We can certainly learn something about a person by virtue of paying attention to whether or not they follow the same standards that they expect others to meet.

The lady doth protest too loudly.

The problem here is truth-as-belief never "took hold"...

That gave me a nice chuckle... out loud even.

I'm sure it did. It's clear language baffles you...:)

Carl Sagan, 1995.

We can certainly learn something about a person by virtue of paying attention to whether or not they follow the same standards that they expect others to meet.

The lady doth protest too loudly.

The only lady is you, and you just protested very loudly...:)

Carl Sagan, 1996.

Care to make a point about an astronomer's prognostications, Jorndoe?

Nice post jorndoe... Good to see you!

Quote seemed relevant to the thread, e.g.

[...] unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true — Sagan

The Demon-Haunted World

Sagan got it. :)

Heya creativesoul, hope all is well on your end.

Quote seemed relevant to the thread, e.g.

[...] unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true
— Sagan

Not really, since Sagan was just making a personal prediction and many people distinguish between what feels good and what feels true. In fact, since you think his post is true, you were trying to do it yourself.

It certainly doesn't establish our present world as a "Post-Truth" one.

Sagan got it. :)

He got many things, he just didn't quite get our present.

Likewise.

Life in general has never been better.

When enough people...

The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media...

Indeed. That which matters to everyone equally is left for dead... Trust and truth.

A society in which brute facts (using Searle's terminology, see my last post)) are ignored will almost inevitably fail. Brute facts are unforgiving.

A society that ignores social facts? Social facts function because we make them function. If social facts are subject to too much flux, they fail. If they are denied, they fail.

At best, denial of social facts might lead to social change. — Banno

I'm not convinced that such a neat division is really very applicable. Consider the recently released telephone transcripts of a certain American executive with other world leaders. It's actually quite clear that said executive knows what 'the truth of things' is. Regarding having Mexico pay for his border wall, what he is insistent upon is not that Mexico actually pay for the wall, only that they not say that they won't. Similarly, regarding the refugee deal between Australia and the US, he is concerned, above all, with the 'optics' of such a deal. Whether the numbers are 1250 refugees (as it in fact is, and which Turnbull keeps reminding him), or 4000 (as he keeps repeating), are in a certain way irrelevant. Here's the telling line:

"I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country. And now I am agreeing to take 2,000 people and I agree I can vet them, but that puts me in a bad position. It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week."

Again, it's not the truth of things that are necessarily in question, but, as it were, the presentation of that truth (which itself may be a lie!). To the extent that a 'post-truth society' means anything at all, I think it bares more on this 'second level' of 'truth-presentation' and not necessarily truth itself, as it were (which is not to say it doesn't also bear on truth). This was brought home to me quite clearly after having a few discussions with those who used the term 'fake news' unironically. If you actually talk to these people, it's quite clear that 'fake news' has nothing or very little to do with 'news that is not factual'. It simply has to do with 'news they don't like/does not represent their worldview'. 'Fake' in the phrase 'fake news' quite literally does not mean what you or I mean when we say 'fake' (i.e. unture, unfactual). It means something else entirely (thus liberals who reply that such and such news story really is true miss the point entirely).

There is a kind of disconnect between action and representation then: At the level of action, 'truth' remains as relevant as ever (kinda); at the level of representation however, truth simply has no status. One can say whatever (even if one does not act accordingly). But this has a kind of efficacy of it's own. And it's not clear that this denial of truth will force any 'world' to collapse under it's own weight, so long as this disconnect remains in place. And I also don't think this topology of truth parses out neatly along the lines of the 'social fact/brute fact' division either, which simply runs tangential to the issues over truth above, which are ultimately more 'political' than 'ontological'.

I'd suggest those who feel we've only recently moved into a post-truth world check out James Madison's famous Federalist No. 10, written in 1787, in which he briefly outlines the positive role that factions (e.g. political parties) play in securing a nation's precarious political stability.

Taken separately, factions work to advance particular group interests (typically self-interest is aligned with class-interests) at the expense of anything resembling the common good. In a large and diverse nation, however, the various factions can offset and 'check' each other. So rather than being a burden they're actually a blessing.

The relevance of this, as I see it, is to show that mine, Thanatos' and others' cynicism on the matter is justified on historical grounds, and at the very inception of the USA the more astute thinkers were already taking what they felt were necessary precautions against the deception and selfishness so prevalent in politics (and elsewhere).

I wonder if there's ever been a society in which the overwhelming majority of citizens willingly set aside what they perceived to be their particular interests, gathered together all the relevant facts pertaining to public affairs, looked at things from as many perspectives as possible in the most charitable way, and actively tried to bring about policies deemed beneficial to the whole of society?

