The seeds of a critical understanding of reality were planted in the age of the Enlightenment, where Western societies developed mechanisms to identify the truth, not the least of which was the scientific method. What has developed since these initial revelations is what Jonathon Rauch calls the “Constitution of Knowledge.” The foundational pillar of this process of knowledge is freedom of speech, which allows anyone and everyone to state a hypothesis. Experts in the field of inquiry then evaluate this hypothesis’s validity and society as a whole accepts the knowledge derived from this method as accurate, or at least plausible until a better argument can be made on the matter. This ensures that there is no central intellectual arbiter. Authority is ceded to a wide network of the various institutions, professional and educational bodies and peer-reviewed journals that continue to add to the understanding of reality. In this system, only the most persuasive of theories will prevail in what is termed “the marketplace of ideas.” The Constitution of Knowledge is inextricably linked to the United States Constitution, in that it is the survival of the former that ensures the survival of the latter. The Constitution of Knowledge is the founding doctrine which safeguards the pursuit of truth. A well-informed public is the only defense against tyranny and chaos.
In Response to Jonathon Rauch’s The Constitution of Knowledge
The German poet Friedrich Hölderlin, in his classically inspired hymn “Patmos,” calls forth the triumph of human hope in the face of utter peril: “But where the danger is, also grows the saving power.” While the recent dangers that have threatened humankind have been the creations of humankind itself, it may just be that the very same tools that have endangered our collective existence and obstructed our progress will be the lynchpin of our flourishing.
The seeds of a critical understanding of reality were planted in the age of the Enlightenment, where Western societies developed mechanisms to identify the truth, not the least of which was the scientific method. What has developed since these initial revelations is what Jonathon Rauch calls the “Constitution of Knowledge.” The foundational pillar of this process of knowledge is freedom of speech, which allows anyone and everyone to state a hypothesis. Experts in the field of inquiry then evaluate this hypothesis’s validity and society as a whole accepts the knowledge derived from this method as accurate, or at least plausible until a better argument can be made on the matter. This ensures that there is no central intellectual arbiter. Authority is ceded to a wide network of the various institutions, professional and educational bodies and peer-reviewed journals that continue to add to the understanding of reality. In this system, only the most persuasive of theories will prevail in what is termed “the marketplace of ideas.” The Constitution of Knowledge is inextricably linked to the United States Constitution, in that it is the survival of the former that ensures the survival of the latter. The Constitution of Knowledge is the founding doctrine which safeguards the pursuit of truth. A well-informed public is the only defense against tyranny and chaos.
The principles of the Constitution of Knowledge are the bedrock of constructive dialogue within society. Their contribution to the investigation of reality ensures the progress of knowledge and the distinguishment of truth from error. Rauch proposes the Constitution of Knowledge as an informal but mandatory agreement that must be acknowledged by anyone sincerely wishing to join the socially diverse discussion on the nature of objective reality. The epistemic core of the reality-based community is its belief that by combining its shared knowledge on the nature of reality(Popper’s "world of objective contents and thoughts”), the liberal sciences create knowledge. Rauch iterates:
“If we care about knowledge, freedom, and peace, then we need to stake a strong claim: anyone can believe anything, but liberal science— open-ended, depersonalized checking by an error-seeking social network— is the only legitimate validator of knowledge, at least in the reality-based community”(Rauch, pg.102.)
The foundational problem for every culture is how societies might come to some kind of public agreement on the truth. There are many ways to settle the questions concerning reality. Authoritarianism seeks to resolve the problem with brute force and intimidation. One of Rauch’s favorites, Charles Sanders Peirce, claimed “When complete agreement could not otherwise be reached, a general massacre of all who have not thought in a certain way has proved a very effective means of settling opinion in a country.” Rauch touts the only way to avoid such repercussions would be to utilize unanimity. Within a democratic discussion, in which all parties are given the opportunity and consideration, conclusions are reached by consensus or compromise. The task of the Constitution of Knowledge is to create the most lucrative context for these important dialogues.
