tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/post-truth-era-38755/articlespost-truth era – The Conversation2021-07-09T11:53:19Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1641912021-07-09T11:53:19Z2021-07-09T11:53:19ZFive lessons on bringing truth back to politics from Britain’s first female philosophy professor<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410573/original/file-20210709-25-1ao83va.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C7%2C1251%2C716&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Susan Stebbing's 1939 work is just as relevant today as it was then.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://london.ac.uk/susan-stebbing">National Portrait Gallery, London via Creative Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is often said that we live in a “post-truth” era. It is unclear at times what role, if any, truth plays in politics. During the pandemic, world leaders <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/20/national-academy-sciences-donald-trump-coronavirus-response">dismissed the advice of experts</a> and acted against <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01589-0/fulltext?utm_campaign=lancetcovid21&utm_content=172221470&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-27013292">empirical data</a>.</p>
<p>Democracies have felt precarious – in the US, during the Trump presidency, and in countries like Brazil, Hungary and Poland currently. Integral to such corrosion of democracy (as George Orwell made clear in his novel 1984) is the distortion of truth and facts in favour of a particular agenda.</p>
<p>In times of crisis, it can be helpful to look backwards at how our forebears have coped with similar situations in history.</p>
<p>Now, I suggest we look to an under-appreciated philosopher writing just before the outbreak of the second world war, as fascism and communism threatened the stability of European democracy.</p>
<p>Susan Stebbing was the first woman in the UK to be appointed to a full professorship in philosophy (at Bedford College in 1933). She came through the ranks of academic philosophy alongside some of Britain’s best-known philosophers, including Bertrand Russell. </p>
<p>Like most women in philosophy’s history, Stebbing has been overlooked in favour of her male counterparts. She is not a household name, even though she published prolifically and served as president of the UK’s two largest philosophical societies, as well as Humanists UK. Only recently has her work gained its deserved attention among philosophers.</p>
<p>Stebbing’s 1939 book Thinking to Some Purpose taught a general audience to use the tools of philosophical logic to engage in healthy public discourse. She calls for people to “think clearly,” unclouded by “unconscious bias and unrecognised ignorance”.</p>
<p>Stebbing’s lessons on thinking clearly and taking politispeak with a grain of salt can help us navigate our fraught political climate today. Here are just a few.</p>
<h2>Question your most cherished beliefs</h2>
<p>Stebbing claims that all of us have long-held beliefs we are not willing to doubt. She explains that in such cases we confuse the “passionateness” of our feelings for a “guarantee of truth”. </p>
<p>Stebbing argues it is important to question all our beliefs, especially in politics. Once we’ve identified our most cherished beliefs, we might ask ourselves: could I reasonably accept that now? If the answer is no, they ought to be weeded out.</p>
<h2>Avoid the fallacy of ‘special pleading’</h2>
<p>Stebbing thinks people are generally pretty poor at putting themselves in one another’s shoes. We make claims about how others should behave, without considering whether we would do the same in a given situation. </p>
<p>She writes: “A safeguard against this mistake is to change <em>you</em> into <em>I</em>.” For instance, before condemning one state for selling arms to another, I ought to consider whether my own state does the same – and whether I am happy with it. Only then can I be sure I am not acting hypocritically. </p>
<h2>Be wary of emotive language</h2>
<p>Stebbing distinguishes between two types of language: “scientific” and “emotive”. Scientific language is used to make objective claims. Emotive language is intended to evoke strong feelings. Often, in politics (and journalism), emotive language is disguised as scientific language –- giving words “a significance in addition to their objective meaning”. Think of the way <a href="https://theconversation.com/culture-wars-uncovered-most-of-uk-public-dont-know-if-woke-is-a-compliment-or-an-insult-161529">“woke” is used</a> by right-wing commentators. It isn’t so much describing someone, as getting you to feel a certain way about them.</p>
<p>Paying attention to whether politicians are trying to appeal to our emotions can help us tell a convincing argument from a cheap, emotional dog whistle. We can then decide whether to allow ourselves to be persuaded by our feelings or to turn to more objective forms of evidence. </p>
<h2>Look out for empty slogans</h2>
<p>Stebbing emphasises that politicians make good use of slogans: short statements that stick in the minds of voters. Slogans are not inherently harmful, she thinks – they are often rooted in truth and can reveal meaningful assertions. However, some slogans seem meaningful but wilt under scrutiny. If a slogan is empty, it has no role to play in rational argument and should be discarded.</p>
<p>Consider, for example, Theresa May’s claim that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36782922">“Brexit Means Brexit”</a>. While this initially sounded like a firm commitment to follow through with the referendum result, over time it became clear that no one really knew what “Brexit” was going to mean at all.</p>
<h2>Think freely</h2>
<p>Stebbing is part of a long line of philosophers, dating back to the 18th-century Enlightenment, known as “free-thinkers”. Free-thinkers believe that we should only form judgments based on our own independent reason, as opposed to church teachings, newspaper propaganda or party politics. </p>
<p>If your judgment tells you that something doesn’t sound right, pursue that thought. We all have an innate “capacity to follow an argument” that we should put to good use. Rather than voting the way we have always voted or taking the advice of others, we should weigh up the available evidence and form our own conclusions. </p>
<p>Stebbing’s work is finally attracting the attention of other philosophers, but it was never her intention to be read only by her peers. She wanted to bring philosophy out of the ivory towers of Cambridge and Oxford and into the hands of ordinary people. She thought politicians underestimated the public’s ability to follow an argument, and that instead of trying to provide proof of their policies, rely on making themselves appear likeable and painting their opponents as frauds. </p>
<p>Stebbing thought there was something we can do about this state of affairs – we can bring truth back into politics by learning to think clearly and holding politicians to greater scrutiny. Indeed, many of our current leaders would do well to study her lessons.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164191/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter West does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In our “post-truth” political era, there is a lot we can learn from an under-appreciated philosopher who focused on “thinking clearly.”Peter West, Teaching Fellow in Early Modern Philosophy, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1292142020-01-15T13:54:20Z2020-01-15T13:54:20ZSupreme Court DACA decision isn’t just about Dreamers – it’s about whether the White House has to tell the truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309282/original/file-20200109-80137-1gi5yb1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C40%2C5336%2C3487&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Immigration rights advocates rally outside Supreme Court.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/plaintiffs-come-out-of-court-as-immigration-rights-news-photo/1181924331?adppopup=true">Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The fate of 700,000 people facing deportation may hang on a new question facing the U.S. Supreme Court: Is the White House legally obligated to tell the whole truth when justifying its actions? </p>
<p>In November, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/11/12/776556916/daca-recipients-look-to-supreme-court-for-hope">justices heard arguments</a> over the administration’s decision to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/09/06/548819221/trump-administration-rescinds-daca-calls-on-congress-to-replace-it">rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</a>, or DACA. This Obama-era provision halted the deportation of undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. at an early age, often referred to as Dreamers. A ruling is likely to come late this spring.</p>
<p>The case in front of the court is not about whether the president of the United States has the authority to rescind DACA. All of the parties involved agree that he does. The actual question reflects the current politics of what has been called the <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/05/fact-checking-cant-do-much-when-peoples-dueling-facts-are-driven-by-values-instead-of-knowledge/">post-fact era</a>: Under American law does the executive branch have to give complete and accurate reasons for its actions? </p>
<p>From my perspective as a <a href="https://www.routledge.com/A-Citizens-Guide-to-the-Constitution-and-the-Supreme-Court-Constitutional/Marietta/p/book/9780415843812">scholar of constitutional politics</a>, this is a provocative question with broad ramifications. If the answer is “yes,” it could usher in a new era in which the Supreme Court and many lower courts judge the evasion or candor of public officials. A “no” could give carte blanche to the executive branch to avoid public accountability and offer less-than-full reasons for doing what it does. </p>
<h2>The truth?</h2>
<p>The core of the case became clear during oral arguments in November.</p>
<p>Advocates for DACA recipients and the government both seemed to agree that the court’s role is only to determine if the procedure the Trump administration followed was adequate under congressional laws, especially the <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/the-legal-flaw-with-ditching-daca-215579">Administrative Procedure Act</a>. The case is about procedure, not policy.</p>
<p>Perhaps the key exchange in a fascinating set of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2019/18-587">arguments</a> occurred when Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=62">framed the situation bluntly to Ted Olson</a>, the advocate for DACA recipients:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Do you agree that the executive has the legal authority to rescind DACA?</p>