The whole idea of 'checks and balances' thing underlying the US political system is predicated upon this extremely cynical view of human beings. Politicians will generally sacrifice truth or justice or any other professed principle if they feel it serves their interests to do so.

As Madison put it, "as long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be the objects to which the latter will attach themselves."

So it bears repeating that if there's never been a "truth" world (in the political realm especially), then post-truth makes no sense either. There may one characterized b reletively more truth, or another by less truth (where we're at now, perhaps), but never one wholly concerned with truth and completely free from other, less-elevated considerations.

I'd also mention, once again, the supreme value placed on rhetoric in ancient Greece, as you all know, as a means of securing one's advantage in both public and private affairs. Sophistry and politics are practically synonymous, and have been so for thousands of years.

This was brought home to me quite clearly after having a few discussions with those who used the term 'fake news' unironically. If you actually talk to these people, it's quite clear that 'fake news' has nothing or very little to do with 'news that is not factual'. It simply has to do with 'news they don't like/does not represent their worldview'. 'Fake' in the phrase 'fake news' quite literally does not mean what you or I mean when we say 'fake' (i.e. unture, unfactual). It means something else entirely (thus liberals who reply that such and such news story really is true miss the point entirely).

The problem with this differentiation is the "fake news" term was first started by the often-lie spreading MSM to try and discredit not only joke right wing sites like Breitbart, but also legitimate progressive sites like Intercept and Counterpunch. They did this because those sites brought up facts about the DNC's rigging of the primary; shady dealings in the Clinton foundation; the horrors of America's policies in Syria, Libya, and Yemen; and the holes in the Russia conspiracy theories. So, when MSM--WaPO in particular, CNN, MSNBC, and NYT--coined and tried to foment the term "fake news," they were doing exactly what you those people you complained about did. They weren't complaining about actual falsehood--except in the Breitbart, Alex Jones cases--they were complaining about the revelation of actual news they didn't like and was inconvenient to their narrative.

I didn't say anything about who started it, so I'm glad we agree.

Cool.

Merriam-Webster has examples going back to 1890.

Abraham Lincoln received the nickname "Honest Abe" because of his decision to refrain from the rampant and outlandish lying common among politicians at the time. The secession of the southern states which initiated the American Civil War was directly related to fake news which was taken seriously by southerners.

I think the more recent use of the term "fake news" has to do with internet news outlets. That's my perception anyway.

Merriam-Webster has examples going back to 1890.

I'm sure they do, but I was referring to its current form Streetlight mentioned and MSM fomented.

I think your portrayal of the people who use term "fake news" is quite accurate. They have this total disregard for any claims that don't fit their ideological standpoint of what feels true to them, which most across the political spectrum do to a certain extent but it's this total dismissal and refusal to engage with what's well accepted by the majority of the society that's striking. Although I think Donald Trump is quite different from most of his followers, who acts in concern for his own ego than any ideological standpoint that he really cares about. It's not so much that he dismisses the truth of anything that doesn't fit his ideology as much as he could care less if it does if it's convenient to the game he's playing.

"Because of this proclivity for that oxymoronic guff he calls “truthful hyperbole,” Trump is frequently accused of being a serial liar. But this is not quite right. For one thing, it misunderstands what lies and bullshit are, and who Trump is. In On Bullshit, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt tells us that the difference between the liar and the bullshitter is that the liar is deliberately trying to tell us something he knows to be false. The bullshitter, on the other hand, simply does not care whether what he says is true or false. He will say whatever is necessary to persuade his audience. That means it will include a mixture of truth and falsehood. The bullshitter may even end up saying a lot of true things. But he doesn’t say them because they’re true, he says them because they work.

Donald Trump is a bullshitter. He is best classified as a bullshitter rather than a liar because he himself does not believe he is issuing falsehoods. He doesn’t necessarily think that he’s telling the truth either. What he does is find the words that will produce the effect required at any given time; he finds the most effective promotional tool. Some- times these things are lies. Sometimes they are not. But Trump’s intention is produce consequences rather than either to deceive or enlighten. Trump will feed you whatever bullshit it takes to get your money or your vote." — Trump Anatomy of a Monstrosity by Nathan Robinson

(the book has a bunch of biographical examples to illustrate the point about Trump)

It's not just Trump supporters, not even close. Hillary supporters would deny the inconvenient reality of the DNC rigging the primary for her, even with the DNC and Brazil's emails staring them in the face.

