Ancient Greeks’ Guide to Rejecting Propaganda and Disinformation

[Dill]

This essay is almost four years old now. It's occasion was Twitter's censorship of Trump.

But the problem of how to deal with disinformation remains with us, and seems joined at the hip to 1A rights. 

So I decided to post this, wondering where discussion would go, or if it would go at all, were the starting point ancient standards for public discourse, born with first democracies.  (I cut about 4 paragraphs for brevity and highlighted topics to make reading easier.) 
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
How Plato and the Sophists Can Help Us Find Shared Truth and Solve Our Political Problems  
https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2020/06/07/disinformation-propaganda-rhetoric-twitter-president-trump-ancient-greek-philosophers/ideas/essay/By Asha Rangappa and Jennifer Mercieca | June 7, 2020  

Is there a cure for disinformation, propaganda, and other offenses against the truth?

Twitter’s answer has been to add fact-checks to misleading statements, a move that has led to a showdown with President Donald Trump. While this fight has been framed as an issue of free speech, ancient Greek philosophers, who worried deeply about what “fake news” meant for their own societies, would say it’s much more profound and more urgent than that.

As technologically advanced as the fight between Twitter and Trump now seems, this dilemma is not new at all. The world’s very first democracies—in ancient Greece—had their own difficult debates about truth, knowledge, and democracy. If the ancient philosophers were alive today they would say this is no mere scuffle over Tweets, but a moment that asks us to make a fundamental choice about whether we want to live in a society that values the truth. The Athenians’ approach to this question shows why allowing propaganda and disinformation to stand, unquestioned and untested, could unravel democracy itself.

Long before “Fake News,” the Greeks had a lively set of ideas about truth. The philosopher Socrates argued that absolute Truth (Sophia)* is knowable and that we communicate best when we communicate only that Truth. His student, Plato, went further, saying that one can arrive at the Truth through the method of dialectic—which meant a process of questioning and testing. Taken together, Socrates and Plato proposed that wisdom isn’t based purely on possessing the “truth,” but—rather ironically—on being aware of one’s own ignorance of it….

In contrast to Plato’s quest for a philosophical Truth, the Sophists’ goal was Phronesis—practical truth. They taught how to make the stronger argument through debating competing narratives. And rather than seeking Socrates’ absolute knowable Truth, Sophists saw Truth as whatever a community of equals with diverse opinions convinced one another to believe was true. 

. . . most political decisions couldn't be resolved with Plato's dialectic. The Truth wasn't already out there, or easy to find. So Sophists taught the skill necessary for the practice of democracy--how to reach consensus about truth. They taught people how to create arguments, to persuade audiences to believe their side, and to solve thorny political problems.

So are modern-day propaganda and disinformation merely sophistry? Not quite. Our democracy actually embraces, and even values, modern sophists. By the standards of the ancient Greeks, today’s professors and lawyers . . . would be considered more like Sophists than like Philosophers. Professors offer their own interpretations of evidence in their scholarly disciplines. Lawyers employ their skills of logic and oratory to make the most compelling argument they can on behalf of their clients. (And like the Sophists, both make money for their efforts.)

... lawyers and professors also place an equal emphasis on finding the truth. In university classrooms, students question their instructors and are encouraged to challenge them with their own arguments. (Law professors actually teach by the Socratic method!) In courtrooms, witnesses are cross-examined, and juries—who are chosen because they are a tabula rasa (a blank slate)—are expected to arrive at a “truth” which is understood to lie somewhere between the competing sides.

America embodies a version of democracy embraced by Aristotle, which combines the best of Plato and the Sophists. Aristotle explained that rhetoric (Phronesis) is the counterpart of dialectic (Sophia). Both methods of truth-seeking are necessary to solve political problems and arrive at the truth.

But the problem is that propaganda and disinformation lie outside of either of these models. When we encounter propaganda and disinformation, its origins—the sources that produced it and the method used to arrive at the result—are typically obscured. Propaganda and disinformation neither offer a skilled argument, nor do they invite rigorous testing. Propaganda and disinformation are persuasion without consent: In fact, by offering new versions of “facts,” their authors try to hide that they’re persuading us at all. These forms of communication provide a conclusion based on manipulation rather than reason. Propaganda and disinformation create a realm where disbelief is disloyalty, rather than a shared attempt to search for truth.

In short, the goal of propaganda isn’t persuasion, but rather compliance—it doesn’t employ either Sophia or Phronesis. That is why it is the favored form of communication for authoritarians. It simply demands that we believe, rejecting all other claims to the truth. It’s like asserting the existence of absolute truth, but without using the method of dialectic to reach it, and instead claiming some secret method of truth-finding. The charge that something is “fake news”—without evidence or justification—is itself the ultimate demand to, in the words of George Orwell’s 1984, “reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.”