<p>MR. OLSON: Yes.</p>
<p>JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Okay. So the question then comes down to the explanation.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The whole truth?</h2>
<p>Trump’s position on Dreamers has shifted over time. In the early days of his presidency, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference/">told reporters</a> that he would show “great heart” over the issue, adding that there were some “absolutely incredible kids” in the program. </p>
<p>But by the fall of 2019, Trump was portraying Dreamers in a different light, suggesting that “some are very tough, hardened criminals.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1194219655717642240"}"></div></p>
<p>Different explanations for his decision to rescind DACA were heard by the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The administration argued that DACA was unconstitutional to begin with, on the grounds that the executive order from President Obama <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2017/images/09/05/daca.talking.points%5B8%5D.pdf">exceeded executive authority</a>.</p>
<p>Advocates for the DACA recipients offered alternative explanations. They argued that the White House is willing to accept the high costs to so many current residents in order to achieve their political goal of reducing the number of unauthorized immigrants. Or as Justice Sonia Sotomayor phrased it, this is a “political decision” that “is not about the law; this is about our <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=32">choice to destroy lives</a>.”</p>
<p>Others <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-press-secretary-says-trump-will-now-use-dreamers-as-bargaining-chip-for-border-wall-fbb7f8d9e18f/">have said</a> the administration is using DACA as a bargaining chip for other legislative goals, including <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/politics/trump-proposal-daca-wall.html">funding for the border wall</a>.</p>
<p>If the administration is doing this for partisan and policy reasons, whether DACA is constitutional or not, are they legally bound to be honest in explaining why?</p>
<p>Justice Elena Kagan, perhaps the most likely of the four liberal justices to join a conservative majority, asked the key question: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=82">“Well, what would an adequate explanation look like?”</a></p>
<p>Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the answer should be, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=90">“We don’t like DACA and we’re taking responsibility for that, instead of trying to put the blame on the law</a>.”</p>
<h2>And nothing but?</h2>
<p>Justice Stephen Breyer asked an important question for the legacy of the ruling: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=83">“What’s the point?”</a> In other words, why make the administration say what everyone already knows – that it opposes DACA and is not moved by the human cost of deportation?</p>
<p>The answer came from Michael Mongan, advocate for the University of California where <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/uc-takes-daca-fight-supreme-court">around 1,700 Dreamers study</a>. He argued that the reason to reject the Trump administation’s actions is that “they have not made a decision that actually takes ownership of a discretionary choice to end this policy … so the public could <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-587_1bn2.pdf#page=87">hold them accountable for the choice they’ve made</a>.”</p>
<p>The point is democratic accountability. If the executive branch is forced to make full and honest admissions, then voters can judge elected officials accurately.</p>
<h2>…so, help us Chief Justice Roberts</h2>
<p>In their deliberations on whether the administration has to be fully forthcoming in explaining its actions, the justices have a recent precedent established by Chief Justice John Roberts.</p>
<p>Last year when the Supreme Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/roberts-rules-the-2-most-important-supreme-court-decisions-this-year-were-about-fair-elections-and-the-chief-justice-119708">rejected the Trump administration’s effort</a> to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census, Roberts argued that if the executive branch advances dishonest arguments, the court would not accept them. The phrases Roberts used included “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=31">pretext</a>,” “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=33">contrived</a>,” and “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=32">a story that does not match the explanation</a>.” In common language, that means lying.</p>
<p>Roberts’ assertion in the census case met with deep disdain from Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=35">who wrote</a>: “For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”</p>
<p>The point was put even more bluntly by Justice Samuel Alito, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf#page=75">who wrote</a> that the federal judiciary had “no authority to stick its nose into” whether reasons given by the administration were the “only reasons” or the “real reasons.”</p>
<p>DACA advocates are now asking Justice Roberts to extend his ruling on the census case to encompass a broad demand for executive candor. The long-term legacy of the case may be whether the Supreme Court led by John Roberts agrees to become an arbiter of public honesty.</p>
<p>[ <em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129214/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Morgan Marietta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The question facing justices isn’t whether the president had the authority to rescind DACA. Rather, it is: Was he honest in his reasons why?Morgan Marietta, Associate Professor of Political Science, UMass LowellLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1060492018-11-19T11:38:05Z2018-11-19T11:38:05ZLies, damn lies and post-truth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245549/original/file-20181114-194500-15qdygi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">President Donald Trump speaks to the media outside of the White House.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Trump/a685593769a14d5084fbe96c2ffd0db8/305/0">AP/Evan Vucci</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html">politicians lie</a>.</p>
<p>Or do they? </p>
<p>Even if we could find some isolated example of a politician who was scrupulously honest – <a href="https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/403945-former-president-jimmy-carter-trump-is">former President Jimmy Carter</a>, perhaps – the question is how to think about the rest of them. </p>
<p>And if most politicians lie, then why are some Americans so hard on President Donald Trump? </p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/02/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.df1dbfb544fb">The Washington Post</a>, Trump has told 6,420 lies so far in his presidency. In the seven weeks leading up to the midterms, his rate increased to 30 per day. </p>
<p>That’s a lot, but isn’t this a difference in degree and not a difference in kind with other politicians?</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=896&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1126&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1126&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/245620/original/file-20181114-194494-araab3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1126&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Women’s March in Toronto, Canada, January 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/toronto-ontario-canada-january-20-2018-1005749914?src=hgt8fR9jX9ZR-icYo4iQFQ-1-2">Shutterstock/Louis.Roth</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>From my perspective <a href="http://www.leemcintyrebooks.com/">as a philosopher who studies truth and belief</a>, it doesn’t seem so. And even if most politicians lie, that doesn’t make all lying equal. </p>
<p>Yet the difference in Trump’s prevarication seems to be found not in the quantity or enormity of his lies, but in the way that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/opinion/beyond-lying-donald-trumps-authoritarian-reality.html">Trump uses his lies in service</a> to a proto-authoritarian political ideology. </p>
<p>I recently wrote a book, titled “<a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/post-truth">"Post-Truth,”</a> about what happens when “alternative facts” replace actual facts, and feelings have more weight than evidence. Looked at from this perspective, calling Trump a liar fails to capture his key strategic purpose.</p>
<p>Any amateur politician can engage in lying. Trump is engaging in “post-truth.”</p>
<h2>Beyond word of the year</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/press/news/2016/12/11/WOTY-16">Oxford English Dictionaries named “post-truth”</a> its word of the year in November 2016, right before the U.S. election. </p>
<p>Citing a 2,000 percent spike in usage – due to Brexit and the American presidential campaign – <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth">they defined post-truth</a> as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” </p>
<p>Ideology, in other words, takes precedence over reality.</p>
<p>When an individual believes their thoughts can influence reality, we call it “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/magical-thinking">magical thinking</a>” and might worry about their mental health. When a government official uses ideology to trump reality, it’s more like propaganda, and it puts us on the road to fascism. </p>
<p>As Yale philosopher <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/9/19/17847110/how-fascism-works-donald-trump-jason-stanley">Jason Stanley argues</a>, “The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power.”</p>
<p>Consider the example of Trump’s recent decision not to cancel two political rallies on the same day as the Pittsburgh massacre. <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413644-trump-incorrectly-cites-stock-market-opening-day-after-9-11-to">He said that this was based on the fact</a> that the New York Stock Exchange was open the day after 9/11. </p>
<p>This isn’t true. The stock exchange stayed closed for six days after 9/11. </p>
<p>So was this a mistake? A lie? Trump didn’t seem to treat it so. In fact, he repeated the falsehood later in the same day. </p>
<p>When a politician gets caught in a lie, there’s usually a bit of sweat, perhaps some shame and the expectation of consequences. </p>
<p>Not for Trump. After many commentators pointed out to him that the stock exchange was in fact closed for several days after 9/11, he merely shrugged it off, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/28/no-president-trump-nyse-did-not-open-day-after-sept-attacks/?utm_term=.f648cb2beef1">never bothering to acknowledge – let alone correct – his error</a>. </p>
