Knowledge in times of crisis and the vulnerabilities of public opinion

First Name
Ștefan-Gabriel
Last Name
Cazan
Institution/University
Școala Națională de Studii Politice și Administrative
Conference Panels
Paper/Abstract submission

In this paper I will explore the issue of knowledge buildup during periods of crisis, emphasizing on the social dynamics aspects. Building on the assumption that people’s beliefs and values are predictors for their behavior, I will further argue on the relevance of the way people gain knowledge, and how this process’ outcomes influences the buildup of public opinion, as public opinion is usually regarded as the most important guideline for public policies in a working democracy.       

For the most part, I would like to discuss about the social, economic and political ramifications of mistreating the informational dimension of crises by allowing alternative narratives, conspiracy theories, propaganda, fake news etc. to play a bigger role than they should in public discourse. The argument here is that the public deliberation process tends to fail when there are too many unreasonable parties that intend to guide public policy-making towards a direction with more possible bad outcomes.              

Furthermore, I would like to explain how dismantling unreasonable and irrational arguments can be a double-edged sword. Firstly, debunking irrational and unreasonable arguments and standpoints can have a beneficial effect on society by persuading people to cooperate towards the solving of crises. Secondly, trying to frame a reasonable point of view in order to respond to irrational and unreasonable critics can be harmful for its purpose; the main trap is that trying to explain a scientific fact while borrowing the lingo of the deniers can both undermine the expertise of the scientist trying to make a stand, and encourage them – the deniers – even more, that their beliefs are sound. Another key aspect regards the incompatibility generated by trying to have a scientific debate with individuals whose opinions are based on personal or group beliefs, rather that scientific research; the tensions between facts and beliefs can cause problems when societies try to reach a minimal consensus on how to deal with a certain event.