank you for the wonderful talk

Please answer the question about the psychological reality or lack thereof of the claim of traumatisation.

Excellent.

Excellent conversation. I do take issue with placing the duty and obligations of maintaining our precious right to free speech and thought to "the professionals". It is precisely this group who have let our society down. We have a duty and obligation as a society to inculcate the values of free speech and thought to all citizens and here, it was the "professionals" who have failed society and it is mostly the "nonprofessionals" who have pushed back. Is this not the essence of what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

Interesting, and a lot to agree with. But he gives way to much weight to the value of the “professional” classes/experts. They are not necessarily the best at what they do. There is so much good journalism done by independent journalism ie not through the mainstream outlets which are generally owned by a few corporations. Related to that, journalism easily devolves into careerism. Full of paradoxes here as there are too many hacks. But we have to let the hacks speak, and it’s not realistic to stop the flood of disinformation. Not realistic to think we can put a stopper on the non reality based ubiquitous non factual opinion that people are exposed to. There are lots of competent journalists out there, but are ultimately not independent. There comes a point in certain areas past which they will not go. Their corporate masters will not allow it. Manufactured consent is real. Just ask Chris hedges who was a long time nyt reporter and bureau chief in several war zones. He is effectively silenced by the professionals (more the owners of media). Ever since he was booed off the stage while speaking out agains the illegal, immoral Iraq war at a commencement he has become a pariah. There are many other examples. While hedges is a trained journalist, there are lots of citizens doing great work without having gone to Columbia. …. I could be wrong….🤔🙂

Dear Jon Rauch: Gamergate was about ethics in games journalism. k thx!

Note arguments against Free Speech and Free Inquiry are typically moral in nature. The opponents of Free Speech are essentially claiming there is a moral obligation to be stupid. This isn't a stupidity merely in lacking knowledge, a problem easily corrected and impossible to avoid at all times. It consists in faulty analysis or even explicit opposition to analysis. Note the frequent use of strawman attacks or ad hominem and direct opposition to objectivity. What is objectivity in analysis but taking pains to avoid egocentrism or sociocentrism? The moral/religious position doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so scrutiny must be discouraged. This might be worse than previous religious attacks on science. Objections cut to the root of science into epistemology. As such it isn't merely evolution denial or believing the world is flat. It's at attempt to eradicate "is" in the first place. "If there is evidence the world doesn't work as I'd like it to, the evidence is a lie, or the world is a lie."

hello, i am writing my bachelor thesis on liberal science at the moment. can you recommend me a scholar who is representative for the egalitarian principle of "all viewpoints are equal, but victims' voices should be given special attention", and "the open contestation of ideas without regulation is oppressive to marginalized groups"? I think it would be good to name authors who are behind this assault against the empirical rule, so as not to straw-men the egalitarian movement still alive today. you mention sandra harding in your book, but her standpoint epistemology does not actually say that all viewpoints are equal, and that obejctivity is completely impossible. which scholar exactly are you referring to? judith butler maybe? thank you for your help.

My biggest complaint about Jonathan is that he assumes good faith on the other side. This is a reasonable assumption for most of the population, but for an influential few, especially on the critical theory side, bad faith is a given. For critical theorists, power is all that exists and any action, any deceit is acceptable in their pursuit of it. (This isn't a libel - refer to James Lindsay's analysis of their key texts - they say so themselves.)

am 13

The medical student wasn't so lucky but I hope he's doing well.

35:00 Farmers make millions apiece??! I grew up in a farming community with farming families and most were barely scraping by, some had one partner in the couple with a “day job” to help with family finances. They were not making “1 million a piece”, far from it.

I've listened to NPR for over fifty years / The last few years within three or four mins. NPR is extolling some 'woke' nonsense . I can't trust NPR anymore ... It is so discouraging thus so sad ...

Intimidation tactics show a lack of ethics.

One day I would like to see some professor, any professor, take on the obvious nonsense that takes place in visual arts departments all over the western world. Students are regularly indoctrinated into ideologies that throw the reality based world into the bin in favour of a subjective and totally emotional viewpoint of the world, but by creating objects that for all we can see don't express much of anything at all. It's incredibly divisional and works against young people who show some real talent and a desire to take part in a wider world rather than an ideological enclave.

Is there ever any accountability for professors who propound Progressive political ideas and who excoriated differing views as racist or backward, etc.? Ever?

TDS starts at 27:00 and he starts making up examples which don't exist in reality out of his own delusional mind.

I really enjoy and get so much out of both of these men. However, I would like for Jonathan to have a conversation with someone that would point out the incredible amount of lies on the left. It wasn't just Trump. He learned everything from watching the democratic party from which he sprung. We had four years of Russian collusion lies and continue with the lies now about Covid, Afghanistan, about the border. Military leaders are not held accountable. I would submit Trump is the same as Biden they are just saying lies from a different perspective.

Jonathon Rauch's understanding of Trump and the Right is just plain bigoted and wrong. I stopped listening once he allowed his own political bias to take over.