<p>Why would he do this?</p>
<h2>Ideology, post-truth and power</h2>
<p>The point of a lie is to convince someone that a falsehood is true. But the point of post-truth is domination. In my analysis, post-truth is an assertion of power. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2018/01/why-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-lie-and-why-they-are-so-good-it">As journalist Masha Gessen</a> and others have argued, when Trump lies he does so not to get someone to accept what he’s saying as true, but to show that he is powerful enough to say it. </p>
<p>He has asserted, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/14/trump-60-minutes-cbs-takeaways/1645388002/">“I’m the President and you’re not,”</a> as if such high political office comes with the prerogative of creating his own reality. This would explain why Trump doesn’t seem to care much if there is videotape or other evidence that contradicts him. When you’re the boss, what does that matter? </p>
<p>Should we be worried about this flight from mere lying to post-truth? </p>
<p>Even if all politicians lie, I believe that post-truth foreshadows something more sinister. In his powerful book <a href="http://timothysnyder.org/books/on-tyranny-tr">“On Tyranny,”</a> <a href="http://timothysnyder.org/">historian Timothy Snyder</a> writes that “post-truth is pre-fascism.” It is a tactic seen in “electoral dictatorships” – where a society retains the facade of voting without the institutions or trust to ensure that it is an actual democracy, like those in Putin’s Russia or Erdogan’s Turkey.</p>
<p>In this, Trump is following the authoritarian playbook, characterized by leaders lying, the erosion of public institutions and the consolidation of power. You do not need to convince someone that you are telling the truth when you can simply assert your will over them and dominate their reality. </p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248895/original/file-20181204-133100-t34yqm.png?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header>Lee McIntyre is the author of:</header>
<p><a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/post-truth">Post-Truth</a></p>
<footer>MIT Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106049/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MIT Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</span></em></p>Any amateur politician can engage in lying. President Donald Trump is going further than that. He’s engaging in ‘post-truth’.Lee McIntyre, Research Fellow Center for Philosophy and History of Science, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/876062017-11-16T22:26:42Z2017-11-16T22:26:42ZA Robert De Niro Theory of Post-Truth: ‘Are you talking to me?’<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194971/original/file-20171116-17112-19pygv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In Taxi Driver, Robert De Niro's character, Travis Bickle, inhabits his own crazy paradigm, yet ultimately events frame him as a hero in the eyes of others too.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxoczOXRi4">YouTube </a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">ongoing series</a> from the <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/">Post-Truth Initiative</a>, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.</em></p>
<p><em>Over two days from November 20, the Post-Truth Initiative will host a series of events, including an evening <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/aec_events/sydney-ideas-truth-evidence-and-reason-who-can-we-believe/">question and answer session</a> on the 20th with invited guests from around the world. The project brings together scholars of media and communications, government and international relations, physics, philosophy, linguistics and medicine, and is affiliated with the Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced Research Centre (<a href="http://chcinetwork.org/sydney-social-sciences-and-humanities-advanced-research-centre-sssharc">SSSHARC</a>), the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/">Sydney Environment Institute</a> and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Many of the commentaries on post-truth have attempted to locate the sources of it. Where does post-truth discourse come from, and who is responsible for producing it?</p>
<p>Looked at this way, post-truth will never be found. It does not exist there. There is nothing new about politicians and the powerful telling lies, spinning, producing propaganda, dissembling, or bullshitting. Machiavellianism became a common term of political discourse precisely because it embodies Machiavelli’s belief that all leaders might, at some point, need to lie.</p>
<p>Lying is not an aberration in politics. Political theorist <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/strauss-leo/">Leo Strauss</a>, developing a concept first outlined by Plato, coined the term “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Leo_Strauss">noble lie</a>” to refer to an untruth knowingly propagated by an elite to maintain social harmony or advance an agenda.</p>
<p>Questions about the agents of post-truth, and attempts to locate the sources of political bullshit, are just not grasping what is new and specific about post-truth. If we look for post-truth in the realm of the production of disinformation, we will not find it. This is why so many are sceptical that the concept of post-truth represents anything new. Not all haystacks contain needles.</p>
<p>So where is post-truth located, and how did we get here? Post-truth resides not in the realm of the production, but in the realm of reception. If lies, dissembling, spinning, propaganda and the creation of bullshit have always been part and parcel of politics, then what has changed is how publics respond to them. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth">Oxford Dictionary definition</a> of post-truth makes this clear; post-truth refers to “circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.</p>
<h2>The problem with ‘objective facts’</h2>
<p>While this definition captures the essence of the problem, most academics, particularly those working in the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS), will immediately identify one glaring problem with it. This is the concept of “objective facts”. Anyone with an awareness of the work of Thomas Kuhn, Michel Foucault, or Ludwig Wittgenstein will know that facts are always contestable. </p>
<p>If they weren’t, public debate on complex policy issues would be easy. We could simply identify the objective facts and build policy on them.</p>
<p>Facts are social constructions. If there were no humans, no human societies and no human languages, there would be no facts. Facts are a particular kind of socially constructed entity. </p>
<p>Facts express a relationship between what we claim and what exists. We construct facts to convey information about the world. </p>
<p>But this does not mean we can just make up any facts we please. What makes something a fact is that it captures some features of the world to which it refers. The validity of our facts is dependent, in part, on their relationship to the world they describe. Something that fails accurately to describe something, or some state of affairs, is not a fact.</p>
<h2>Enter ‘alternative facts’…</h2>
<p>What about “alternative facts”? The idea is not as far-fetched as it seems. Kuhn’s <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/484164a">The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</a> is one of the most influential academic texts on the history of science. Kuhn’s concept of paradigms has seeped into public debate. But Kuhn’s notion of scientific “progress” occurring through a change in paradigm not only legitimates alternative facts it depends on them. </p>
<p>Each paradigm, according to Kuhn, has its own facts. Facts in one paradigm are not recognised as facts by adherents of alternative paradigms. Kuhn went so far as to argue that scientists from different paradigms lived in different worlds.</p>
<p>Facts, Kuhn argued, are always relative to the overarching paradigm. As such, Donald Trump and his supporters might claim to be simply occupying a different paradigm. </p>
<p>One can derive a similar position from Foucault’s notion of regimes of truth. Truth, according to Foucault, is relative to the regime in which it is embedded. And regimes of truth differ across time and place.</p>
<p>Or one can approach this via Wittgenstein’s notion of “language games”: unless one understands the rules of the game one is unable to take part. Transposed into contemporary political debate, the left and right each have their own paradigm, regime, truth, or language game.</p>
<p>Even if we do not accept Kuhn’s notion of paradigms, Kellyanne Conway could have meant, as she later <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/03/kellyanne-conway-alternative-facts-mistake-oscars">tried to claim</a>, that the Trump administration simply had a different perspective on the status of the facts, and a differing view of what facts matter. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VSrEEDQgFc8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Kellyanne Conway explains that White House press secretary Sean Spicer offered “alternative facts”.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Admitting the role of academia</h2>
<p>Again, most academics will recognise the validity of this idea. There are always multiple perspectives on complex issues. The facts, as we constantly remind our students, don’t speak for themselves. Which facts are relevant, and what to make of them, is always a matter of interpretation.</p>
<p>Thus, post-truth finds intellectual legitimation in the necessary and critical approach to the construction of knowledge that is taken as a given in academia. Academics necessarily, and rightly, take a sceptical attitude to all truth claims. </p>
<p>We encourage students to express their opinion. We teach them that alternative views are to be valued. Nietzschean perspectivism is the default position of most academics, and we are loath to reach definitive conclusions particularly in ethical and political matters. Indeed, the University of Sydney now implores students to “<a href="https://twitter.com/sjw_nonsense/status/906155654154412032">unlearn truth</a>”.</p>
<p>This idea is not as outrageous as it might sound, although taken literally the consequences of “unlearning truth”, as we are discovering with post-truth politics, could be disastrous. But understood another way, “unlearning truth” is entirely consistent with an Enlightenment ethos.</p>
<p>Kant’s call to arms in the service of Enlightenment was <em>Sapere Aude</em>; dare to know. This was a call for humanity to overthrow its reliance on the church, the monarchy and other sources of authority as providing the secure grounds for knowledge claims. Take nothing at face value, and reason for oneself.</p>
