Surviving a Post-Truth World: How Society Adapts and Thrives

We are currently existing in a post-truth world — this notion has been expressed before.

What does this mean?

Essentially, it implies that trust in those who are meant to provide us with the truth — the elites, the mediating class, or any other term to describe them — has vanished.

We have not trusted our presidents for a generation.

We have not trusted the news media or other sources of information since the rise of the internet.

At some point during the COVID-19 pandemic, we lost faith in our scientific institutions as well.

Truth is not simply a collection of facts: it operates the other way around.

We establish frameworks of understanding, which then shape and interpret the facts.

In a healthy society, discussions should revolve around the connection between a particular fact and its impact on our comprehension of the world.

The breakdown of the mediators means that we now argue about the frameworks and their interpretations among ourselves.

In this continual upheaval, interpretations have become biased and incomplete.

Reality has fragmented into countless pieces.

This is the essence of the post-truth state.

Mapping to Reality — and the Ephemeral Nature of Truth

Certain types of information will always function as a representation of reality: accurately depicting a specific state of affairs.

Sports information falls into this category. If I inquire about the performance of the Nationals last night,

I anticipate a single correct response: “They lost.”

An array of official statistics, upheld by various sports organizations, determine the effectiveness of individual players — which in turn influences the allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in the pursuit of top talent.

Any indication of bias contaminating these statistics would undermine the sport.

Change is viewed suspiciously as it undermines historical comparisons: Sports enthusiasts are among the most resistant to change.

Yet the world is in flux — the game evolves — and over time, the ability of traditional categories to measure performance diminishes.

Major League Baseball, for instance, has introduced multiple alterations that are imperceptible through statistics: changes in the ball’s hardness, the duration of the season and post-season, the financial incentive to hit home runs, among others.

Whether truth is eternal and universal is a metaphysical query that I choose to disregard.

However, human understanding is inherently dynamic: a continuous pursuit rather than a final attainment.

Therefore, we should not be surprised that dissidents within baseball, dissatisfied with traditional statistics, devised “moneyball,” a new set of performance metrics.

This marked a display of institutional vitality.

While the debate between baseball frameworks persists, it is undeniable that moneyball significantly refined the sport’s evaluation of player capabilities.

Business and financial information must closely align with reality.

Andrey Mir explains that the need to monitor shipments and markets led to the emergence of the first newspapers in 16th-century Venice — a lineage that continues through publications like The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, and numerous private firms providing clients with valuable market insights.

At every level, governments generate immense volumes of economic data: one could argue that modern governance essentially functions as a vast numbers factory.

All this data serves the purpose of generating wealth. Trillions are wagered on interpretations of economic data.

Yet official statistics predominantly focus on a stagnant industrial society.

They measure the past.

Today’s economy is a sprawling global web of transactions conducted at rapid speeds, potentially incomprehensible: Whether these are the best or worst economic times, or even both simultaneously, is debatable.

Clearly, we require a financial version of moneyball, yet none has emerged.

The experts, despite their mastery of data, often stumble blindly into uncertainty.

The crisis of 2008 laid bare this inadequacy: Over $12 trillion in household wealth vanished within a matter of weeks, without a clear explanation.

Alan Greenspan, then considered a nearly infallible figure in capitalist circles, believed the crisis exposed “a flaw in the model . . . that defines how the world works.”

“I still do not fully understand why it happened,” admitted Greenspan.

When posed with the question, “How did we get here?” during the peak of the crisis, President George W. Bush received a response of general bewilderment.

When it came to the economy, the federal government’s framework of understanding had lost its connection to reality.

Science as a Model — and the Distortion of Frameworks

The ability of science to extract accurate knowledge about the world has instilled a nearly religious reverence, heightened by the tangible improvements science has brought to our lives.

“The science says” is the contemporary equivalent of the word of God — any assertion following this phrase is considered indisputable.

For a long time, most Americans viewed science as the model and guarantor of pure objective truth.

Scientific institutions held immense prestige among the general public.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the disappointing performance of experts and institutions, shattered this idealization.

Health officials like Anthony Fauci preached from their platforms but frequently contradicted themselves.

Many falsehoods were disseminated.

For instance, it was initially claimed that the virus could not have originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China. Subsequently, this statement was proven false.

Similarly, assertions that our government did not fund research on dangerous viruses in Wuhan were also debunked.

Lockdowns and social distancing were touted as methods to flatten the infection curve, alongside the belief that vaccination could prevent contagion.

However, none of these assertions held true.

Based on these officials’ recommendations, schools were closed for prolonged periods, despite the virus sparing most children.

On numerous occasions, misinformation was deliberate.

Government scientists appeared more focused on promoting specific narratives rather than following the best available evidence.

What prompted this behavior?

Or, put another way: What purpose did spreading falsehoods serve?

This conduct can be traced back to the powerful influence of authority over information.

The pandemic epitomized a post-truth scenario.

Predictably, it incited a socio-political frenzy.

Science was weaponized to instill fear in a restive populace, with experts, once an obscure group, now glorified as front-line warriors.

Every mandate they issued during this period of turmoil was an exercise in imposing arbitrary authority.

The scientific method eschews authoritarianism and welcomes critique.

However, throughout the pandemic, this principle was reversed, as science was employed as a tool of authority to suppress dissent.

Science, intended to be neutral and objective, was claimed as personal property by experts and politicians: they sought a monopoly on truth.

