Seems as highly likely as any other in this day and age!

:smile:

The news media has become very selective in what it states and prints and is politically biased - on both ends of the political spectrum. How are philosophers to solve this problem?

The news media has become very selective in what it states and prints and is politically biased - on both ends of the political spectrum. How are philosophers to solve this problem? — John Gill

I think it is no accident that philosophers are made fun of.

It's not only politically biased... but it's also financially biased. As long as people are more prone to watch train wrecks, they will show nothing but.

I think it is no accident that philosophers are made fun of. — creativesoul

Rodeo-clowns' occupational hazard, ain't it?

It's not only politically biased... but it's also financially biased. As long as people are more prone to watch train wrecks, they will show nothing but.

The human, all too human predicament: Train wrecker is as train wrecker does.

I think it is no accident that philosophers are made fun of.
— creativesoul

Rodeo-clowns' occupational hazard, ain't it? — 180 Proof

Perhaps, but the rodeo clown is not expected to have much to say about the rest of the rodeo...

Anyone who watches Bernie Sanders speak in a debate format will soon find out what proper debate looks like. All one needs to do with Bernie is remind everyone of all the different pieces of legislation which resulted in financially harming the average everyday citizen, and then look to see how he voted at the time...

Sometimes the only nay!

Guess who got it right?

It's important to remember that conservatives aren't interested in meaningful debate. The so-called war on truth is not an epistemic war, but a series of political battles in which one side (conservatives, reactionaries) invents justifications for existing inequalities and launders them through liberal notions of rational discourse. You aren't going to convince conservatives that (for example) the state should enact policies to address racial wealth inequalities, because conservatives are only interested in justifying those inequalities and alleviating their historical guilt.

situate truth where it belongs... as one precipice of all human thought and belief, and thus of all human understanding. — creativesoul

Concur, without reservation. Problem is, human understanding can be....and usually is....influenced by a posteriori conditions not of its own making.

Case in point, this very opening comment, where the link talking about philosophers being granted resources “...to study how false beliefs take flight and what this means for public understanding of science....”**, is informed by “...coinciding with Trump’s impeachment...”.

Or......how to put forth one thing, supplemented with a tacit implication for something entirely different yet not rationally deductible from it, in an attempt to sway understanding into a connection that doesn’t exist. That such influence is incorporated into the opening comment defeats the fundamental philosophy of truth itself, that being, situate truth where it belongs.

That this cognitive device is rampant is not in question, but is blatantly obvious, insofar the conversation immediately went off on the impeachment, rather than remaining with the content of the link and its concern with false beliefs with respect to science alone.
“....Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest, mmm, mmm, mm-mm-mmm...”
——————————-

Rhetorically, for you in particular, as groundwork only, whether granted or not:
“....The old question with which people sought to push logicians into a corner, so that they must either have recourse to pitiful sophisms or confess their ignorance, and consequently the vanity of their whole art, is this: "What is truth?" The definition of the word truth, to wit, "the accordance of the cognition with its object," is presupposed in the question; but we desire to be told, in the answer to it, what is the universal and secure criterion of the truth of every cognition....(...)

Now a universal criterion of truth would be that which is valid for all cognitions, without distinction of their objects. But it is evident that since, in the case of such a criterion, we make abstraction of all the content of a cognition (that is, of all relation to its object), and truth relates precisely to this content, it must be utterly absurd to ask for a mark of the truth of this content of cognition; and that, accordingly, a sufficient, and at the same time universal, test of truth cannot possibly be found....(...)

On the other hand, with regard to our cognition in respect of its mere form (excluding all content), it is equally manifest that logic, in so far as it exhibits the universal and necessary laws of the understanding, must in these very laws present us with criteria of truth. Whatever contradicts these rules is false, because thereby the understanding is made to contradict its own universal laws of thought; that is, to contradict itself....”
(1787)

**https://www.socsci.uci.edu/newsevents/news/2019/2019-12-16-oconnor-weatherall

How can philosophers resurrect truth from its deathbed? How can philosophers find consensus on the best course forward in changing the public mind? — ernestm

I believe a few years ago there was a claim that philosophy was dead and so I guess now truth is supposed to be dead because the publishers at Time think it has gotten that bad?