<p>The Enlightenment also promoted the idea of inalienable human rights possessed by every individual and revived the ancient Greek concept of democracy; one person one vote; everyone has their say on political matters. In this context, it is possible to view post-truth discourse as the radicalisation of the Enlightenment. Specifically, in the realm of knowledge production, it is the democratisation of epistemology.</p>
<p>While democracy might be a political principle worth defending, there is a tension between it and the democratisation of epistemology. Democracy needs a population sufficiently well educated to be able to sift through the arguments and reach informed judgements.</p>
<p>This was the great hope of Enlightenment liberalism, particularly in relation to the provision of education. Increased access to education would bring progress and peace. A highly educated populace would make democracy function better.</p>
<h2>Confronting the post-truth paradox</h2>
<p>Despite the fact that by any standards Western populations are better educated than in Kant’s time, we seem to be regressing rather than progressing in terms of democratic practice. This is the post-truth paradox. The more educated societies have become, the more dysfunctional democracy seems to be. The supposed positive link between democracy, education and knowledge appears to be broken.</p>
<p>How can we explain this paradox, and can we do anything about it? Although many have been quick to blame postmodernism for the emergence of post-truth, the problem is much broader than that and infects most of the humanities, arts and social sciences. Postmodernism is only the most radical version of the idea that we should value, and allow a voice to, all opinions. </p>
<p>The political impulse behind this is admirable. Few academics are so arrogant to claim that they possess the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Allowing others, particularly marginalised others, to express “their truth” is seen as progressive.</p>
<p>Although many academics will not embrace the extremes of postmodernism, the ethos behind that approach is understandable to most. This explains why what seems to many outside of the academy to be a lunatic fringe has become so influential within the academy. Foucault, for example, is one of the most <a href="https://philosophyinatimeoferror.com/2016/07/05/most-cited-philosophers-and-others/">cited authors in HASS subjects</a>.</p>
<p>To be clear, I am not arguing that Trump and others in his administration have read the likes of Kuhn, Foucault and Wittgenstein. The problem is worse than that. It is a structural issue. </p>
<p>Increased access to education has suffused these ideas throughout the social field. Few people who have attended universities in HASS subjects in the last 30 years could have escaped exposure to these ideas. The incipient relativism that is the logical endpoint of them is now deeply ingrained in Western societies.</p>
<p>Of course, academics are not the only source of post-truth. But in an important way, they have contributed to it. When measuring our impact on society we only have two options. Either we have some impact, or we do not. </p>
<p>For some time now, those working in HASS subjects have been concerned to demonstrate how their research and teaching matters in practical ways to society. There is a logic to this, as governments increasingly seek to validate funding for HASS subjects on the basis of their supposed <a href="http://www.arc.gov.au/research-impact-principles-and-framework">impact</a> on society.</p>
<p>As the supposed guardians of truth, knowledge and the commitment to science, universities cannot have it both ways. If academics make a difference and publics no longer seem to care about facts, truth and reason, then we cannot be absolved of all responsibility for this situation. Indeed, if we do deny our responsibility, we as good as admit that have we little impact on society.</p>
<h2>What can we do about this?</h2>
<p>If universities are the social institutions whose function is to produce and protect knowledge and truth, and if those same institutions are, in part, the source of post-truth, what can we do about it?</p>
<p>First we need to recover our intellectual nerve. We need to situate critical approaches to the production of knowledge in context. We need to go beyond simply introducing students to critique and explore with them the validity of arguments. We need to be prepared to say that some perspectives are better than others, and explain why.</p>
<p>An embracing of multiple perspectives should not lead us to conclude that all perspectives are equally valid. And if they are not all equally valid we need sound epistemological reasons to choose one over the other. In short, we need to re-examine and reinvigorate the Enlightenment impulse.</p>
<p>Second, we need to recover our commitment to objective truth. George Orwell has been much cited as a prescient figure in understanding post-truth. Orwell believed: “The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.” </p>
<p>Yet the concept of “objective truth” has not merely faded out of the world; it has been sent into exile. Few academics embrace the concept today.</p>
<p>This well-founded scepticism towards “objective truth” comes from the confusion between an ontological belief in the existence of objective truth, and an epistemological claim to know it. The two are not synonymous. We can retain our critical stance to epistemological claims about objective truth only by insisting on its status as something that exists but which no one possesses.</p>
<p>As Orwell knew only too well, if the concept of objective truth is moved into the dustbin of history there can be no lies. And if there are no lies there can be no justice, no rights and no wrongs. The concept of “objective truth” is what makes claims about social justice possible.</p>
<p>The irony, of course, is that most academics will claim to be doing just this. After all, most academics will have no problem in declaring climate change to be human-produced, that women remain disadvantaged in many areas of life, that poverty is real, and that racism is founded on false beliefs.</p>
<p>The issue is not that we all make these universal truth claims; it is that in embracing epistemological positions that tend towards relativism, we have denied ourselves a secure ground on which to defend them. In which case, these truth claims appear as nothing other than opinions, perspectives, or expressions of the identity we most value. And if academics cannot ground their truth claims on something other than opinions, perspectives or identity, then how can we expect anyone else to do so?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87606/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Wight does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As Orwell knew only too well, if the concept of objective truth is moved into the dustbin of history there can be no lies. And if there are no lies there can be no justice, no rights and no wrongs.Colin Wight, Professor of International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/810682017-08-13T23:20:31Z2017-08-13T23:20:31ZEclipse of reason: Why do people disbelieve scientists?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180803/original/file-20170802-23916-akvsh3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=990%2C767%2C3509%2C2229&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People reject science such as that about climate change and vaccines, but readily believe scientists about solar eclipses, like this one reflected on the sunglasses of a man dangerously watching in Nicosia, Cyprus, in a 2015 file photo.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=2&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=eclipse%20and%20sunglasses&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED2778801C7E3A1D5E69FE75CC55B658603987FEF24F300B62227BF497D18515FAB7978750CE214B0837D1853405FB9357B8528905964E23D81984317B4AD1BA45C0B1D1A0CEED4BE5A2E297922C28FCC5CFEB24C714341D0405379E78A1A7A8BD255CA8195352209C044EE57DF58AFDD91552F44FC49A03AD85BB6B54D41907D6E4">(AP Photo/Petros Karadjias)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you’ve been paying attention, you know that on Aug. 21, we’re in for a special cosmic treat: the <a href="https://eclipse.aas.org/">Great American Eclipse</a> of 2017.</p>
<p>The moon’s shadow will track a 4,000-kilometre course across the continental United States from coast to coast, <a href="http://depoebayeclipse2017.com">beginning with Depoe Bay, Ore.</a>, and end after 93 minutes in <a href="http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/bob-bestler/article154030414.html">McClellanville, S.C.</a>. As a result, tens of millions of Americans will be treated to that rarest of natural wonders: a total eclipse of the sun.</p>
<p>Canada, unfortunately, won’t experience a total eclipse, but <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/3548728/canada-solar-eclipse-august-21/">the view will still be impressive</a>: The sun will be 86 per cent eclipsed in Vancouver, 70 per cent in Toronto, and 58 per cent in Montreal. Canadians who want to experience totality from the comfort of home will need to wait until <a href="https://weather.com/science/space/news/next-total-solar-eclipse-april-2024-north-america">April 8, 2024</a> (Hamilton, Montreal and Fredericton), <a href="https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2044-august-23">Aug. 23, 2044</a> (Edmonton and Calgary) or <a href="http://www.solar-eclipse.de/en/eclipse/detail/2079-05-01/">May 1, 2079</a> (Saint John and Moncton).</p>
<p>In the meantime, back here in 2017, everyone is focused on Aug. 21. Under the path of the eclipse, <a href="http://www.theleafchronicle.com/story/news/eclipse/2017/04/26/schools-close-events-plotted-out-solar-eclipse-clarksville/100930722/">schools will be closed</a>, traffic <a href="https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/blogs/augusts-total-solar-eclipse-national-traffic-jam">will be a nightmare</a>, and hotel rooms at the Days Inn are on offer <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/travel/where-to-see-the-total-eclipse-astronomy.html">for $1,600 a night</a>.</p>
<h2>Absolute faith in eclipse predictions</h2>
<p>What is remarkable among all this excitement and frenzy is the lack of “eclipse deniers.” Nobody doubts or disputes the detailed scientific predictions of what will happen.</p>
<p>I will be watching the eclipse from <a href="http://www.kentuckymonthly.com/events/total-solar-eclipse-viewing-party/">Simpson County, Ky.</a>, where I expect I will be joined by thousands of others, all of us knowing in advance that totality for us will begin at 1:26:44 p.m., and will end 141 seconds later. It is inconceivable to any of us that the predictions will be wrong by even a single second.</p>
