学术资讯｜政治哲学工作坊第六十二讲：危机应对中的虚假信息

Organizer:

Topic:

Speaker:

Moderator:

Time:

VOOV:

ABSTRACT:

The novel coronavirus confronted us with questions as old as democracy:  what is the proper role of experts in a system of popular self-rule?  How much power should democracies cede to experts, and how should it hold them accountable?  Can it be justified for experts in public health, amidst an existential crisis, to simplify messaging when saving lives requires changes in public behavior?  I will discuss those issues and set them in a wider context.  For decades scholars have warned that elite groups have tendencies toward groupthink and mutual reinforcement of biases, fed by a self-righteous sense of moral and intellectual superiority.  

There are parallels between elite hubris under Covid and earlier episodes of US policy failure such as Vietnam and the second Iraq war.  In all these instances, experts and elite policy makers may have sincerely believed that they were operating in the public interest, but it is not hard to see that their actions were admixed with conflicts of interest, the desire to avoid blame and to protect reputations, and to preserve personal and institutional power and privilege.  Under Covid, too many journalists and academics were unwilling to ask hard questions – or even to tolerate their being asked -- and too many citizens hunkered down in partisan echo chambers.  Experts need to be checked and balanced by those representing the interests and perspectives of ordinary people.

主办：

主题:

主讲:

主持:

时间:

地点:

摘　要:

西方社会在疫情期间直面和民主同样古老的问题： 在民主体制中，专家们应扮演何种角色？ 民主社会应当授予专家们多少权力，又该如何对其进行问责？ 在生死存亡之际，当拯救生命需要改变公共行为时，公共卫生专家简化信息的做法是否正当？ 我将深入讨论这些问题，并将其置于美国背景之下进行考察。 几十年来，学者们一直警告精英群体被一种自以为是的道德和智力优越感所滋养，逐渐朝着群体盲思（groupthink）和偏见互相强化的趋势发展。 新冠疫情下的精英傲慢自大与早期美国政策失败（如越南战争和第二次伊拉克战争）之间存在相似之处。 在所有这些例子中，专家们和精英政策制定者们或许真诚地认为他们是在为公共利益而行事。 然而很容易看出，他们的行动混杂着相互冲突的利益——他们想要逃避责任、维护声誉以及维持个人与机构的权力与特权的欲望。 在疫情期间，有太多的记者和学者不愿提出尖锐的问题，甚至不愿容忍这些问题被提出来。 同时，有太多的公民则受困于（专家意见的）回响之中。 专家需要受到代表普通人利益和观点的人的审查和制衡。