Oh yes for sure. I've had frustrations with both while it seems to me even much more severe for Trump supporters. Clinton supporters do a lot of mental gymnastics to cherry pick facts at their convenience, but many Trump supporters make claims that flat out directly contradict the results of polls and deny what experts say about Climate Change, and a host of other issues. I mean I think most of what shows up on Cable News is complete trash, but there is a notable difference between MSNBC & Fox News.

That's a good summary of the two groups, but MSNBC is definitely closing the gap on Fox as Comcast has given them a clear centrist, corporatist, warmongering agenda. To support that, they have:

1. Either ignored the Sanders campaign or had Maddow spread the unfounded lie of his supporters throwing chairs in Nevada.

2. Ignored the DNC primary rigging story, as well as the DAPL debacle or any story inconvenient to Hillarys campaign.

3. Unquestioningly supported the war on Syria. Which has ravaged the country and emboldened and empowered ISIs

4. Religiously and excessively fixated on the still unfounded Russia conspiracy theory to the detriment of more urgent and pressing domestic and foreign issues.

I'm with you there, but neoliberal liberal/centrism still has a sizable gap from the Extreme Right politics of the Republican Party, it's just that the gap is a lot narrower than what most people think. But I would still say MSNBC still very different from Fox.

But I just showed you how it's not very different and you didn't counter any of my points. So how do you see there being a great difference?

And there really are major similarities between centrist Dems and GOP now:

1. Both pro-war, particularly pro-imperialistic coups and bombing campaigns
2. Both pro-banks and think the banks broke no laws in08
3. Both anti Medicaid-for-All which would give coverage to everyone
4. Both opposed to a living wage minimum wage
5. Both pro-fracking
6. Both didn't care abou the tragedy still DAPL because their candidates didn't
7. Both are fine with weapons deals and other shady business with the horrid Saudi Arabia regime and with their candidates profiting off it, but not the opposing sides candidate doing so.

Oh god not this nonsense again. There are obvious differences in the frequency & degree to which Centrist parties support Right-Wing Policies and a Committed Far Right-Wing Party supports Right-Wing Policies.

One party is highly inadequate in curbing climate change, only committed to mild investment in renewable energy, while flirting with fracking & oil drilling on the side. But they have a platform for which grassroots movements can push forward more ambitious programs and set their political leaders' feet to the fire.

The other party is completely dedicated to shutting down the EPA, dismantling international climate agreements (even to the opposition of corporate leaders), is explicit in public statements to be denying that climate change is happening, and advocates burning as much fossil fuels as possible. The only thing grassroots movements can do is prevent the party from destroying everything.

See the difference? And I can run down the list for the comparisons for issues such imperialism, welfare state, and so on that the Democratic Party sucks on and are closer to the Republican Party than most people think, but are transparently still better on all of them.

There's such a thing as making the nuanced case there are overlapping similarities but yet there are still dramatically different political consequences that arise from each party being in power.

The only nonsense is yours, and congrats on ending a polite conversation with it.

The Dems aren't only flirting with fracking, they're fully committed to it and even have fracking donors on the DNC board. Hillary took millions from fracking industries and advocated for fracking while Sec. of state.

And I did make a nuanced case with all my points and you just conveniently ignored. Considering Obama had 26000 bombs total dropped on Syria, Libya and Yemen last year--Yemen for the horrid Saudis, and Obama and Hillary backed disastrous coups in Honduras, Libya, and Syria

So I won't be reading any more of your delusional partisan posts

Yeah I never denied Hillary's fracking commitments, that's quite a twisting of words, nor did I deny anything about Obama's imperialism. Your claim is that making the nuanced assessment that the Democratic Party is destructive but happens to be less destructive than the Republican Party is partisanship. Personally, I think it's called looking at the facts while at the same time being ideologically opposed to both parties.

↪Thanatos Sand I'm with you there, but neoliberal liberal/centrism still has a sizable gap from the Extreme Right politics of the Republican Party, it's just that the gap is a lot narrower than what most people think. But I would still say MSNBC still very different from Fox. — Saphsin

I have to agree with you here. There are many, many types of people for whom the party in power has a major effect on my life. If, for example, I'm a woman who needs an abortion, a transgendered man seeking to live an equal and normal life, an undocumented immigrant, or a peaceful Muslim who is attempting to come to the United States, which party is in power makes a tremendous difference on my life.

I acknowledge that I am a partisan Democrat,a Hillary fan, and all the rest. Nevertheless, I don't think that undercuts my first point. Hilary's America, at least the first half year, would have looked extremely different from Trump's.