<p>Not one person will argue beforehand that <a href="https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/12/1652527/-Congressman-leaves-stage-to-a-chorus-of-boos-after-saying-the-jury-is-still-out-on-climate-change">the jury is still out</a> on eclipses, that scientists have <a href="http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/">tampered with the data</a>, that eclipses <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moon_landing_hoax">are faked by NASA</a>, that exposing children to eclipses <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html">causes autism</a> or even that eclipses are <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385">a Chinese hoax</a>. Across the continent, there will be climate deniers, creationists, anti-vaxxers and flat-Earthers looking upwards through their <a href="https://www.space.com/36941-solar-eclipse-eye-protection-guide.html">eclipse glasses</a>, all soaking up this wondrous moment along with everyone else.</p>
<p>[<em>Editor’s note: Astrophysicist and popular science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson also echoed this article’s core assertion while it was in editing.</em>]</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"895634473425014785"}"></div></p>
<p>This presents a puzzle: Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science, but unanimously accept, without question, the ridiculously specific predictions on offer for every eclipse?</p>
<h2>Why the selective denial of science?</h2>
<p>One possible reason is that we’ve been right on eclipses every time before. But for most people, a total eclipse is a once-in-a-lifetime experience. Most people won’t have experienced such predictions first hand, and will have to take it on trust that what’s happened before for others will happen again for them.</p>
<p>Another explanation might be that, unlike the case for <a href="https://inconvenientsequel.tumblr.com/">climate change</a> or <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/shows/jabbed">vaccinations</a>, the science behind eclipses is simple and uncontroversial. While it’s true that astronomers have been making reasonably accurate eclipse predictions <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-archaeology-antikythera-mechan-idUSKCN0YW0XQ">for thousands of years</a>, the required calculations are <a href="https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/reference/explain.html">highly complex</a>, extending far beyond the mathematics covered in high school or even in many university courses. Most people would find it difficult to reproduce or confirm any of these eclipse predictions for themselves.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181584/original/file-20170809-32165-ik43tp.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Actress Jenny McCarthy, who has been a prominent advocate of the false belief vaccines are linked to autism, sought to win support from lawmakers at the White House Correspondents Association dinner in this 2008 file photo.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.cpimages.com/fotoweb/cpimages_details.pop.fwx?position=87&archiveType=ImageFolder&sorting=ModifiedTimeAsc&search=jenny%20and%20mccarthy&fileId=7ED4E565C8CEED275AEAE4A023E6F0DBFE75CC55B6586039E8D351704E8E44E52937675D73DB2F545E68D1DB30CCFF1E8B21ADCD35D58FA29D52DFBAF28E76D1F8678765B3CC966147B863EC252668E1E60CABB17DD3AB06B4EFF96039433083D412195A45FA1418AA81C56FBE14091F03D99C08F02C911AB6180BBD75C2E46A">(AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The more likely answer is that eclipses are not a threat. There is nothing at stake. Eclipses do not endanger <a href="https://www.edf.org/card/7-ways-global-warming-affecting-daily-life">our way of life</a> or our <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/heres-what-climate-change-will-do-to-the-american-economy-in-7-charts-e9d15a1ea6a5">standard of living</a>. Nobody fears that eclipses might have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/feb/15/stern-review">economic implications</a>, could <a href="https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/does-the-big-bang-fit-with-the-bible/">challenge our belief system</a> or <a href="https://avn.org.au/making-an-informed-choice/why-the-avn/">threaten our children</a>. There are no anti-eclipse <a href="http://www.tobaccotactics.org/">lobby groups</a> trying to set the narrative, and there are thus no well-funded <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/sugar-coating-science.html">advertising campaigns</a> or <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy">scientific studies</a> that aim to raise doubts in our minds or to subtly shape our thinking.</p>
<h2>Laws of science</h2>
<p>Eclipses are agenda-free. The science — and the resulting <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9GdfL_ToU">extraordinary experience</a> — are left to speak for themselves.</p>
<p>The problem is that we don’t get to pick and choose what scientific facts or consensuses are controversial, and which are not. The same strict laws of science are everywhere.</p>
<p>So if you’re comfortable putting down your non-refundable deposit for your eclipse hotel, if you let a steel tube flying at 30,000 feet carry you to a town under the path of totality, if on the morning of Aug. 21 you check the weather forecast hoping for clear skies, if you pay for breakfast with your credit card, and if that afternoon you snap a picture of the eclipse with your smartphone, then you have staked your bank balance, your August vacation and your very life on the fact that science is testable and reproducible, and that faulty theories can’t withstand extended scrutiny and testing.</p>
<p>Total solar eclipses are a strange <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/the-solar-eclipse-coincidence/">cosmic coincidence</a> and a remarkable, awe-inspiring experience. But they are also a profound reminder that when the emotions, money and politics are stripped away, none of us, at our core, are science deniers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bryan Gaensler receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and from the Canada Research Chairs Program.</span></em></p>People universally believe scientists’ solar eclipse calendars, but vaccine warnings or climate predictions are forms of science that strangely do not enjoy equivalent acceptance.Bryan Gaensler, Director, Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/802552017-07-05T22:54:18Z2017-07-05T22:54:18ZFacts versus feelings isn’t the way to think about communicating science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176990/original/file-20170705-3057-4s5j0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=449%2C368%2C5550%2C3440&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The message might not come through if you put all your communication eggs in one theoretical basket.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/many-eggs-one-basket-bubble-on-336910895">buydeephoto/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world where <a href="https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/press/news/2016/12/11/WOTY-16">“post-truth” was 2016’s word of the year</a>, many people are starting to doubt the efficacy of facts. Can science make sense of anti-science and post-truthism? More generally, how can we understand what drives people’s beliefs, decisions and behaviors?</p>
<p>Scientists have developed many theories to describe <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629">how people process and think about information</a>. Unfortunately, there’s an increasing tendency to see people as creatures whose reasoning mechanisms are largely dependent on a narrow set of processes. For example, one popular theory suggests that if we just communicate more accurate information to people, their behavior will change accordingly. Another suggests that people will reject evidence if it threatens their deeply held cultural worldviews and associated feelings. </p>
<p>It’s more important than ever that our approach to communication is evidence-based and built on a strong, theoretical foundation. Many of these models contribute valuable insights and can help us design better communication, but each on its own is incomplete. And science communicators have a tendency to oversimplify, focusing on a single model and disregarding other theories.</p>
<p>We suggest that this is a dangerous practice and less effective than <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3323">a more nuanced and holistic view</a>. The apparent choice between “fact” and “feeling,” or between “cognition” and “culture,” is a false dilemma. In reality, both are related and address different pieces of the decision-making puzzle. </p>
<h2>Thinking versus feeling</h2>
<p>One well-known theory about how people absorb new facts is the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690">information deficit model</a>.” The main idea here is straightforward: If you throw more facts at people, they’ll eventually come around on an issue.</p>
<p>Most behavioral science scholars agree that this model of human thinking and behavior <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23674">is clearly incomplete</a> – people rely on a range of other cues besides facts in guiding their attitudes and behavior. For example, sometimes we simply act based on how we feel about an issue. Unfortunately, the facts don’t always convince.</p>
<p>But the term “information deficit” is problematic, too. People tend to have limited information in most areas of life. For example, we often don’t know the thoughts and feelings of other people we trust and value. Similarly, we might have limited knowledge about appropriate cultural norms when traveling to a new country, and so on. Information deficit isn’t a very meaningful term to use to theorize about human thinking.</p>
<p>Another theory about human thinking is called “cultural cognition.” In brief, it suggests that our cultural values and worldviews shape <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1123807">how we think about science and society</a>.</p>
<p>It’s easy to be duped into thinking of the human brain as a sponge that soaks up only the information it wants to believe. For example, the theory suggests that people’s position on divisive issues such as climate change is not informed by scientific evidence but rather by the strong commitment people have to their political groups and ideologies. The idea is that to protect our cultural worldviews, we actively reject evidence that threatens them – think of someone who fears that government action on climate change undermines the free market.</p>
<p>In short, this narrative sounds appealing on the surface, as humans organize themselves in groups, and much psychological research has shown that we derive part of our <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1990-98968-000">social identities from the group affiliations</a> we maintain. </p>
