Last monthon this blog我讨论了所谓的“知识暗网”(IDW)，它是由一群在播客中发表有关科学、政治和哲学重大观点的演讲领袖组成的松散组织。在过去的几年里，IDW已经发展成为一种学术上的反主流文化，拥有庞大而迅速增长的粉丝群。

IDW的推手和有影响力的人(顺便说一句，他们几乎都是男性，所以在提到他们的时候，我会毫不犹豫地使用性别语言)，以及他们的热情追随者，有一个信念是，学院的大部分人都受到狂热的左翼分子的控制，他们压制自由思想，审查自由言论，以支持有害的“政治正确”教条。特别是，他们经常把大学的人文和社会科学系列为有害意识形态的滋生地:在这些地方，学生被“溺爱”(这是一个很喜欢的词)，而不是受到挑战;激进的教授给学生灌输各种宣传，而不是教育他们;活跃的智力参与，如果不是完全死亡，至少是绝症。与此相反，那些认同IDW的人通常会把它宣传为愚蠢之海中的理性之岛:为意志坚强的思想家提供一个安全的空间，在这里，智力责任占主导地位，不受约束的言论自由是当今的秩序。

I think that it’s great to have alternative arenas for discussing questions about topics that matter for our individual and collective lives. And I think it’s wonderful that there are sites where unorthodox voices can be heard and where taken-for-granted orthodoxies can be challenged in ways that are accessible to a broad, non-specialist audience. But I have grave concerns about the way that this movement is unfolding.

Here’s why.

For all its faults and foolishness (and believe me, there’s no shortage of them) the academic world is constructed on a foundation of well-established systems for quality control that have been built up and refined for literally thousands of years. To be a credible academic, you’ve got to be prepared to engage with and be challenged by genuine experts—smart people who have studied their topic for years or decades, and who know the relevant literature inside out—and you’ve also got to rise to the challenge of satisfying time-honored standards for rational argumentation. These norms and structures promote an attitude of intellectual humility and caution (in fact, sometimes too much intellectual humility and caution) and they discourage academics from sounding off about topics that they don’t really understand. And when we foolishly blunder too far into territory that’s beyond our scholarly turf, we’re likely to be set right by others who are more knowledgeable or insightful.

Contrast this with the situation that obtains on the IDW, where YouTube views, Facebook likes, and Patreon donations substitute for peer review. In this alternative academic universe, pundits can freely lay claim to expertise and knowledge that they don’t possess, can make seemingly authoritative pronouncements about matters that are well outside their professional training, and can present arguments that don’t satisfy the minimal standards for rational discourse. And they can do all of these things with such breezy self-confidence, and with such dazzling displays of apparent erudition, that it’s easy to be carried away by the riptide of their rhetoric (especially when the rhetoric seems to validate one’s own biases).

Given all this, it’s important to figure out how to help people who don’t have specialized knowledge about the topics that are under discussion to take a constructively critical stance. I’ve given it a shot by putting together a list of twelve questions that are worth asking about the material that you might encounter online. I’ll share four of these with you right now and then cover the remaining eight in next month’s installment. The more of them that a person falls foul of, the more wary you should be about taking their message on board.

Imagine that you’re listening to a podcast by someone who I’ll call “Mr. Expert.” You enjoy listening to Mr. Expert because he’s thought provoking, entertaining, articulate, and because he seems to have a handle on the truth.

Now, stand back and consider the following questions about what you’ve heard.

专家先生会诋毁那些他不同意的人吗?This is important because if Mr. Expert’s aim is to get at the truth about some topic, and he disagrees with someone else’s view of the matter, then his focus should be on the soundness of his opponent’sarguments. One of the first things that every student learns in Logic 101 learns that an argument is sound only if its premises are true and its conclusion follows from those premises. That’s why it’s academically legit to cast doubt on the truth of someone’s premises or to show that even if their premises are true, they don’t lead to the conclusion that the other person thinks they do, but it’s not OK to ridicule or belittle those with whom you disagree, or to caricature their views in order to make them easy targets. So it’s a bad sign if Mr. Expert indulges in mockery, slurs, or other kinds of derogatory language rather than sticking with the content and structure of the arguments with which he disagrees. If he can’t make a case without doing this, then he doesn’t have a case to make.

专家先生确定他是对的吗?如果你对追求真理感兴趣，那么你就得接受自己犯错的可能性。事实上，从苏格拉底到现在，哲学对话的基本原理一直是招募聪明的人来帮助我们根除推理中的盲点、困惑、偏见和错误。确信自己是完全正确的，而那些不同意你观点的可怜愚昧的人是完全错误的，这是非常诱人的，但这也是与负责任的探究精神的对抗。听专家先生讲话时，问问自己他的信念有多坚定。他似乎确信自己的观点是正确的，而他的对手的观点肯定是错误的吗?Are there anygenuineindications of self-doubt? Does he acknowledge any weaknesses of his own position or point out that there are criticisms of it that deserve to be taken seriously? Does he ever admit to error or retract something that he’s previously said? Critical self-reflection is at the heart of intellectual responsibility, so if it’s lacking this is a red flag.

专家先生表现得像无所不知吗?Acquiring a fund of expert knowledge ishard. Most scholars spend a lifetime trying to master one or two subdomains of their discipline, and nobody since the 18^thcentury can reasonably claim to have encompassed the whole range of human knowledge. That’s why reputable scholars tend to tread carefully when opining on topics that lie outside their area of specialization. So, when listening to Mr. Expert, does he confidently pontificate on almost any topic? Does he offer answers to nearly every question that he’s asked or propose solutions for almost any problem presented to him? If so, it’s advisable to beef up your skepticism.

Does Mr. Expert acknowledge that there’s disagreement among the (real) experts?It’s no exaggeration to say that there are controversies swirling around almost every important theoretical claim in the humanities and social sciences, and very often in the natural sciences as well. In all of these fields, it is common for experts to disagree about how facts should be interpreted or even about what the facts are. Such clashes of opinion are normal in the academy, and they drive the pursuit of knowledge forward. When specialists disagree, it’s reasonable for non-specialists to be neutral about which position is the correct one. After all, if the most well informed people in the world can’t agree, it would be loopy for someone who’s vastly less knowledgeable to make a call. But lay-people are often unaware that such controversies exist, and are likely to accept as settled claims that are in fact contentious. When listening to Mr. Expert, ask yourself if he gives listeners any inkling that there are experts who do not agree with what he has to say, and ask yourself whether he appeals only to those authorities who support his point of view, while remaining silent about those who cast aspersions on it.

At this point you might be thinking something like “This isn’t fair! Why focus just on theIDWwhen others, from all sectors of the ideological spectrum, are just as culpable?” Quite right. I’ve focused on theIntellectual Dark Webbecause it has attracted so many ardent followers, and because it is associated with political currents that are of concern to me, but I trust that it’s obvious that the points that I’ve raised have much wider significance. In a world where vast amounts of misinformation is available at the stroke of a keypad, and where the algorithms that curate our social media are programmed to pander to our prejudices, it behoovesall of usto be judicious consumers of information.