“I represent science,” asserted Fauci.

“We own the science, and this fact should be common knowledge,” asserted a United Nations official.

“We will remain your sole source of truth,” declared the prime minister of New Zealand.

Statements by government experts were more aligned with political necessity than virology.

These statements served as self-aggrandizing hymns, intended to augment the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

Yet, their function and source were rooted in falsehood.

Ironically, these actions evoked public contempt for both experts and institutions — a sentiment that was magnified and warranted.

Many political figures who peddled misinformation were either defeated or disgraced.

Nonetheless, no lessons were gleaned from this episode. No accountability, no acknowledgments of mistakes, but instead, a reinforcement of existing positions.

We continue to rely on an establishment science significantly divorced from reality — and only sheer fortune will shield us from existential calamity during the next health crisis.

The Confusion of Moral Judgment — and the Psychotic Urge for Control

The prevalent source of fallacy today stems from conflating moral judgments with incontrovertible truths.

This confusion is deliberate, serving as the ultimate tool in the clash of knowledge frameworks.

At every turn, loaded terms like “racist,” “fascist,” and “colonizer” detonate all around us, inflicting their casualties.

These terms are presented as factual declarations and are often accepted as such.

If I were to assert, “Donald Trump is an authoritarian,” the typical responses would be, “Certainly!” or “On the contrary, he is a victim.”

This is a fallacy, conflating facts with opinions about facts.

Earthquakes or pandemics have tangible repercussions, independent of human opinion.

Conversely, the statement “Donald Trump is an authoritarian” constitutes a moral judgment: a reference to a specific value system that is only valid for those who share that system of values.

This assertion is laden with value assumptions regarding authoritarianism, its alignment with Trump’s actions, and the appropriate attitude toward both — assumptions that must be accepted prior to endorsing the statement’s veracity.

Morality is more akin to currency or matrimony than seismic events: it only exists when a sizeable portion of the population deems it so.

The goal, consistently, has been to broaden the moral community: to make it synonymous with humanity. Yet, in our current era of nihilistic upheavals, with traditional and Enlightenment moralities both under assault, the yearning for universal acceptance has dwindled to a chaotic convergence of discordant fragments, all vying for validation in a disordered world.

These pressures have given rise to the societal version of a psychological breakdown.

Truth has been submerged beneath an avalanche of subjective pronouncements: even science, as demonstrated, has succumbed to mythology.

A subjectivized society necessitates a substantial degree of control.

Any minor discord could splinter the facade of fiction, permitting raw truth to penetrate.

Precautionary tactics are indispensable.

The public must be rigorously steered to prevent a stampede in panic.

Dialogue must be regulated.

The perceived enemies must be identified and exposed, whether internal or external adversaries.

Moral judgments, at times, may laud the hero or the saint — for instance, Fauci was swiftly revered in the early stages of the pandemic.

However, more frequently, these judgments manifest as condemnations, censures, or anathemas.

Given the fragile nature of the system, the public condemnation of dissidents assumes great significance.

This brand of moralizing inevitably devolves into power dynamics and endorsements of repression.

A cynic might suggest that this was where the spiral began.

The Role of Cowardice in Perpetuating Untruth — and the Path out of the Tangle

How can we liberate ourselves from the collective fantasies facilitated by post-truth?

A therapist would advocate a return to reality — yet what constitutes reality is precisely the subject of contention.

We must learn to navigate the labyrinth.

Individually, we should recognize that the purpose of moral judgment is not to mirror reality but to shape it.

It is the assumptions we must engage with, not the conclusions.

When confronted with propositions like “Trump is an authoritarian” and similar doctrinal affirmations, the most productive response is to ask, “What do you mean by that, exactly?”

The aspiration should be modest: to grasp our discrepancies.

Predictably, this might trigger alarm and rage.

Refusing unconditional agreement with “established” beliefs could unleash the convulsive forces of a society tilted towards psychosis, with serious repercussions — particularly for those vulnerable to loss, such as employment.

The choice, however, is stark: persist or capitulate.

If we lack the courage to defend truth as we comprehend it, we will be subjected to the falsehoods concocted by a diseased system.

The cardinal virtue required at this juncture isn’t empathy or tolerance but fortitude.

On a political scale, we must remove from power the petty tyrants seeking to control opinions and conversations through state coercion.

Post-truth’s playing field should never tilt in favor of official lies.

Censorship of digital platforms, whether directly by the government or subtly through insinuations, should be regarded as an abomination.

Science must liberate itself from the clutches of dominant orthodoxies.

All frameworks and ideologies should be open to criticism — a principle that applies not only to traditional faiths like Christianity and Judaism but also to modern convictions such as sexual identity and climate change.

And it is paramount — though it must be reemphasized — that we commence this process by questioning our most fervently held beliefs.

The repercussions of post-truth are not uniformly detrimental.

A robust skepticism towards accepted notions, for instance, has historically been perceived as a mark of sagacity, from Socrates to contemporary science.

A broader range of viewpoints on every argument can yield not only confusion but insight.

Elevating the importance of the public relative to experts in assessing information should not be antithetical to a democratic society.

The 20th century’s illusion of cohesive narratives has been permanently shattered.

We now navigate through obscurity, plagued by uncertainty — a precise depiction, I might add, of the human plight.

Nevertheless, by viewing information’s role as the lifeline leading out of the labyrinth, we can still progress, however gradually, towards truth.

Reprinted with permission from Discourse Magazine.