To transcend the naive view of modern science, academic institutions need to rethink how they measure success
In a free market of information, truth often loses out because it is more costly, complicated, and often hard to digest. Fiction, by contrast, is cheap, can be made simple, and is more appealing.
Image: Shutterstock
The relationship between truth and information has become increasingly complicated in the digital age. Truth, a distinctive type of information that accurately reflects reality, now competes in a world overflowing with data—much of which is disconnected from reality. The philosopher and historian Yuval Noah Harari, in his latest book Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI, explores the differences between truth and fiction, another type of information that is far more prevalent than the truth.Â
In a free market of information, truth often loses out because it is more costly, complicated, and often hard to digest. Fiction, by contrast, is cheap, can be made simple, and is more appealing. Uncovering truth requires rigorous research, thorough validation, and expert input, while fiction can be crafted to suit any narrative and made attractive for mass consumption. Harari's observation helps explain why misinformation and simplistic narratives spread more quickly than carefully verified facts and nuanced accounts.Â
This dynamic applies not only to the media and politics but also to the world of science, where the distinction between truth and information has become increasingly blurred. In academia, researchers face pressures to publish more papers, leading to the dominance of what Harari calls the "naive view" of information.Â
A perfect example of how this naive view manifests in academia is the H-index, a popular metric used to measure the impact of a researcher's publications. The H-index quantifies both the productivity and citation impact of published papers. For example, a researcher who has published ten papers that have each been cited at least ten times has an H-index of 10. On the surface, it seems like a reasonable indicator of influence. However, it reinforces the naive belief that more publications are related to scientific success.Â
[This article has been reproduced with permission from Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai]