I think people often take for granted the idea that some process is taking place which has some hook into the real world (such that following it is more likely to yield truer beliefs than not doing so would), but I find very few people can explain what they think that mechanism is nor how it works. — Isaac

Indeed. And this is a fascinating subject. While I think the 'art' of making judgments is complex and somewhat perplexing, I think it's likely we can determine when it is badly executed e.g., when people make calls on life decisions based on someone's hair color or on numerology, or on what a clairvoyant tells them.

Do you have a tentative model for identifying when judgements are likely to be well founded? To me it seems to be about a web of information which comes together to provide a kind of coherence and satisfaction. But as human beings we are inconsistent and we do not always have time or opportunities to be vigilant.

Now that I think of it, despite the claims that fake news and its ilk started the whole thing, it's actually high time philosophy underwent a paradigm shift - we need to shed our old habit of worshipping and making offerings to Veritas (truth) and switch allegiance to some other god/goddess. Truth isn't the only game in town, that's the takeaway of post-truth. Question is what does it look like people gave up on truth for? Happiness is the prime suspect!

I think it's likely we can determine when it is badly executed e.g., when people make calls on life decisions based on someone's hair color or on numerology, or on what a clairvoyant tells them. — Tom Storm

I agree. I think this is where relevant expertise comes in - not that 'relevance' isn't a judgement in itself, but this comes down to what you say here...

To me it seems to be about a web of information which comes together to provide a kind of coherence and satisfaction. — Tom Storm

Matters like relevance, qualification, trustworthiness... all rely on a web of prior beliefs (that qualification is a measure of likelihood of being right, that universities fairly accurately measure that qualification, that subject matters in institutions are well-delineated... etc). The notion here is that any proposition can be seen as being at the end of a very, very long sentence (a Ramsey sentence), that starts with "If...." - followed by all the priors.

Do you have a tentative model for identifying when judgements are likely to be well founded? — Tom Storm

Much as yours it seems. I think there's actually a very wide range of factors we take into account, but that including them all become a sort of habit such that when we're clear-headed, we follow this 'habit' and it leads to more successful beliefs on average.

The problem with explicating this habit further is that it doesn't seem to be able to escape from the circularity of judgement. We could say it involved coherence, lack of bias, open-mindedness... but you can see all those properties are also themselves judgements. Two people (or even one person from day-to-day) are unlikely to fully agree as to what to beliefs cohere, whether bias applies, how 'open' one's mind need be etc.

It seems to me the most we can say is that when a judgement is wrong, it's likely to be wrong because of one of those factors (there's probably a few others too), but we can't compare two judgements and say which will be right by looking at those measures.

I do find though, in my experience, that people generally can tell the difference between a clear-headed judgement and one that has been made by, for example, following the crowd, or relying on tradition, something like that. The difference seems to be that people can rarely provide reasoning for the latter types of judgement. I'm not, myself, convinced that judgements are the result of these reasons, but being able to provide them, even if post hoc, seems to be a distinguishing feature of the more clear-headed decisions.

I read one essay by Noam Chomsky, 'The Responsibilty of Intellectuals', in which he argues that the 'experts' in various disciplines have an important responsibility for enabling knowledge in the pursuit of 'truth'. In this way, thinkers, including those in philosophy, may have an important, critical role in demystification, especially in the context of potential 'post-truth'.

A paradigm shift in philosophy would be interesting because there doesn't seem to be much new developments beyond those of the twentieth century. Or, maybe there are, but I am not aware of them. The idea of post-truth may signify that explanations are not sufficient for meanings or happiness. It may be that there is a void created by the way in which philosophy, such as realism, doesn't open up the imagination enough. Fabrication may be connected to the mythic aspects of human nature and the need to create stories. For this reason, some may find philosophy a little dry, and look to the arts for personal meaning and aesthetic appreciation.

Change may be a critical factor and it seems likely that the worldview of the present time is so different from that which emphasised the -supernatural'. Some of the philosophies of the past, including Aquinas and Kant developed metaphysics which had some 'supernatural' assumptions, especially the belief in God.

During the past few centuries belief in God and the supernatural, probably starting from Hume and the development of science. In that context, values are more related to human concerns. The understanding of one's own values, based on reflection may be important in that context. It may involve recognizing what ones considers as that which matters, as well as the cultural factors which have shaped or influenced personal beliefs.

The idea of post-truth is so ambiguous because it can just be an excuse for the acceptance of falsity and dishonesty.

I am sure that trendiness comes into the picture regarding what is regarded as deception. The critical thinking about ideologies may in themselves be a form of ideology. For example, postmodernism and its emphasis on deconstruction was about looking at ideologies but it could also be seen as a form of ideology in its attempts to break down those of past eras. In thinking about ideas, some are more 'trendy' in certain contexts. For example, when I was a student there was a certain amount of trendiness attached to the Marxist left. It may be important for people to be aware of fashions and 'glamour' attached to specific belief systems.

The idea of post-truth is so ambiguous because it can just be an excuse for the acceptance of falsity and dishonesty. — Jack Cummins

What do you mean by post-truth? My understanding is this is a term used by critics to describe unethical positions held in politics and culture. I don't think it is an era as such - is a plumber post truth, a chiropodist? And no one proudly proclaims themselves a post-truth ambassador. In fact, the post-truth activists, like Trump, are more likely to be insistent on the importance of certainty. They are not like those nefarious post-modern relativists that Jordan B Peterson is always warning us about.

I wonder it what is important about post-truth is located not in the purveyors of untruths, but in those who accept the lies. Because for many people public discourse no longer has to map onto or match real world events or facts. It's the general public's judgment ultimately which makes post-truth realizable.