The implicit demand for obedience contained in deliberately false information is what is most destructive to democracy. When we share a commitment to finding the truth and agree about the method for discovering it, we are setting important democratic ground rules. Not only do these shared values and belief in the process help us arrive at collaborative solutions, but they also give us a bond that sustains our society when our governments reach decisions or make policies that we might disagree with.

So when Twitter tries to insert facts into Trump’s tweets, it is using a very old and democratic method that goes back to the ancient Greeks. It reminds us that we have a responsibility to ourselves and to our fellow citizens to search for, and debate, the truth. It encourages us to be loyal to our shared values and higher principles, not to a person or party.

But when decision-making is based on “choosing sides,” rather than on reasoned argument and discovering truth, these ground rules are eviscerated. Research shows that beliefs premised on loyalty—to, say, a person, or to a partisan affiliation—are especially impervious to facts that question or disprove them. Without a shared factual reality as a starting point, the Aristotelian ideal of debating ideas and achieving consensus on our common issues becomes impossible.

When propagandists, be they presidents or anyone else, reject any attempt to provide facts in the face of lies, they are rejecting the pillars of truth-finding upon which a democratic society is based: curiosity and debate. Accusations—rather than argument—and compliance—rather than persuasion—are incompatible with a democratic dialogue. The ancient Greeks rejected unquestioned propaganda and disinformation as well outside of democratic norms. So should we.

* Actually, sophia means "wisdom,'" not quite the same thing as truth.

[*michaelsean*]

Who questions the questioners or do we accept what they say as fact? People have to determine for themselves because ultimately there is no way for each individual to directly question a President or a congressperson on social media. At some point you have to rely on someone or do it yourself. A fact checker can easily be manipulated by their own beliefs. They can manipulate which references they use and which they omit. If they provide references. Or they could not fact check other things from a similar ideology.

Edit: I read The Republic in college,(maybe high school) and I can’t swear I finished it so correct me if I’m wrong. The central question was “what is justice”. That became 1000 pages of answers and the questioning the answer over and over in an attempt to discover the truth. And that is a very simplistic summary. To compare that to fact checkers, even completely honest ones, seems a bit ridiculous.

[Dill]

(04-26-2024, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Who questions the questioners or do we accept what they say as fact?  People have to determine for themselves because ultimately there is no way for each individual to directly question a President or a congressperson on social media.  At some point you have to rely on someone or do it yourself. A fact checker can easily be manipulated by their own beliefs. They can manipulate which references they use and which they omit. If they provide references.  Or they could not fact check other things from a similar ideology.

Thanks for replying, Mike.  Not sure whom you mean by "the questioners."

Seems like you are positing or imagining an individual sorting it all out for himself.
And the key or goal is "direct questioning," of which a key component is "fact checking."

As I understood the article, the authors were emphasizing "phronesis," which is a dialogical process of arriving
at consensus about truth through discussion and argument governed by reason and based on evidence.

WE are the questioners on that model, which locates political power with informed, interested citizens.

They also distinguish between the civic model of Aristotle and propaganda, primarily on the criterion of transparency.

Their primary concern appears to be the problem of disinformation, which has become so organized, targeted, and
pervasive with the rise of social media and the internet. I took an interest in the article because it has always
seemed to me that if people were more aware of and embraced that Platonic/Aristotelian model, that might
be a sufficient dam against it. There would be more dialogue, and when disagreement occurred, it would
not end dialogue but rather improve the results.

[Dill]

(04-26-2024, 06:55 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Edit: I read The Republic in college,(maybe high school) and I can’t swear I finished it so correct me if I’m wrong. The central question was “what is justice”.  That became 1000 pages of answers and the questioning the answer over and over in an attempt to discover the truth. And that is a very simplistic summary. To compare that to fact checkers, even completely honest ones, seems a bit ridiculous.

Well I'm impressed. I wished more people would read--and discuss--the Republic.

You are right. It follows the question of "what is justice" and whether the just man is happier than the unjust. It's is a long and (philosophically speaking) wonderful exploration of the topic, the longest part involving the construction of a Kallipolis or "beautiful city" in which justice emerges when people mind their business, each having a social role of job. But that's an oversimplification too. My favorite part is in Books VIII-IX where he describes the degeneration of constitutions and generation of tyranny from democracy. After that is the refutation in Book I of Thrasymachus' argument that Justice is whatever the strong say it is (the strong being whoever rules a city--tyrant, oligarchy, demos (the people, in a democracy)).

Probably nobody takes seriously Plato's ideas about how a state should be formed and ruled (by philosopher kings), and its doubtful anyone can get at some absolute "truth" via his dialectical method. But he has a serious insight into the relation between the form of a state and the form of a citizens "soul." E.g., his description of the soul of the tyrant is brilliant and predicts a lot of current scholarship on the subject.

