Do you recognize that two different people can have two different notions of what counts as a "post-truth" world?

Solipsism at hand?

I said nothing about Pragmatism.

Someone looking for proof?

Interesting that Sand should admit that.

I was.

Its' not interesting that I should admit that since you asked what "Are you objecting to the rise of pragmatism?" when I never said anything about Pragmatism and you never used the word.

So, it's interesting you admit to asking an irrelevant question.

Do you recognize that two different people can have two different notions of what counts as a "post-truth" world?

Do you recognize that's not the problem here or the problem with your reasoning?

Don't answer that, I already see you're lost on this.

It's always easiest to criticize another's position when one begins with misunderstanding, and then refuses to admit that much.

Sigh...

I've shown enough. Let chips and opinions fall where they may.

There are obviously two different senses of the term "post-truth" at work here. Sand's and mine. I'm neither denying nor affirming the coherency of Sand's usage. Nor need I.

Sand - on the other hand - is not granting an others' terms.

One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.

That is exactly what Sand has been doing. Anyone can check the record for themselves.

It's always easiest to criticize another's position when one begins with misunderstanding, and then refuses to admit that much.

Sigh

No, you've shown it's easiest to formulate an erroneous definition of a questionable term based on your erroneous reasoning.

You've shown nothing, and I've shown a lot, and the chips have already fallen my way.

....as to opinions, as you've shown, most people have bad ones.

There are obviously two different senses of the term "post-truth" at work here. Yours and mine. I'm neither denying nor affirming the coherency of your usage. Nor need I.

Sand - on the other hand - is not granting an others' terms.

That was quick, apparently you lied about letting the chips fall where they may. And what is actually happening is you formulated an erroneous definition of a questionable term, "Post-Truth" based on your erroneous reasoning, and I've well pointed that out many times.

One cannot validly object to another's claims by virtue of using a different sense of a key term.

That is exactly what Sand has been doing. Anyone can check the record for themselves.

That's not what I did, or what I've been doing, and anyone can check the record for themselves. I validly objected to claim by the virtue of your fallacious reasoning and poor use of non-supportive evidence.

Now, unless you can actually address my arguments, which you haven't done yet, or you start a new argument about Post-Truth, you and I are done.

If you fail to do either, I'll let you frolic with your delusions.

You cannot assess my reasoning without talking about what I mean.

You're too much..

Shakes head, laughs, and walks away...

So... pragmatism came along and fooled enough people into thinking of truth as man-made, subjective, and what-not that the sheer size of the population began to make it a habit of conflating truth with thought/belief.

Along with pragmatism comes the mistaken conclusion that truth is man-made. It's much easier to go along with that when the Church and the usage of the term "truth" were virtually inseparable.

Throw out the baby with the bathwater.

So... pragmatism came along and fooled enough people into thinking of truth as man-made, subjective, and what-not that the sheer size of the population began to make it a habit of conflating truth with thought/belief.

That's an erroneous summary of Pragmatism and its development and it fails to address its various strains, such as the Pragmatism of William James and the Pragmatism of John Stuart Mill.

Along with pragmatism comes the mistaken conclusion that truth is man-made. It's much easier to go along with that when the Church and the usage of the term "truth" were virtually inseparable.

And you are still left with the significant problem undermining your very faulty argument: most people in the world did not embrace this rejection of Truth, certainly not in the Western nations. So, we are not in a Post-Truth world.

For most people, the baby is still here in various forms. Sorry.

Gratuitous assertions are not valid objections.

Good you recognize that since the only gratuitous assertions have been yours.

Are you denying a fundamental tenet of pragmatism?

Did anyone ever teach you to actually read?

Truth is a property of true statements.
True statements are existentially contingent upon language.
Language is man-made.
Truth is man-made.

LOL. Oh, boy, who ever taught you philosophy sure scammed you...:)

So, Trump, having been ferociously criticizing 'leakers', is now leaking!

Donald Trump shared a news story on Tuesday that cites anonymous sources and leaked intelligence less than 24 hours after criticizing the practice.

Trump....criticized the New York Times for its “non-existent sources” and berated the “Fake News Media” on Monday night.

Then, early Tuesday morning, he shared three Fox and Friends news segments, including one about North Korea that cited “US officials with knowledge of the latest intelligence” but did not identify who the officials are, and quoted an “official who requested anonymity”.

The Fox News story asserted that US spy satellites had detected North Korea moving anti-ship cruise missiles to a patrol boat.