I tend to think of the toxic aspect of post-truth as being when people accept lies without questioning them for themselves. I see it as a very blurry concept, as a way of blurring truth and untruths. I am not seeing it as an era as itself and it is probably a device which is used by politicians mainly.

The era from which it probably stems from though is postmodernism and I do have a fair amount of sympathy for some of the postmodern writers, like Baudrillard and Derrida. I am not sure about Lacan because I have found his writings difficult to read. The reason why I find the postmodern writers and their perspectives, going back to those of Michael Foucalt, is the way in which they do question cultural assumptions.

The questioning of cultural assumptions is the doorway into cultural relativism. This is where it gets tricky and I do struggle here in relation to 'truth' and objective measures. This may be different to 'post-truth', although cultural relativism can be seen as giving allowance for there being no absolutes and the slippery slope to that of people making it up as they wish to. So, the question is where 'truth' lies in relation to objectivity and subjectivity. Of course, there are various angles here potentially, ranging from psychological truths, which are recognized as such, to self deception and the wish to deceive others, especially in matters of significance, especially aspects of political agendas.

The era from which it probably stems from though is postmodernism and I do have a fair amount of sympathy for some of the postmodern writers, like Baudrillard and Derrida. I am not sure about Lacan because I have found his writings difficult to read — Jack Cummins

I wonder if that's a different phenomenon. One would have to call the era of Joseph Goebbels an era of post-truth and a hallmark of fascism is when the lie becomes institutionalized. George Orwell wrote a definitive study of the ultimate post-truth society back in 1948. None of this has anything to do with post-modernism. Do you think post-modernism has had any real influence on public discourse, other than in poorly understood and misconstrued vignettes?

I didn't know that George Orwell wrote about the idea of a 'post-truth society' and it is interesting that he was able to perceive the possibility at that time. As far as the influence of postmodernism, it may be hard to says it's distinct influence because there were many diverse influences. Mainly, I see it as having a lot of impact on the social sciences and the humanities. Here, it may have had influence on the academic understanding of politics and education.

I am aware that even though I never came across the idea of postmodernism until I was about 17, most of the teachers who had taught me probably came from a training background influenced by postmodernism. For example, I can remember that my mother seemed surprised that the history which I was doing at school was based on analysis of various sources as a means for critical analysis. This is opposite to the way people in the past may have been taught history as about clear dates and facts.

What may be most significant is that postmodernism gave rise to critical theory. Also, it is a framework for scepticism. It is hard to know how important postmodernism is in the twentieth first century and it may be more read in relation to the arts currently, rather than for a credible basis for analysis of culture and ideas.

we need to shed our old habit of worshipping and making offerings to Veritas (truth) and switch allegiance to some other god/goddess. — Agent Smith

You are going to make do without truth? Go on, then; you first.

I'll watch from here. Should be worth a laugh.

I didn't know that George Orwell wrote about the idea of a 'post-truth society' and it is interesting that he was able to perceive the possibility at that time. — Jack Cummins

1984 it's the story about how truth becomes irrelevant to the ongoing sustainability of a military dictatorship much like North Korea.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'”

1984 George Orwell

I think that I have '1984' somewhere on my Kindle, so I may have a read. I read 'Animal Farm' at school as a child and as an adult and found Orwell's writing very good. It probably just feels a bit dated reading about '1984' as a futurist novel, just like Huxley's 'Brave New World'. However, some novels are probably significant for their philosophical ideas.

Not sure it is meant to be read as a futuristic novel or sci fi as such. It's a seminal text about politics and society; a kind of meditation on propaganda and the role 'truth' plays in creating a shared and brainsick worldview.

....millennials... :roll:


:wink:

:wink:

Keep in mind that uncertainty only exists against a background of truth. — Banno

By the way this is a juicy morsel. Pretty sure I agree. Can you expand in it a little?

It's just Wittgenstein's On Certainty, yet again. Doubting something is a language game, and so presupposes language and stuff to talk about, in a community. Doubt, like certainty, relies on a context.

So where

It is against a background of 'uncertainty' that such confusion about 'truth' often emerges. — Jack Cummins

it also follows that there are certainties. Hence the foolishness of 's suggestion...

Thanks

1984 is an over-the-top personal story told against the background of a process that integrated the resistance against the State with the agenda being opposed. Nobody likes having the stuff they are resisting actually helping the opponent.

So the first thing Orwell is asking is if there is another process.

1984 is an over-the-top personal story told against the background of a process that integrated the resistance against the State with the agenda being opposed. Nobody likes having the stuff they are resisting actually helping the opponent. — Paine

You're not helping...

The salient point is that post truth is not novel. One way or another, the truth will out; because it is the stuff that doesn't care what you believe.

A favourite Trump apocryphal is that after defunding the folk who were to research and advise him about novel viruses, when Covid arrived, The dickhead threw his hands up in the air and said "Who knew?"...

So which parts of 1984 have not come to pass...?

I am helping. I read Orwell as saying we need a countervailing cluster of claims to oppose pure rhetoric.

A world, and we live in it.

I read Orwell as saying we need a countervailing cluster of claims to oppose pure rhetoric. — Paine

Cheers.

And does it matter if those claims are true, or not?

I say "Yes"... You?

The devil advocate in me would like to argue both sides of that question.

What I meant to say about Orwell is that he had become aware of a certain process and intended to hold all to it. So, if that statement exhausts a number of possibilities, what is left?

what is left? — Paine

:smirk:

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won
the victory over himself....

So, if you did not want to end up like that, what are the alttenatives?

...what are the alttenatives? — Paine

Soporific online forums...?

Where one can convince oneself that there is no truth.

Is that the fate of our dear friends, and ?

What about you? Stand and deliver, my dear friend.