See, the problem is that we think and act like we're in a post-truth world, but we're not. Reality is out there. Certain statements correspond more closely with the reality that exists, and others less. Reality doesn't go away when you don't believe it, when it's outside your filter bubble, when it's censored by all the big social media outfits. And building a society that is based on something contrary to reality is... let's call it "probably unstable".
In a post-truth world, actual reality is out there, but parties can't come to an agreement about what that reality is. Reality exists, but truth does not.
> And building a society that is based on something contrary to reality is... let's call it "probably unstable".
It doesn't matter if it's unstable, so long as your side wins.
This may be a definition thing. Some statements that correspond more closely to reality. I call those statements "more true".
It sounds like your definition of "true" is more like "what we all agree on". I don't like that definition, because it means that things can go from "true" to "not true" and back to "true", as the consensus changes. I find that disconcerting, because that isn't how I think about truth. (Note well: I am not saying that your definition is wrong, merely that it doesn't match how I think about truth.)
But I think we can agree on this: Those who care about reality and those who care about winning consensus are talking about completely different things.
To me, "post-truth" is more an acknowledgement of a state of affairs where multiple parties stake irreconcilable and immutable claims on what is true.
The truth may be obvious to you, but what if there is someone who asserts an incompatible view they claim is the truth? Even if one view is objectively correct, if those who hold the objectively incorrect view steadfastly maintain that is the truth, you're still stuck.
> Those who care about reality and those who care about winning consensus are talking about completely different things.
Sure, but even winning consensus isn't important if you can suppress the opposition and impose your will.
If you're in Russia and you know what's actually happening in Ukraine, it doesn't do you a damn bit of good because Putin's "truth" trumps all others.
Actual reality and Truth are the same thing. Because two parties cannot agree on what they perceive the Truth to be does not imply it doesn't exist. In fact, both parties could be wrong - Truth could be a 3rd thing both are oblivious to.
> In a post-truth world, there's no shared reality, and we can't talk to each other. We can only shout our own truth louder.
Well said. Thank you for succinctly capturing what frustrates me so much about current politics.
My personal test, which helps with personal interactions at least, is that I distrust whoever turns to anger and shouting when discussing politics. I have a lot of pent up frustration towards relatives who will express political opinions, but one or two careful questions will lead them to angry grunts of "I don't know!" and "just forget it".
As participants in online discussions, especially in more serious forums like HN, we are accustomed to making logical arguments and then having those arguments challenged. We're a small subset of the total population though, and it seems that most people are incapable of calm and logical debate without quickly turning to anger and shouting.
I don't know what to do except vote, hope the collective intelligence serves us well, and that we don't have a civil war.
What I've come to appreciate is that freedom of association is a prerequisite of freedom of speech.
You can't meaningfully exercise freedom of speech when shouted down by a mob or drowned out by a megaphone. The power to form associations which exclude those who won't give you a chance to be heard is fundamental.
There was a "truth world" when interconnectivity between average people was low and narratives were controlled by a select few that dominated or had influence over the media. Now that there's more edges in the graph due to social media and the internet, there's more competition of narratives and we're seeing the social effects of that.
The correctness of the historical record is consensus driven since none of us were there; those experts had people around them providing signal through the noise. The outcome runs contrary to past story but achieving the outcome relies on consensus the new work was viable as a replacement.
Einstein did not start by defining numbers himself. He relied on consensus that our number system to that point was correct.
If you have some fancy notion that’s contrary to one that exists, do share. But also consider it’s consensus based social truth to even allow such ideation rather than subjugate everyone in to the mines.
It’s consensus that gives rise to big rockets and internet.
No hermit of a mountain man has ever changed the world. There was always consensus such efforts be enabled.