I guess when you come to think of it, most of what we call the "truth" is merely what the people in power in any given society decide what the truth is and any facts that don't mesh well with their story is easily either ignored or erased one way or another.

Also since the real "truth" is there isn't any truth to begin with (only axioms that we believe are true but are not really the "truth"), the destruction of truth is usually the process of ignoring a certain set of axioms in favor of another set since the non-existing "truth" can not really be altered.

I’m more optimistic. I don’t think we should fear falsity because of its relation to truth. The rise in falsity and misinformation coincides with the rise of social media, which has allowed the populace to avoid the traditional gatekeepers of truth. Perhaps this is why there is now a concerted effort on the part of these gatekeepers to punish anyone who deviates. The “post-truth” era is really the post-media era, and all these efforts are really the flailing of a once-powerful 4th estate in its death throes.

i dont have experience in making games, but i will be making a website called 'war on truth,' and if you have something you'd like to post on it, please let me know

...avoid the traditional gatekeepers of truth. — NOS4A2

You and your imaginary friends... there are no such 'gatekeepers of truth'. The Church once was... quite unfortunately for everyone's sake afterwards. Many have thrown the baby out with the bathwater...

This sounds like what a certain German philosopher with an iconic mustache warned would happen

i have created an area on my Yofiel site called 'Plato's Cave,' with 10 general topics about the war on truth, also adding sections on natural rights, guns, and theories of mind. The menu and blog navigation all works, but there's still some cross-links between the articles to clean up.

Plato's Cave

The most recent article also describes my 'epistemolocal gap' in detail. See TOC.

Can Philosophy Win the War on Truth?

Truth is what is there despite what is said, done or believed.

One cannot go to war against truth.

Nor is an attempt to replace truth with merit helpful.

ive explained the meaning of merit in the oxfordian sense. Im not interested in debating it.

Then why bother bringing it to a forum?

When a statement can be found true in more than one metaphysics, and whose interpretation is more unambiguously framed within the presumed premises and resulting rules for each of those metaphysics, then it may be considered to possess greater merit.

Hence, in modern metaphysics, the merit of a statement should be held more fruitful to evaluate than the truth of a proposition.

Saying things like that is going to get you laughed at, not listened to.

i already addressed your ridicule, and I object to people quoting out of context like they are impeachment lawyers. All my terms are properly defined.

i already addressed your ridicule, — ernestm

Where?

you'd have to suspend judgment and actually read it.

You'd hav to convince me it was worth a read.

Here's my take: truth is primitive. It can't be defined as something else, nor replace by some other notion. Declaring 'war on truth' is just telling lies. It's not new, and it doesn't need philosophers to murk it up.

as pointed out by others above, those who form an opinion based on incomplete knowledge should not be taken seriously. You formed your opinion and admitted you didn't read what I wrote already. Its now my turn to ridicule you. -fart-

That got very defensive very quickly.

Too quickly. When someone is that defensive, it is usually the case that they are defending nothing of worth.

OK, time for something else.

thank you for going away.

I amended the introduction to cover prior work rendering direct replt to TIME unnecessary.

https://www.yofiel.com/writing/truth/war-on-truth

If others are interested in discussing inconsistecies or lack of clarity without ridicule I would be glad for the input.

Merit and truth are not the same.

Merit is closer to justification than to truth.

Again, I amended the introduction to cover prior work rendering direct reply to TIME unnecessary.

https://www.yofiel.com/writing/truth/war-on-truth

If others are interested in discussing inconsistencies or lack of clarity without ridicule I would be glad for the input.

SO yes, it would be good if folk looked more to what justifies the assertions other folk make.

Do we need philosophers to tell us that?

Again as I said I defined my terms. Again, I amended the introduction to cover prior work rendering direct reply to TIME unnecessary.

https://www.yofiel.com/writing/truth/war-on-truth

If others are interested in discussing inconsistencies or lack of clarity without ridicule I would be glad for the input.

Or you could read On Bullshit.

:snicker:

Obviously the title is too misleading so I changed it for people who don't bother reading anything else but the final paragraph.

Please note the final section has 'merit' in quotes