To "compel and organize social negotiation” is Rauch’s explanation for what both The United States Constitution and the Constitution of Knowledge do. And they both force compromise between competing groups in order to accomplish the ends in which they strive. Rauch credits James Madison for developing the idea that by pitting one group or individual against the others in the right institutional arrangement "the system could harness the only force capable of containing and channeling ambition: namely, ambition itself,” “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition”(Rauch, pg.95.) For one party to accomplish anything it would need the cooperation of the other parties involved. And so a compromise must be reached. This is both what sets the social and political orders in motion and what keeps them from dissipating into tribal anarchy.
The two fundamental rules in which the reality-based community must operate in order to function correctly are the fallibilist rule and the empirical rule. "Propositions have no volition and can do nothing on their own”(pg.104). Once a proposition is considered seriously in the reality-based network it interacts with others by being modified, accepted, or rejected. These adjustments ensure the proposition’s validity. The rule of fallibilism provides the equivalence to the US Constitution’s checks and balances. A proposition may be accepted as knowledge only after long debate and scrutiny over its merits. The empirical rule ensures that no one is given sovereign authority over what may be established as the truth. As Rauch so eloquently put it:
“You may claim that a statement has been established as knowledge only insofar as the method used to check it gives the same result regardless of the identity of the checker, and regardless of the source of the statement”(Rauch, pg. 108.)
No one person or group gets the upper hand in distinguishing the validity of a statement. The beauty of the fallibilist and empiricist rule is that anyone and everyone must, in theory, be able to affirm or reject the truthfulness of the proposition in order for its merits to be accepted into the reality-based community.
In order to maintain a thriving intellectual climate, compromise is essential for all parties involved. No one person or group has absolute authority on even the most infinitesimal of factors involved. An evolving discussion rests on the respectful ceding of its interlocutors to each other. The containment of selfish ambition was what James Madison found as the necessary compromise that ensured the balance of a political system without a centralized authority. "By protecting criticism and dethroning authority” the two rules of the reality-based community "protect freedom of expression”(pg.106.) Compromise in a reality-based community involves the parties involved to have both the freedom to express their viewpoints and the burden of having their viewpoints criticized for a proper evaluation to be in operation. "If you are reality-based, you are in the business of seeking non-coercive ways to adjudicate disputes about reality”(pg.104.)” No man’s ideas are an island of perfect sound judgment. One must persuade others of the validity of the proposition at hand. “Critical persuasion” requires a strategy to recruit others in one’s endeavors, which requires refining and adapting the ideas to meet the acceptance of others. Rauch notes that "In any given discussion, the network will form fluid, shifting nodes of agreement and disagreement, support and antagonism, alliances and arguments”(pg.112.) Without compromise, without the seeking and correcting of errors, individuals are left to continue in error. When authors are not held accountable for the merits of their work, the system no longer functions to a degree in which engenders successful adjudication of the truth. The individuals form factions based upon the errors they cling to and remain in disagreement and error indefinitely. Intellectual inquiry requires the compromise and cooperation of others or remains stilted in stagnation. Nothing but the brute force of opposing views would move the parties to eventual consensus, and even then the matter would remain inconclusive.
"Constant negotiation across the network”(pg.110) requires its interlocutors to "follow elaborate norms and procedures”(pg.111.) The Constitution of Knowledge has rules and "in our anti-institutional age, defending rules is even harder; and the rules, as we will see, have enemies"(pg.111.) In order to participate in the creation of reality-based knowledge participants must abide by the customs and manners of the Constitution of Knowledge. Mutual respect and a willingness to listen to what others have to say are of the utmost importance in discussions across the board. Acceptance that one’s own authority rests on the acknowledgment of others is the requirement to join the conversation. The distribution of authority remains strewn among a collective with equal opportunity to investigate, affirm or deny a proposition validity. The Constitution of Knowledge demands its practitioners practice self-correction as the acceptance of error by the individual and the taking of the necessary steps to amend and adjust in order to meet community standards. Without the humbleness of accepting one’s errors, one’s participation will not be guaranteed or even noticed. The system must be regulated, the rules are there to make the game fair and the stability and dynamism of the Constitution of Knowledge are dependent on the adherence of its members to the norms of behavior related to the field in which it is taking place.
[...]