As president, Trump would probably have access to information in the articles he shares that credit anonymous sources.

Criticizing the practice of anonymous sourcing, then sharing a story that cites anonymous sources soon after, has become something of a monthly pattern for the president.

In May, Trump encouraged people to question stories that include the phrase “sources say”, because “it is very possible that those sources don’t exist but are made up by fake news writers”.

Two days later, he shared a Fox and Friends story about his son-in-law and White House adviser, Jared Kushner, that was attributed to anonymous sources.

The Guardian (and various other sites).

More evidence that Trump doesn't understand how to do his job or what he's talking about (as if more were needed.)

More evidence that Trump doesn't understand how to do his job or what he's talking about (as if more were needed.)

I've never debated that. I've just correctly said that isn't evidence of a "Post-Truth" world.

So...

Sand refuses to talk about what someone else means by "post-truth". AND...

He has more than one method for doing so.

One cannot assess another's position and/or argument without first granting the terms. Failure to do so is to misattribute meaning to the terms.

Sand has done that.

Then I grant a fundamental tenet of pragmatism and pragmatic thought, and report upon everyday current events regarding the way so many people use the term "truth", according to that tenet.

All of that is true.

The tenet is of that school.
The argument is of that school.

Now... after all of that. Sand still doesn't even acknowledge that my notion of a "post-truth" world doesn't require meeting his criterion.

Sigh...

I'm being nice. Reeeeeeeal nice.

That was a semi-coherent mess with not one shred of truth to it. You're coming unhinged, Creative. I suggest you call it a night before you embarrass yourself even further.

This speaks towards the importance involved in who determines the framework underwriting any given topic...

The post-truth world has many facets, the only thing common and that we may be able to agree upon is what something cost. Money the medium of exchange talks in capitalistic societies. It separates fact from fiction in terms of valuation. We may not like what it costs but we can't disagree about what is being asked.

Renewable energy will become the dominant source of energy not because it is better for the environment, but because it will cost less than petrol & the other sources of energy it replaces. It will become a common sense decision. Utilities are trying to curtail this trend or at least take control over it but I don't think the trend towards renewal energy sources is stoppable.

Big Pharrma has already created the 'facts' of its own world of costs for medicines which it has achieved by pushing the maxim to the point of "whatever the market will bear" and beyond. Not just Epi-Pens but medications that can treat Opioid overdoses, and addiction, which are the largest source of fatalities for people under 50 in USA.

Martin Shkreli, the infamous pharmaceutical industry CEO responsible for hiking the cost of his company’s lifesaving drug from $13.50 to $750 overnight, once tweeted that “Every time a drug goes generic, I grieve.”

The common sense approach is to use generic drugs whenever possible, but Pharma knows how to play the system, to put issues in front of use of such lower cost substitutes to delay approval of generics drugs for as long as possible. And, you can't legally import drugs from overseas due to the FDA's fears about quality, which is BS.

Citizens in US pay crazy money for less than ideal healthcare, it's as if we accepted Pharma facts, its crazy rationale that can raise the cost of an Epi-Pen from $57.00 in 2007 to over $300 today.

In the post truth world, Big Pharma is a fire brand, it creates its own reality, which it protects by paying lobbyists.

More than 11,000 organizations spent $3.12 billion on[healthcare] lobbying the federal government in 2016

.

The US $17 trillion dollar plus economy is like an elephant, it moves along at its own pace. None of Trump's actions are responsible for the US's current cresting of economic strength, this is the remainder left over from Obama's 8 years in office. I don't expect to see much effect from Trumps actions on the economy until after 12 months, probably not for 18/24 months.

I don't doubt his policies will affect the economy, but I doubt they will be for the betterment of the majority. Trump's U.S. withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, gave room for other nations launch 27 separate negotiations to undercut U.S. exporters, and US farmers around the country are already roiling.

The post truth world will stand or fail economically, common sense will prevail.

Sorry, Cavacava, corporations, governments, and economic systems have been skewing the truth for centuries. So, none of what you mentioned points to our being in a different "Post-Truth' world now.

Sand...

You could always quote me. Point out which claim is false and what makes it so. Nothing else suffices as ground for your objections.

I've already don't that many times, and you've failed to address me every time. So, we're done and good night. I won't be reading any more of your rants or mistruths.

And he accuses others of delusion...

It's always been that way...

It's always been that way...

It's always been that way...

That's the pattern folks.

Nice extrapolation Cava...

8-)