<p>Yet, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015614970">its focus is overly narrow</a>, and there’s a logical fallacy in this conception of human thinking. We belong to many groups at any given time and we juggle many different public and private identities. The real question is about nuance; when and under what conditions is someone motivated to reject scientific facts in favor of their cultural worldview? </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/176996/original/file-20170705-9733-1olaqr7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=419&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s not a zero sum contest between feelings and facts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/brain-heart-on-balance-scale3d-rendering-542556157">haryigit/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Either/or misses the point</h2>
<p>To throw all our fact-disseminating eggs into one or the other theoretical basket is oversimplistic and deprives us of important insights. </p>
<p>A more nuanced perspective recognizes that facts and information are embedded in social and cultural contexts. For example, people’s perception of expert consensus matters a great deal, especially on contested issues, and is often described as a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">gateway belief that influences a range of other attitudes</a> about an issue. The near-unanimous consensus that vaccines do not cause autism or that climate change is human-caused are all scientific facts. At the same time, consensus information is also inherently social: It describes the extent of agreement within an influential group of experts.</p>
<p>People often want to be <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lsF8zLomQOoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA195&dq=chaiken+accuracy+motivation+1980&ots=30E-57CZyN&sig=zsV8X1SjojZd-_7dyNel5wCPj54#v=onepage&q=chaiken%20accuracy%20motivation%201980&f=false">accurate</a> in their views, and, in an uncertain world bounded by limited time and effort, we make strategic bets on what information to take into account. Consensus acts as a natural heuristic, or mental shortcut, for complicated scientific issues. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118489">Numerous</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1720">studies</a> have found that highlighting scientific agreement on human-caused global warming can help neutralize and reduce conflicting views about climate change.</p>
<p>Similarly, while some studies have found a limited effect of knowledge on judgment, when you dig deeper into the data, a more nuanced and insightful picture emerges. For example, some studies claim that a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547">deficit in scientific “knowledge” does not explain</a> why people are divided on contested issues such as climate change. But what’s being measured in these experiments matters. Indeed, indicators such as how well people understand numbers or their scientific literacy – which is what some of these studies actually quantify – are categorically different from measuring specific knowledge people have about a topic such as climate change. In fact, a survey across six countries found that when people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997">understand the causes of climate change</a>, their concern increases accordingly, irrespective of their values. Similarly, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12187">other</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.008">studies</a> show that explanations about the mechanisms of climate change can reduce biased evaluations of evidence as well as political polarization. </p>
<p>In short, facts do matter.</p>
<h2>How people think is complex and nuanced</h2>
<p>Indeed, there is no need to throw out <a href="https://bppblog.com/2017/06/01/save-the-baby-in-the-bath-water/">the baby with the bathwater</a>. Instead, we need to dispel false dichotomies and folk psychology about human thinking that currently dominate the media. Repeating the story that people don’t care about facts runs the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. A holistic view acknowledges that people rely on cognitive shortcuts and emotions, care about social norms and group identities and are sometimes motivated in their reasoning, but it also recognizes the research showing that most people want to fundamentally hold accurate perceptions about the world. </p>
<p>This is particularly important as the public is currently hampered by misinformation and fake news. In two <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008">separate</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175799">studies</a>, we each found that misinformation about climate change has a disproportionate influence on public attitudes and opinion. However, we also found that inoculating people against the false arguments neutralized misinformation’s influence, across the political spectrum. In essence, teaching people what false arguments might be deployed helped them overcome their cultural biases. Other work similarly <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12171/abstract">shows</a> that the politicization of science can be counteracted with inoculation.</p>
<p>People are complex, social and affected by a diverse range of influences depending on the situation. We want to hold accurate views, but emotion, group identities and conflicting goals can get in the way. Incorporating these different insights into human thinking enriches our understanding of how people form opinions and make decisions.</p>
<p>Effective science communication requires an inclusive, holistic approach that integrates different social science perspectives. To simplistically focus on a single perspective paints a limited and increasingly inaccurate view of how humans form judgments about social and scientific issues.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80255/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Reports of facts’ death have been greatly exaggerated. Effective communication jettisons the false dilemma in favor of a more holistic view of how people take in new information on contentious topics.John Cook, Research Assistant Professor, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason UniversitySander van der Linden, Director, Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/782562017-06-30T03:43:49Z2017-06-30T03:43:49ZGrowing food in the post-truth era<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173909/original/file-20170615-22797-1o9q86j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Critics fear the merger of agricultural giants Bayer and Monsanto will drive an increase in use of pesticides.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/agrilifetoday/16929844842/in/photolist-rN2T3A-8DXsx1-9MgfGd-7TiZ1v-8DXhCU-9zwKsJ-8Zqd7z-cdx66W-eg2HUM-f4x9f4-7TnhMw-7TngnU-9n7zac-9Mdr7Z-4HJkxG-4MtZUF-7TnfAo-4HDXgM-fDx8fH-4SD8sy-a2AY4x-9Mdt24-4HgvNC-8PfXpg-4Sy8Lv-4Momau-nZcxJD-4SCmjG-cYVa8A-9KBLmm-8wTEQi-4StvM3-4SCmnS-9MgdN5-6mtHKD-8aothc-6bH8UH-4StvGy-8vNsza-4Mu41V-mV1z39-5UzgMr-Df1fp5-pFE5TJ-4SCmgf-9MgewL-9MghJ7-8aWBAw-kmjRKg-4StvNA">AgriLife Today/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">ongoing series</a> from the <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/">Post-Truth Initiative</a>, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.</em> </p>
<p><em>The project brings together scholars of media and communications, government and international relations, physics, philosophy, linguistics, and medicine, and is affiliated with the Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced Research Centre (<a href="http://chcinetwork.org/sydney-social-sciences-and-humanities-advanced-research-centre-sssharc">SSSHARC</a>), the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/">Sydney Environment Institute</a> and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org">Sydney Democracy Network</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>The global food system has been operating in post-truth mode for decades. Having constructed food scarcity as a justification for a <a href="http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/green-revolution/">second Green Revolution</a>, Big Agriculture now employs its unethical marketing tactics to selling farmers “climate-smart” agriculture in the form of soils, seeds and chemicals.</p>
<p>The cover of Monsanto’s 2016 annual report, <a href="http://www.monsanto.com/investors/publishingimages/annual%20report%202016/2016_monsanto_annual_report.pdf">A Limitless Perspective</a>, presents a vista of galaxies worthy of a George Lucas production. The brightest star is an <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-12/basf-syngenta-said-among-bidders-for-bayer-monsanto-disposals">A$88 billion merger with German chemical company Bayer</a>, to be finalised this year.</p>
<p>Critics have described this as a “<a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/manufacturing/bayer-monsanto-merger-an-88b-marriage-made-in-hell/news-story/23e17cf89cbf1a98a6c413410a6afd25">marriage made in hell</a>”. They fear the new mega-corporation will impose even more pesticides and genetically modified seeds on the world’s farmers.</p>
<p>Monsanto’s oft-stated aim is to <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/capture-smear-contaminate-the-politics-of-gmos/5459021">“consolidate the entire food chain”</a>. That means a corporatised food regime that concentrates knowledge and power in the hands of a few.</p>
<p>This cedes control of food security to profit-making companies. The democratic governance of food and agriculture policy is under threat.</p>
<h2>The myth of scarcity</h2>
<p>Framing market opportunities as moral imperatives, the agribusiness narrative is to “<a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/feeding_the_world/EWG_FeedingTheWorld.pdf?_ga=2.136434672.1539845188.1496713081-816214048.1496713081">feed the world</a>”. That’s while making exorbitant profits at the expense of small-scale farmers and consumer health.</p>
<p>The rhetoric of scarcity is hollow; <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf">excess production</a> is the problem. The food industry is a major contributor to overproduction, food insecurity and environmental degradation.</p>
<p>This includes the production of up to one-third of <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenhouse-gas-emissions-come-from-agriculture-1.11708">global greenhouse gas emissions</a>, when fertiliser production, food storage, and packaging are included.</p>
<p>Yet “Big Ag” is committed to raising output, intensification of farming, mass processing, mass marketing, homogeneity of product, monocultures, and chemical and pharmaceutical solutions.</p>
<p>The post-truth claim that the powerful US agribusiness lobby uses to justify these practices is that America’s farmers <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/feeding_the_world/EWG_FeedingTheWorld.pdf?_ga=2.136434672.1539845188.1496713081-816214048.1496713081">must double grain and meat production</a> to meet the needs of a global population of 9 billion by 2050.</p>
<p>In reality, the surplus, heavily subsidised production of the US grain-livestock complex makes little contribution to ending global hunger and malnutrition. Some <a href="https://static.ewg.org/reports/2016/feeding_the_world/EWG_FeedingTheWorld.pdf?_ga=2.136434%20672.1539845188.1496713081-816214048.1496713081">90% of US exports</a> go to countries where people can afford to buy food.</p>
<h2>The corporate capture of climate change</h2>
<p>Ironically, a new enemy within threatens Big Ag’s market opportunities. </p>
<p>When US President Donald Trump met his election commitments by stepping out of the Paris Agreement on June 2, 2017, he stepped on some big toes. Following Trump’s election, Monsanto and Du Pont had joined more than 360 US-based multinationals in signing a letter to Trump demanding action on climate change: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Implementing the Paris Agreement will enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of dollars in existing low-carbon investments into the trillions of dollars the world needs to bring clean energy and prosperity to all.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The altruism of these motives is questionable, given the profits to be made in the corporate capture of climate change. The low-carbon economy is big business.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.adm.com/en-US/company/Pages/overview.aspx">Archer Daniels Midland</a>, which bills itself as “supermarket to the world”, is investing in carbon capture and sequestration projects with the aim of reducing emissions and storing them underground.</p>
<p>Bayer is <a href="https://www.cropscience.bayer.com/en/crop-compendium/key-crops/oilseeds">developing</a> stress-tolerant oilseeds, maize and wheat varieties that will cope with extreme weather.</p>
<p>Global Swiss agro corp Syngenta’s <a href="http://www4.syngenta.com/what-we-do/the-good-growth-plan">Good Growth Plan</a> assures us the private sector can deliver on “the promise of sustainable and inclusive development” while mitigating the effects of climate change.</p>
<h2>If you tell the same story five times, it’s true …</h2>
<p>Rising global temperatures will bring new varieties of pests and disease, and a new twist on the time-worn post-truth spin that pesticides are the solution to feeding a fast-growing population. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=745&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/173913/original/file-20170615-21345-7oggf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=936&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The
pesticide business is huge, despite the increasingly well-documented evidence of the harm it does.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jz909/1450513463/">jetsandzeppelins/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a report in March this year, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation <a href="https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/017/85/PDF/G1701785.pdf">publicly dismissed</a> this claim. The report cites evidence that pesticides cause 200,000 deaths a year.</p>
<p>In the report, the UN special rapporteur for the right to food, Hilal Elvar, says global corporations manufacturing pesticides are guilty of “systematic denial of harms” and “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics”.</p>
<p>She condemns lobbying practices that have “obstructed reforms and paralysed pesticide restrictions”. Companies infiltrate federal regulatory agencies via “revolving doors” and “cultivate strategic public-private partnerships that call into question their culpability or help bolster the companies’ credibility”.</p>
<p>This credibility is propped up by networks of academics and regulators recruited as consultants. In accepting corporate funding and signing confidentiality agreements, scientists sacrifice autonomy and are co-opted into disinformation campaigns that support Big Ag agendas, at the cost of their ethics.</p>
<p>For example, when bee scientist James Cresswell presented findings that linked Syngenta pesticides to colony collapse, he was pressured “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/business/scientists-loved-and-loathed-by-syngenta-an-agrochemical-giant.html?_r=1">to consider new data and a different approach</a>” in his industry-sponsored research. The “Faustian bargain” he had made cost him dearly.</p>
<p>Some are brave enough to call out post-truth claims. Angelika Hilbeck found toxins in genetically modified corn killed lacewing bugs as well as pests. Scientists like her are <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/angelika-hilbeck-ecologist-claims-agri-corporations-stalk-claiming-gmos-dangerous/">labelled</a> “ideological researchers” and part of the “extremist organic movement”.</p>
<h2>World views collide</h2>
<p>This frank dismissal of alternative production systems represents a collision between competing frames, stakes and forms of expertise in food and agriculture policy.</p>
<p>Big Ag relies on the myth that large-scale, conventional agriculture generates higher yields and is more efficient than small-scale, family farms. Yet the latter produce <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-%206_Investing_in_smallholder_agriculture.pdf">more than three-quarters of the world’s food</a>.</p>
<p>Concerns about the lack of sustainability and resilience of industrial farming practices has led to critical questions about the way we produce food. Notably, in 2008 the Internal Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) recognised the need for changes in “<a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/est/Investment/Agriculture_at_a_Crossroads_Global_Report_IAASTD.pdf">paradigms and values</a>” to include alternative, agro-ecological production systems.</p>
<p>A multi-year study involving 44 scientists from more than 60 countries, the IAASTD considers the political conditions that contribute to food insecurity. This includes damaging structural adjustment policies and unfair international trade agreements.</p>
<p>The findings highlight how poverty rates, levels of education, knowledge of nutrition, war and conflict marginalise those most vulnerable to hunger and malnutrition. Importantly, the report emphasises that critical communities, by raising questions of ownership and control of technologies, play a vital role in food systems governance.</p>
<p>These include the global peasant farmers’ movement <a href="https://viacampesina.org/en/index.php">La Via Campesina</a>, which openly rejects climate-smart rhetoric as <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/blog/whats-%20wrong-with-%20climate-smart-%20agriculture/">promotion of an agribusiness agenda</a>.</p>
<p>Promoting the concept of food sovereignty, La Via Campesina denies simplistic linkages between population growth, climate change, conflict, and resource scarcity. We are reminded that technological solutions are not neutral. The <a href="https://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290">2007 Nyeleni Declaration</a> of the Forum for Food Sovereignty asserts:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agricultural systems.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These farmers are the vanguard of resistance to Big Ag’s efforts to further intensify agricultural production at the expense of people and environments.
We have a responsibility to join them in challenging the logic of an industrial food system that is about growth at all costs.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>You can read other pieces in the post-truth series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">here</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series is a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> between The Conversation and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Mann is affiliated with the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance.</span></em></p>The global food system has been operating in post-truth mode for decades.Alana Mann, Chair of Department, Media and Communications, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775632017-05-30T05:01:01Z2017-05-30T05:01:01ZTrump demands a post-post-truth response<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170078/original/file-20170519-12237-1fvde5b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We cannot stand outside the fray, but instead must engage in the ‘post-truth’ debates about politics and knowledge.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ricricciardi/33093276772/">Richard Ricardi/Flickr </a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>This article is part of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">ongoing series</a> from the <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/">Post-Truth Initiative</a>, a Strategic Research Excellence Initiative at the University of Sydney. The series examines today’s post-truth problem in public discourse: the thriving economy of lies, bullshit and propaganda that threatens rational discourse and policy.</em> </p>
<p><em>The project brings together scholars of media and communications, government and international relations, physics, philosophy, linguistics, and medicine, and is affiliated with the Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced Research Centre (<a href="http://chcinetwork.org/sydney-social-sciences-and-humanities-advanced-research-centre-sssharc">SSSHARC</a>), the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/environment-institute/">Sydney Environment Institute</a> and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org">Sydney Democracy Network</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Is Donald Trump post-truth, post-modern or simply preposterous? What started as an academic contretemps erupted into a media spasm, and escalated into political warfare, has now reached impeachable levels of <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-trump-could-be-removed-from-office-under-the-us-constitution-77983">high crimes and misdemeanours</a>.</p>
<p>How did we get here? The question of truth first became weaponised in the culture wars of the 2016 US presidential campaign. The Oxford Dictionaries fired the shot heard around the infosphere when it announced its <a href="https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/word-of-the-year/word-of-the-year-2016">Word of the Year</a> was “post-truth”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Oxford Dictionaries took pains to distinguish the word from a particular event or assertion (like post-war or truthiness) to better identify the character of an age (like post-national or post-racial). Among all the “posts” mentioned in the lengthy press release, “post-modern” never gets a nod. </p>
