A Post-Truth World - My Take

I am currently working on another essay which ultimately compares two sub-cultures found in America: the media and the university. That essay focuses more on one part of the media and the University's response to it. That is in process.

While working on that though, I discovered or rediscovered the tensions found with in the media. Those include a focus on truth in journalism versus profits, and journalism versus entertainment and more recently journalism as entertainment. All are common issues.

Meanwhile I do continue to read a book now and again. I do try to get away from my technology and do something else! Really, I do! And two books on my list are Post Truth by Lee McIntyre, and Us vs Them: The Failure of Globalism by Ian Bremmer. Yes they are real page turners. . .

The second, Ian's Bremmer's is more regarding economics and the challenges of free trade, yet I suspect it will bring us back to the challenges of truth. The former, Post Truth by Lee McIntyre is a philosopher's take on the state of truth in the world today.

All of these make me pause regarding the topic. The value of truth in today's world has diminished. That seems to be the case.  Anyone who is on Facebook and attempts to discuss politics pretty much knows that. Rarely is any agreement or consensus arrived at there. Often times it is a struggle to just agree on the basic facts.

So what follows is my stab at exploring this topic, my two cents, before reading up on the subject. It is a listing of various threads that point me again to the question of what is the value of truth. I offer them up to myself and anyone else reading, to keep in mind as we read the above and as we continue to encounter the events and trends that I have listed below play out around us.

The position I offer is that this uncertainty and the challenges to the truth, are in fact more the norm. Normalcy might just involve a world where truth does not reign supreme. Each of the items on the below list could involve a post. . . a chapter each, but I will only barely hint at each here.

Philosophy 
There are at least two major movements in American and Anglo philosophy. In the beginning of the 20th century it was Pragmatism. Positivism came to dominate mid-century. Those two have continued to battle it out for the most part. Challenging those two movements was and is Continental philosophy, which dominates in European culture

Each of these has its take on truth. Truth plays a role in each of their tales, but the importance of it, the place that it takes at the table varies. The easiest way to see the placement of truth at the table is where and how each considers science. Not only must one look at how they deal with science, but what they consider science.

The postivists were interested in things that could be objectively observed and based on those observations truth can be determined. They looked to the achievements of science and the scientific method and built on that. The challenge of course is that much of our lives and our world cannot be objectively observed. Truth plays a prominent role in this system, as did a reliance on science. Sadly this reliance though limits us.

Pragmatism values truth but but reassesses the scientific method and the domain of truth. In short, truth is now tied to consequences. This approach is much more focused on action. We must test what are the consequences of certain actions and then proceed accordingly. This provides a method of proceeding in the social sciences, which could not comply with the demand for objective observations. They loosen the definition of truth allowing for more to be considered, but also at times leading us to conflicting truths.

Lastly, we have the Continentals, who are skeptical of scientific achievements. They are critical of our modern industrial landscape and the value or diminished value for human life, replaced with an emphasis on technology and science. They see science and technology as taking away from what is human. We lose our humanity in technology. Truth here is not a scientific truth but a bigger larger truth. Almost a theological truth - perhaps mysticism.

In this overly short sketch we have several ideas on truth and its place in each of the three systems. Truth plays a role in each but a very different role. The positivists look to science. the Pragmatists, acknowledge such achievements but want to roll out such to the social sciences and beyond, changing or stretching the definition of truth to achieve such. And the Continentals are not having any of it. They do not look to observation statements and the like for truth. They would rather turn to literature and poetry for truth.

I simplify, but there is no clear defining picture of what truth is in philosophy.

History
What I offer here are again snippets of what I consider important to a tale of truth. I look to three areas: media, politics, and again technology

Starting with the media, I will then go to politics and technology and back. Regarding media, I point to three periods. the first of those takes place in the 18th century. Specifically the time of pamphleteer. This goes hand in hand with the American Revolution. People such as Thomas Paine. Basically anyone who had access to a printing press, and who was able to write and respond to the events of the day. Paine was only one of many. A quick search of the web illustrates this. You have people such as Samuel Loudon or John Dickinson's series of pamphlets, "Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania". For a fuller reading check out "Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776, Volume I: 1750–1765", edited by Bernard Bailyn and Jane N. Garrett.

These were how the American Revolution was communicated and came about. They were not in agreement regarding what were the primary issues or challenges, nor how to proceed. Each had a position. Each probably shared in the frustration, but regarding what it was that was causing the challenges - that varied. In the end I guess enough of them agreed that much of their frustration and problems were caused by an English presence. It started with a printing press.

I would argue that the reformation would have been very different without Gutenberg preceding Luther by 70 years. There would not have been a reformation without Gutenberg's printing press. One cannot come to know the Lord without the Bible in hand. Before that time, one connected to their God by partaking in the Eucharist, as the priest performed the service in Latin, a language few understood. Language and words meant little until the printing press. Connecting to one's God was to accept the body and blood of the Christ in a church with your family and fellow townspeople surrounding you. That changed with the printing press.

By the time the American Constitution is being debated, newspapers have begun to replace the pamphlet. Hamilton, Jay and James Madison do not publish pamphlets, but provide their essays to the newspapers of the time. Newspapers such as the Independent Journal, the New York Packet, and The Daily Advertiser. By 1835 there are 1200 newspapers in the US.

They start out as political tools. The political parties embrace the idea of a pamphlet and out of it evolves the newspaper. Again, it was in such an environment that Jay and Hamilton thrived. We know of them today as they were the victors. What was the truth in the course of that debate and discussion? Today, we accept their logic, but at the time, their principles were not seen as so obvious.

Jump ahead to 1935 or 1965. Now we have radio in the former, and TV in the later. Newspapers have already begun to consolidate and play a diminished role. You have the newsreels. Before a movie or series of movies at the local cinema would be a newsreel, updating viewers on the War in Europe during the 2nd World War. They highlight what President Roosevelt or the first Lady are busy with, and tell of what Greta Garbo and Bogie are up to. Mass media has arrived, and news is part of that. With that comes a steady diet of standardly accepted facts and details.

Technology and political context allowed for mass media to thrive. All could listen to and see the facts presented to them on the radio and or the big and little screens. With these there was no room for a differences of facts. We might have a difference of opinion but facts are established. Everyone aspired to have a radio and go to the movies. And when TV was offered up properly in the 50s, it too was embraced. We were in this progression perhaps experiencing progress.

Further, considering the series of events in the world, this was not a time to challenge and dispute the facts. We had the Great Depression. There was the Second World War, and then we moved right on into the Cold Ward for the next 40 years. Each of these required or demanded that we do not challenge what was being presented. And there was the Great Depression, which we struggled with. Likewise, the the armies of the Germans under Hitler along with the Japanese in the Pacific did require a response. Mass communication helped drive home those messages. It unified.

You can see the cracks in the 60's and 70's, with the various protest movements. The new forms of music that embrace technology and electricity, but likewise challenge the status quo, and what people accept as the truth. Political protest comes out full force in the late 60's with the demand for civil rights, and the protest over Vietnam. The threat of nuclear annihilation hang over us but even so, opinions become more varied and facts become something to discuss. This might be the impact of the blues, Bob Dylan and amplified music. We found a way to challenge the standard facts and opinions offered up by mass media outlets and largely enforced by the FCC.

It was Reagan in the 80's that loosened that bridle, allowing for cable channels to not need to follow the ways of broadcast media, not be regulated by the FCC. We have initially the rash and youthful MTV. Roughly ten years later, however, we have Fox News. MSNBC follows suit.

In all of these truth begins to be seen in different lights again. What was restrained and constrained by the mass media in the 30's, 40's and 50's begins to crumble. New outlets allow for new ideas and new approaches. Technology both limits and broadens the truth. Likewise, the Cold War in 1991 is done. D'Souza does offer a certain insight here.

No doubt, this is an overly quick list of poorly constructed views of history and ideas. I know I can be challenged on numerous points and angles. I would welcome some of that. Yet the basic point is there. Truth does vary. Philosophically and historically what we believe and hold dear does change. It is much more driven by the moment than what we would like to claim. Eternal Truths are a challenge.

That said, our reliance on science does challenge this, and our faith though waning is still there too.

I look forward to those two texts I began with and what they offer. We shall see.