The Era When 'Doing Your Own Research' Backfires: What True Intellectual Autonomy Means: An AI Book Review of 'Philosophizing Fake News'

"I looked it up online, but is this medicine really safe?"

Working in the medical field, I have been receiving questions like this more and more. The attitude of patients who think seriously about their own bodies and try to gather information is, in itself, wonderful. But to be honest, I often find myself groaning when I hear their sources.

I myself feel a certain fatigue when I open social media and see health information and social news flowing by one after another. What is true, and who should I believe? I am sure I am not the only one spending my days carrying such confusion.

It was then that I encountered a book: "Philosophizing Fake News" by Keiichi Yamada. What this book taught me was something unexpectedly simple, yet courageous to put into practice.

The idea that "nonsense" is more troublesome than lies

When people hear the term "fake news," I think most imagine "false news." False information created by someone intentionally to deceive others. That is certainly a problem, but what struck me while reading this book was the concept of "nonsense."

People who tell lies actually know what the truth is. It is precisely because they know it that they speak falsehoods to hide it. However, people who spout "nonsense" have no interest in the truth to begin with. Whether what they are saying is true or not does not matter to them. Whether it goes viral, whether it can attract attention—that is all that matters.

When I read this, I involuntarily looked away from the screen and up at the ceiling. I wondered if much of the health information overflowing on the internet is exactly this kind of "nonsense."

"Eat this to lose weight," "That is bad for your body." How many of the people spreading such information have actually verified whether it is correct? They do it to gain clicks, to earn advertising revenue, or simply because they want "likes." Whether it is true or not is secondary; as long as it is sensational, that is enough.

The author points out that this "indifference to truth" is a much more serious problem than lying. This is because, while a lie at least presupposes the existence of truth, nonsense corrodes the very concept of truth itself.

When the word "fake news" becomes a weapon

Another thing that left an impression on me in this book is the danger of the term "fake news" itself.

Come to think of it, it is obvious, but when we encounter information we do not like, we sometimes want to say, "That is fake news." But in that moment, are we really verifying the truth or falsehood of that information? Or are we simply trying to exclude information we do not want to believe?

The author warns: the term "fake news" carries the risk of being used as a tool to suppress the opinions of others and invalidate their statements.

This is not just a problem for politicians or those in power. Each of us, when using this word in our daily lives, may be doing the same thing. Before concluding, "What that expert is saying is fake," we need to ask ourselves if we have truly verified it. It is a painful point to hear, but I thought it was an important observation.

The pitfall of "doing your own research"

"Do Your Own Research".

At first glance, this phrase seems like an intellectual and independent attitude. Not leaving things to others, but checking with your own eyes. It sounds like a wonderful thing, doesn't it?

But the author points out the dangers inherent in this phrase.

We live in a highly specialized society. Medicine, law, economics, science and technology—it is physically impossible to verify everything yourself. In the first place, anyone capable of judging whether what an expert in a certain field is saying is correct is no longer a layperson in that field.

Herein lies the "layperson's dilemma". You want to judge which expert to trust, but you lack the specialized knowledge to make that judgment.

While claiming to "do your own research," you are actually just piecing together fragmented information found through internet searches. Moreover, you are prone to falling into "confirmation bias", where you only collect information you want to believe. As a result, you end up rejecting expert knowledge and believing in less reliable information.

This is a scene I see very often in medical settings as well. It is not rare for a patient who has spent hours searching the internet and is convinced that "this treatment is dangerous" to actually be basing their belief on a blog post with little evidence.

What is true 'intellectual humility'?

So, what should we do?

The answer this book presents is the concept of "intellectual humility". However, this does not simply mean belittling yourself by saying, "I am ignorant, so I cannot say anything."

The author defines it as follows: Intellectual humility is an attitude of correctly recognizing the limits of one's own intellectual abilities and appropriately utilizing the intelligence of others to compensate for those limits.

What is important here is the word "appropriately."

It does not mean you should believe just anyone. Conversely, falling into extreme skepticism where you believe no one is also wrong. You consciously apply the criteria for choosing "who to trust and who not to trust" yourself. The author says this is true "intellectual autonomy" in the modern age.

I deeply empathized with this way of thinking.

When we hear "autonomy," we tend to think it means deciding everything ourselves and not relying on others. But true autonomy might actually be "being able to rely on the right people in the right way." Being able to properly delegate to the right person when you should delegate. A person who can make that choice on their own responsibility is someone who is intellectually autonomous.

Conversely, an attitude of refusing to admit one's own ignorance, clinging to a misguided sense of "autonomy," and rejecting all experts might actually mean you are just being manipulated by your own biases or internet algorithms. Isn't that paradoxically a state that should be called "intellectual servitude"?