The real value in reading him is that he teaches/models how to discuss politics. That's the part that is pertinent to my thread here. His characters begin an inquiry without already knowing "the truth" or where they will end. They all (except Thrasymachus in Book I) respect each other, make their arguments rest on clear definitions, tests, evidence and "proofs," and above all logical consistency.  In most of the Platonic dialogues, no one really arrives at a "truth" other than the realization they are ignorant. It's the journey that is important.

"Fact checking" alone wouldn't add up to this kind of dialogue. I'm wondering what the results might be if some serious time were spent in grades 9-12 inculcating this model in students, and applying it to contemporary politics. Would that make them less susceptible to disinformation and more capable of selecting competent leaders? Would it repair our broken civility, if people connected that to more than just "being nice"? Serious discussion and search for political options and policies really cannot go forward without it.

[*michaelsean*]

I think teaching it in high school would be great, but philosophy has seemed to fall by the wayside. Even a poor student such as I managed to at least absorb enough to understand the process. Even my old Jesuit university it seems has reduced philosophy requirement from four to one or two. You don’t have to be able to grasp is like a scholar to be able to grasp basic ideas. Unfortunately social media is the opposite of anything resembling Socrates or Plato. It’s quick one liners. Zero exploration.

[Dill]

(04-28-2024, 11:40 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I think teaching it in high school would be great, but philosophy has seemed to fall by the wayside. Even a poor student such as I managed to at least absorb enough to understand the process. Even my old Jesuit university it seems has reduced philosophy requirement from four to one or two. You don’t have to be able to grasp is like a scholar to be able to grasp basic ideas. Unfortunately social media is the opposite of anything resembling Socrates or Plato. It’s quick one liners. Zero exploration.

Agree with the bolded. And somewhat concerned if Jesuit institutions are "adapting" to the marketplace. 

A side question--did your professors at the Jesuit university ever require you to read St. Augustine, especially The City of God? 

[*michaelsean*]

(04-29-2024, 10:05 AM)Dill Wrote: Agree with the bolded. And somewhat concerned if Jesuit institutions are "adapting" to the marketplace. 

A side question--did your professors at the Jesuit university ever require you to read St. Augustine, especially The City of God? 

I don’t remember that book. We had to take three required philosophies and one elective. I remember metaphysics, but not the other two required ones. They also dropped theology requirements equally.

And yes it’s kind of shocking a Jesuit University is moving away from a classic education, but it’s probably necessary. College is now seen 100% as a way to get a better job, and something like philosophy seems like a waste of time. And who can blame people for that at these prices? A lot of classes that were once considered necessary for a well rounded education are now looked at as a luxury. Hell my dad was surprised I only had to have four philosophy credits.

[Dill]

(04-30-2024, 07:27 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don’t remember that book. We had to take three required philosophies and one elective. I remember metaphysics, but not the other two required ones. They also dropped theology requirements equally.

And yes it’s kind of shocking a Jesuit University is moving away from a classic education, but it’s probably necessary. College is now seen 100% as a way to get a better job, and something like philosophy seems like a waste of time. And who can blame people for that at these prices? A lot of classes that were once considered necessary for a well rounded education are now looked at as a luxury.   Hell my dad was surprised I only had to have four philosophy credits.

That's unfortunate, since philosophy majors are preferred over pre-law students by law schools (according to the chair of our local Poly-Sci department).  Which makes sense as they spend all day reading arguments closely. And most people think you can make money in law.

That college is now viewed a higher vocational training is not a good thing--or at least from the perspective that values democracy with citizen participation.

From the business side, that is not necessarily what is valued. People who can solve problems set for them, without asking questions about who does the "setting," for whom and why and to what ends, are much to be preferred.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

This was a WONDERFUL read, Dill: logical, practical, non-partisan, every person in the Western World should read it (as, in the East, they still base a lot of their beliefs and methods of ascertaining knowledge, in other ways true to their past/traditions).

[Dill]

(05-03-2024, 03:14 PM)Truck_1_0_1_ Wrote: This was a WONDERFUL read, Dill: logical, practical, non-partisan, every person in the Western World should read it (as, in the East, they still base a lot of their beliefs and methods of ascertaining knowledge, in other ways true to their past/traditions).

Thanks Truck. I wish that public schools could take this approach more seriously. 

It would inculcate standards of rational discussion in a non-partisan way. 

That would include learning what DOESN'T count as rational discussion and why it doesn't.

Students would apply the standards to future politicians and policy discussions for the rest of their lives.

If this were successful, the sound-bite "arguments" would look weak to them,
and name-calling would seem an admission of impotence. They'd be more patient with
and respectful of developed, evidence-based arguments. 

If news is now market dependent, perhaps it would change the market, at least a little.

There would be a lot of resistance to it though . . . .