MP3 Epi Intro

Fake news and the inability to distinguish true journalism from false information is a problem in the US. The public is also questioning the validity of science, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. To understand how we determine the truth, we need to understand how we think and what we base our thinking on. Descartes believed that true knowledge can only be acquired through internal reason, while Locke believed in empiricism, gaining knowledge through our senses. Scientists must use reasoning and personal experiences to convince others of the truth. This is the epistemology introduction. Fake news has taken over our country. Earlier this month, Prospect Editorial released an article that cited two-thirds of Americans as unable to distinguish true journalism from false information. What's even more scary is that it's not just journalism that has raised doubt from the public. Despite being considered the ultimate truth, science is being questioned by the public extensively, an issue brought into the limelight with the COVID-19 pandemic. But has the truth always been this hard to find? Moreover, what even defines the truth? To understand how we determine the truth, we first must understand how we think and what it is we base our thinking on. Descartes introduced the method of doubt in 1641. The 1600s in Europe were the age of science, so academics were questioning everything. And this allowed Descartes to challenge the very basis of truth as he knew it. As a rationalist, Descartes established that true knowledge can only be acquired through internal reason alone, as opposed to experience we gain out in the world. The idea is rooted in Descartes' bottom line. I think, therefore I am. I believe that humans are born with ideas about God, the mind, and the body that are undeniable truths of our existence. But they're the only undeniable truths. To put this into perspective, say I were to have all of my senses taken away so that I had no idea where I was or what was real. And the only thing that I could be completely certain of is that I'm thinking about my current situation. Even if all the connecting links between my consciousness and the external world were severed, I would still be a thinking thing who had awareness of my existence, my mind, and the body or whatever it was that housed my mind. Therefore, according to Descartes, thinking about anything is the only way to determine the truth. Locke did not like this. In an essay concerning human understanding from 1689, he asserted his belief in empiricism, or the idea that the only certain thing we know is what we experience with our senses. We are not born with any ideas in our head, but gain them as we experience sensation and reflect on those experiences. To Locke, the truth comes from combining ideas we have gained through what we have witnessed, then deducing them from one another. And finally, using reason to determine which is true. So, we all know about knowledge and the alleged truth is... So, all we know about knowledge and the alleged truth is that in order to find it, we apparently need to come to its conclusion through our own reasoning, or have a personal experience that makes us believe in it. So how does scientists who did the research for SAND and know the truth convince others of its validity? I talked to Dr. Mina Johnson, an associate research professor at ASU who focuses on emerging technologies in psychology, about her approach to the pandemic and how knowledge remains a debated topic in science today.