Clues for evaluating experts

That said, it is difficult when you are told to "choose the right expert." How exactly should you do it?

This book presents several clues while referencing the arguments of philosophers like Alvin Goldman.

First, look at the "expert's way of arguing. Are they logically consistent? Are they based on data? Do they avoid excessive assertions like "absolutely" or "certainly"? Do they honestly admit when things are uncertain? Are there any emotional provocations or ad hominem attacks against opposing views?

Next, "past track record". How accurate were that person's past predictions and judgments?

And finally, "presence of conflicts of interest". Are they receiving funding from a specific company or organization? Is it just position-taking for their own benefit?

Furthermore, how is it evaluated within the expert community? Is the claim based on scientific consensus, or is it an isolated 'heretical' view?.

These are not absolute standards. Authoritative experts can be wrong, and minority opinions can sometimes be correct. However, by comprehensively judging these factors, they serve as clues to finding a 'more probable' object of trust.

Filter Bubbles and Echo Chambers Are Different

When discussing the insularity of internet society, the terms 'filter bubble' and 'echo chamber' are often used. I also used them somewhat interchangeably, but after reading this book, I learned that there is a decisive difference between the two.

Filter bubbles are a phenomenon where search engine and social media algorithms show you only the information you are likely to prefer, while blocking out other information. This is a problem of 'information blocking'. Therefore, the solution is relatively simple: you just need to consciously access different information sources.

On the other hand, echo chambers are much more troublesome. They are closed spaces where people with the same opinions gather to affirm each other's views, and specific beliefs are continuously reinforced. Here, opposing views from the outside are treated as 'attacks from enemies' or 'the ramblings of brainwashed people.' Even if you present correct information, it has no effect at all because the source of that information is itself considered 'untrustworthy'.

The author points out that this echo chamber is the true pathology that is deepening the divisions in modern society.

The 'Collapse of Trust' Brought About by Conspiracy Theories

An extreme form of the echo chamber is the conspiracy theory.

Of course, conspiracies have actually existed throughout history. Cover-ups by those in power are not rare. Therefore, it is also problematic to dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand.

However, many of the conspiracy theories that spread on the modern internet are of a different quality than healthy skepticism. Even if you present counter-evidence, they ignore it or dismiss it by saying, 'That counter-evidence itself is part of the conspiracy.' They do not attempt to update their beliefs based on evidence.

What the author is most wary of is the process of the 'collapse of trust' brought about by conspiracy theories.

When you become deeply addicted to conspiracy theories, the very criteria for 'who to trust' are rewritten. Mainstream scientists and journalists become 'enemies,' and only anonymous influencers who share the same conspiracy theories become 'allies of the truth.'

Once this happens, dialogue is no longer possible. This is because not only is there a difference in factual recognition of 'what is true,' but the rules themselves for 'what to accept as evidence' can no longer be shared. The author distinguishes this using the terms 'division of truth' and 'division of justification.'

In a society where a division of justification has occurred, each side lives in a completely different epistemic reality. The author strongly warns that this will uproot the very foundations of democracy.

A Prescription to 'Not Rush'

So, what can we do?

The prescription the author finally presents is very simple: 'Do not rush.'

The modern information environment is designed to demand immediate reactions from us. It tries to convert the anger or surprise we feel the moment we see an article title directly into actions like 'liking' or sharing. It steals our time to think and hacks our intuitive reactions.

The means to counter this is to consciously 'pause'.

Even when your intuition screams, 'This is correct' or 'This is wrong,' pause your judgment for a moment. Take the time to ask yourself, 'Is that really true?', 'Am I missing something?', or 'Is there another way to look at this?'

You might think this is a modest prescription. However, I felt that this is the very essence of the matter.

The same can be said in the medical field. When you feel anxious, instead of rushing to search the internet for immediate answers, first consult a trusted professional. Furthermore, do not base your judgment on a single source of information. Maintain multiple perspectives. Admit when you do not know something.

It sounds simple, but it is difficult. However, I believe this 'courage to not rush' is the most reliable way to avoid drowning in the flood of information.

Conclusion

After finishing this book, I felt a little more at ease.

I feel as though a weight has been lifted from my shoulders, having previously believed that I had to verify every piece of information myself. What is important is to choose for yourself 'whom to trust' and to take responsibility for that choice. Admit when you don't know something, and rely on appropriate experts. And above all, 'do not rush'.

What we need to live in these uncertain times may not be an omniscient intelligence that sees everything, but rather an attitude of sincerely continuing to aim for the truth while enduring uncertainty.

The next time you see shocking news on social media, try pausing for just three seconds. Those three seconds should be the first step in protecting your judgment.

#FakeNews #MediaLiteracy #Philosophy #InformationSociety #KeiichiYamada