<p>Perhaps the editors were sensitive to the <a href="http://sk.sagepub.com/books/consumer-culture-and-postmodernism-2e/n1.xml">definition of post-modern</a> provided by its lesser-known rival, the <a href="https://thepointmag.com/2010/examined-life/the-updated-dictionary-of-received-ideas">(Updated) Dictionary of Received Ideas</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This word has no meaning; use it as often as possible.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No matter. Where semioticians fear to tread, pundits and academics rushed in, linking post-truth to post-modernists, post-positivists, post-structuralists or any other “postie” who bore the cursed sign of relativism.</p>
<h2>Playing the philosophical blame game</h2>
<p>I witnessed more than a few scholars making these links at the 2017 annual meeting of the International Studies Association (ISA) in Baltimore. The meeting came just weeks after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html">Trump’s executive order</a> limiting entry from seven Muslim-majority countries into the US. </p>
<p>Trump’s post-truth directive ignored the alternative facts that the terrorists in the recent rash of attacks had come from countries not on the list; that extensive vetting was already in place; and that an American was a thousand times more likely to be killed by a criminal than a terrorist. </p>
<p>It was no small irony that the protests and debates swirling around Trump helped make this ISA meeting one of the best. Among many noteworthy moments, the distinguished scholar roundtable for <a href="http://politicalscience.jhu.edu/directory/william-connolly/">William E. Connolly</a> did a good demo job on the post-truth/modern mash-up. </p>
<p>Political scientists who live by the causal code were faulted for being overly casual about the means of transmission by which post-modern ideas suddenly came to infect Trump, his fellow travellers and the political habitus. Since Trump does not seem to read continental philosophy – or books in general – Steve Bannon, his éminence grise (who looks greyer as his eminence diminishes), took most of the blame. </p>
<p>But the best evidence dug up by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/10/world/europe/bannon-vatican-julius-evola-fascism.html?_r=0">paper of record</a> was a 2014 speech by Bannon at a Vatican conference in which he lauds Italian proto-fascist Julius Evola. </p>
<p>Since Evola shares with Nietzsche a critique of modernity, this clearly makes Bannon a fellow post-modernist/truthist. No matter that Bannon cites pre-modernist sources like Sun Tzu and the Bible as his texts of choice for the civilisational battle (with fellow holy crusader Vlad Putin) to save “the Judeo-Christian West”. </p>
<p>Connolly et al summarily dismissed the charge of relativism as “untimely” – and silly. </p>
<p>Relativism, Nietzsche’s “<a href="http://www.historyguide.org/europe/madman.html">breath of empty space</a>”, is not some malignant creation of post-truth philosophers or politicians; it presents as a historical condition of diverse origins, beginning with the death of God and other adjudicators and executors of a universal or transcendental truth. This might constitute a repudiation of philosophical realism (based on a <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/">correspondence theory of the truth</a>), but Nietzsche did not reject physical realism (based on empirical facts) or political realism (based on contestable judgments). </p>
<p>Indeed, Nietzsche scorned the “<a href="http://www.lexido.com/EBOOK_TEXTS/TWILIGHT_OF_THE_IDOLS_.aspx?S=11">coward before reality</a> … [who] flees into the ideal”. He openly expressed his preference for realists such as Thucydides and Machiavelli over the likes of Plato and Hegel. </p>
<p>Continental philosophers influenced by Nietzsche (Heidegger and Schmitt notwithstanding) were less concerned with the dangers of relativism than with metaphysical truths deemed above and beyond human critique. </p>
<p>One would think, if thinking clearly, that the epistemic as well as political certitudes preceding and engendering two world wars, the Cold War, the global “war on terror” and the war on Islam were more pernicious than the cosmopolitanism, subjectivism and relativism that putatively taint all things post-truth/modern.</p>
<h2>Beware easy post-truth finger-pointing</h2>
<p>The takeaway from the roundtable was that the identification of a historical or social condition should not be confused with endorsement of an epistemological or political doctrine.</p>
<p>Tarring the post-truthist/modernist with the claim “all is permitted” or “there is no truth” makes for a nice sound bite but does violence to a sophisticated argument for subjecting all truth-claims to more rigorous forms of verification. Invoking a transcendental, universal or objective authority to resolve contradicting stories or disputable facts is not sufficient. </p>
<p>Such certainty is ahistorical: the “<a href="http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/">self-evident truths</a>” of America’s founding fathers, based on first principles of natural law and sanctified by heavenly commandments, can, fortunately for humanity, prove to be untrue; otherwise slaves would still be slaves, women would not have the vote, etc. </p>
<p>What is notably missing from the narcissism of Trump and solipsism of his fellow Truthers is any sense of ethical responsibility towards ways of seeing or being in the world that differ from their own. An ethics that begins in response to relativism necessarily entails a mutual recognition – rather than the eradication or assimilation – of difference and otherness. </p>
<p>This kind of ethics cannot be delivered by command from above or by invocation of universal principles; it emerges as a condition of co-existence among those who differ on such matters as the truth. </p>
<p>Other post-truth/modern encounters on ISA panels, at hotel bars and even a few street-side produced new questions. Why were so many scholars, who put a premium on material or structural explanations for global events, now eager to infer such power upon ideas, especially when they emanated from a marginal school of thought like post-modernism?</p>
<p>Why were so many of these same scholars willing to accept “slam-dunk” facts about war crimes and WMDs in the run-up to the Iraq War? To form unholy alliances in support of invasions that spawned many second- and third-order global crises, including the rise of ISIS and the nationalist fevers that fanned Trump’s victory? </p>
<p>If, as the exculpatory refrain goes, they only knew then what they know now. But a purblind adherence to rationalism and positive evidence that excludes affective or cognitive preferences keeps us from knowing the truth, both then and now. </p>
<p>How much history is needed, from Vietnam to Watergate to Iran-Contra to the Iraq War, to show that “fake news”, “alternative facts” and “post-truths” weren’t born of continental philosophy? That disproving a lie is no substitute for creating a counter-narrative? That more than sweet reason is needed to unmask false consciousness? </p>
<p>By the end of the ISA meeting, a kind of déjà vu had set in: had we not witnessed this conflation before, of diagnosis and disease? Where <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation">Baudrillard’s precession of simulation</a> was deemed responsible for the Gulf War; <a href="https://revisesociology.com/2016/09/21/foucault-surveillance-crime-control/">Foucault’s critical regard of surveillance</a> for the rise of Big Brother; <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%E2%80%93space_compression">Virilio’s elevation of pace over space</a> for the erosion of the sovereign state; and <a href="http://www.textetc.com/theory/derrida.html">Derrida’s insistence that nothing exists outside the text</a> for everything else – except Nazism, which was Nietzsche’s fault.</p>
<h2>A duty to re-enter the fray</h2>
<p>Et voilà, it came to me on the long flight back to Australia. Post-truthists/modernists must re-enter the political fray, not only because they are best equipped to counter the simulations, surveillance, speed and signs of Trump and his followers. </p>
<p>We need to embrace rather than run from the “post-truth” debate because ideas, discourses and methods might not define the truth but they do matter in politics. </p>
<p>We need to challenge the political science “quants” whose polls got it so wrong, giving Bernie Sanders supporters and other independents the excuse to maintain political purity by not voting.</p>
<p>We need to challenge the neoliberals whose promotion of the idea of globalisation helped produce the economic inequalities and cultural resentments that “primed the pump”, as Trump would say, for his victory. </p>
<p>Most importantly, we must repudiate the petty narcissism of attacking those closest on the political as well as epistemic spectrum, and form a real popular front against the faux populism of Trump and the neofundamentalism of Mike Pence that is likely to follow Trump’s fall from power.</p>
<p>We must, in other words, become post-post-truth. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article draws on the author’s opening comments from the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/arts/ciss/global_forum/index.shtml">Global Forum on Peace and Security under Uncertainty</a>, which is sponsored by the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Sydney and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. A short video about the global forum is available on the <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/arts/ciss/">Centre for International Security Studies (CISS) website</a> and below. Full panel recordings will be available on the <a href="https://projectqsydney.com/">Project Q website</a>.</em></p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/219448613" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The CISS Global Forum: Peace and Security Under Uncertainty.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>You can read other pieces in the post-truth series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/post-truth-initiative-38606">here</a>.</em> </p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/democracy-futures">Democracy Futures</a> series is a <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/democracy-futures/">joint global initiative</a> between The Conversation and the <a href="http://sydneydemocracynetwork.org/">Sydney Democracy Network</a>. The project aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the 21st century.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Der Derian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Pundits have been keen to link post-truth to post-modernists, post-positivists or any other ‘postie’. They should turn their energy to forming a real popular front against Trump’s faux populism.James Der Derian, Michael Hintze Chair of International Security, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.