Why I resist the "post-truth/alternative facts" narrative

Since the middle of the last decade, I've heard repeatedly that we live in a "post-truth" era. That was best exemplified by Kellyanne Conway's usage of the term "alternative facts" back in 2017 in response to the kerfuffle over the crowd size for Trump's inauguration in late January of that year. So, this is the so-called post-truth era. Admittedly it has been a long while since I was taking philosophy classes as an undergraduate student, but terms like relativism (sometimes used interchangeably with perspectivism and perspectivalism) have some value. The basic gist is that each of us will have a somewhat different experience of the same phenomenon. Note what isn't in dispute: that there is some phenomenon that has occurred and that each of us had an experience of it. The facts on the ground are what they are, but what each of us might make of the facts may vary - sometimes in ways that can be constructive, and sometimes in ways that are not. As long as we agree on the facts on the ground, we at least have the possibility to have a meaningful good-faith conversation. Otherwise, without common ground regarding what constitutes the facts or truth, we're left to talk past each other - or worse.

What do I mean by "or worse"? Timothy Snyder, in his book On Tyranny had this to say: "To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights."  Think of why Trump and his allies flood the zone with more lies than we can debunk. If the truth is non-existent, how can we criticize and challenge those who would reign over us rather than govern as public servants? Even if we step away from partisan politics, I think you can see the damage that a post-truth mindset can do. How can we trust our doctors, our teachers, and so on if there is no truth, or know to ask questions to challenge them if there is no truth? We really can't at that point. How does a society function once there is no truth? Not well, if we were to use any of a number of dictatorial regimes as a template. 

The picture I am painting is bleak. But I do want to leave you with something a bit more hopeful, as someone who has worked in the social sciences for a fairly long time now. The truth is out there, to take a slogan from a 1990s sci-fi series. Let's take a look at media violence. A big question that many social scientists and fellow travelers have had since the mid-20th century is if violent content in mass media, such as video games, can cause people to behave more aggressively. We can come up with a definition of violent content that will be reasonable enough (any FPS game will probably do - I enjoyed the original Wolfenstein game from the 1990s), and we have developed measures of mild aggression that can be observed under lab conditions. The data from the body of experimental research so far gives us an idea of the strength of the effect of violent video games on aggression. When we look at the raw effect size estimates from meta-analyses, those numbers look fairly consistent. There is a small but noticeable increase in aggression as measured in the lab when individuals have been playing violent video games. Let's say that is the truth. We can then argue about what this particular truth means in everyday life. I might likely say that the effect looks pretty underwhelming and I think I can make a decent case for that. Some of my peers might draw a somewhat different conclusion and contend that even a small effect can have undesirable consequences. I might disagree with that conclusion. But notice that the facts that we have collected and have seen presented are not really in dispute. The truth is the truth, after all. All of us who discuss media violence in good faith understand what the truth is based on the available research, but also understand that the truth will constrain the conclusions we can reasonably draw, and which conclusions will be out in left field. Those who made their careers on media violence research and have drawn the conclusion that the effect is small but also important do not appreciate being challenged, and may have some levers of power to keep a dissenting narrative out of view, and that can work for a little while. But at the end of the day the truth will come out, and because we have the truth at our fingertips, we can make successful challenges to the authority of those who draw conclusions that we find unconvincing. 

My intention isn't to draw you into a discussion about video games and aggression when you probably came to this blog seeking more political content. My intention is simply to point out that for most of the things that matter to us there is some relatively objective and verifiable truth that we can discover and rely on as we discuss and debate about what to do next. We may end up agreeing to disagree on the conclusions we wish to take away from the truth we observe, but we deny that truth at our own peril. I think back to the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a weird sense, Trump was right about something - if we did less testing, we would find fewer cases of COVID-19. That is true. What is also true is that simply failing to test doesn't change the fact that the virus was spreading and killing a lot of people in the process. In that moment, Trump was telling us that he did not have any regard for the truth, as doing so would be inconvenient to his re-election plans that year. 

If their post-truth narrative were not so damaging to our democracy, I would find the purveyors of the post-truth narrative as ridiculous and pathetic as the Black Knight as he loses his battle with King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. A post-truth Black Knight lives in denial that he has lost his limbs in an increasingly futile battle with King Arthur, who at least in that scene can see the truth for what it is. King Arthur points out each time the Black Knight has lost an arm or a leg, only to become increasingly exasperated by the Black Knight's denials. The battle over, King Arthur continues on his quest as the Black Knight doubles down on his denial of the fact that his arms and legs are gone, even as he sees them on the ground. And that is perhaps the best that can be done with those who are hopelessly divorced from the truth: to ignore and contain them as much as possible. Whether the post-truth purveyors are denying basic facts about crowd sizes or any other matter, we need to stand for the truth as it is what allows us to stand up to power. In a post-truth world, the Black Knight would have been able to declare himself victorious without evidence, and to maintain his influence. Think about how absurd that situation would look, and how goofy these other post-truthers look as they peddle their lies. 

Let's end (for now) with one of my favorite scenes from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: