Search

The internet has considerably changed epistemic practices in science as well as in everyday life. Apparently, this technology allows more and more people to get access to a huge amount of information. Some people even claim that the internet leads to a "democratization of knowledge." In the following text, we will analyze this statement. In particular, we will focus on a potential change in epistemic structure. Does the internet change our common epistemic practice to rely on expert opinions? Does it alter or even undermine the division of epistemic labor? The epistemological framework of our investigation is a naturalist-pragmatist approach to knowledge. We take it that the internet generates a new environment to which people seeking information must adapt. How can they, and how should they, expand their repertory of social markers to continue the venture of filtering, and so make use of the possibilities the internet apparently provides? To find answers to these questions we will take a closer look at two case studies. The first example is about the internet platform "WikiLeaks" that allows so-called whistle-blowers to anonymously distribute their information. The second case study is about the search engine "Google" and the problem of personalized searches. Both instances confront a knowledge-seeking individual with particular difficulties which are based on the apparent anonymity of the information distributor. Are there ways for the individual to cope with this problem and to make use of her social markers in this context nonetheless?

Ideally, public knowledge should encapsulate the achievements of millennia of inquiry, making them available to individuals and groups for the promotion of their various ends. I explore the ways in which the actual situation fails to live up to this ideal. Our investigations are not always directed towards the questions of most concern to most people, the results on which experts agree are not always based on reasons the broader public is prepared to endorse, and the dissemination of information is so distorted as to make supposedly free discussion and debate an unproductive shouting match. The consequences for democracy are severe, since a healthy system of public knowledge, able to discharge its function, is an essential component of a flourishing democratic society. (Contains 13 notes.)