Wait, seriously, you haven't seen High Fidelity?

I was home-schooled :’( :’( :’(

Forever uncool.

Just go watch it and let's stop padding Banno's reply count.

But I'd rather re-watch Twin Peaks so I can catch up on all the suggestive nonsense. Besides, Banno is long past receiving notifications on this thread. We can wax pointless to the mod's content!

Ignore Srap. Doesn't know what he is saying..

Here, have another.

Seems the earlier charge of folk not knowing what truth is and the role that it plays in all thought/belief and statements thereof has just played out...

We can check the usage of any term, including "truth", by virtue of taking the proposed definition and replacing each and every use of the term with the definition, and then carefully assessing what's left. If we're left with meaningless claims, self-contradiction, or the need to have/use more than one definition in order to make sense of what's being claimed, then we've arrived at more than enough reason to reject that particular definition.

Seeing how the term "truth" is pivotal to any and all notions of what counts as post-truth, we can clearly see that establishing what - exactly - counts as truth is pivotal to the discussion of post-truth.

Perhaps the notion itself is untenable, for in order for it to be true that we live in a post truth world, truth is required.

I suspect that that is at least close to what Banno is pointing at when calling the notion of a post-truth world incoherent.

For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state. In the presence of 'democracy', where the potential for the state to control things more literally, the powerful have managed to use technologies and ideologies of power over the centuries; church, morality, monarchy, aristocracy. divine right of kings, nationalism, racism,... For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.
You ought to be able to see from short list above that NONE of the techniques of control are "objective", and yet the established power has promoted these things AS IF THEY ARE objective. Ask any churchman about the objectivity of morality!
PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods.

"Probably it was only a matter of time before the practice of "political spinning" found its way into every crevice of our little world.
Request for 2017 and every day: Gimme some truth."
Spin has always been the case. The only difference now is the speed with which each new thing appears. 1700 years ago the story of Jesus was spun into a state religion. After the fall of Rome tribal loyalties were subsumed and spun into the concept of the Nation State. Race and Class were continually spun by those in control to establish power.
Most of the things we all take for granted are bullshit; "England", "God", "Jew". "Negro". it's all meaningless crap by which we structure our lives.

For my money Post Truth (PT) has more to do with the establishment loosing the ability to push their own version of truth. This has very little to do with objectivity, and everything to do with control of the people by the state.

The establishment has always done this. The governments of Queen Elizabeth and Augustus certainly pushed their own versions of the Truth. So, we do not live in a Post-Truth world different from a particularly truthful period.

For the moment, at least, the Internet and social media have revolutionised communication, and the rich and powerful media is n decline unable to keep up with changing social realities.

This is a good point. For while the internet has helped foment lies. It has also revealed truths--like the DNC's heinous rigging of its primary for Hillary Clinton--that nobody would have known in a pre-internet period.

PT is yet another means by which the powerful seek to undermine truths generated from the roots of society. PT calls into question emerging POVs and hopes to re-establish traditional myths of class, church and nation; all of which are quickly becoming unpacked as false gods.

Again, you're correct that there are particularities to this period, but one of them isnt it being a Post-Truth one. You need to come up with a new one. I don't think anyone's topped Digital Information Age.

An acronym that describes our Internet-dominated era: Digital Information Age of Rumors, Reality-tv, and Home-shopping Easing into the Apocalypse. Or DIARRHEA for short. :D

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

And yet you've continually proven yourself to not having a clue about any of those things. Feel free to define them and prove me wrong. We both know you can't.

I cannot prove you wrong by virtue of defining them.

The irony...

:-}

Some folk are prone to focus upon the person/author and not the content of the writing.

Some folk are prone to focus upon the person/author and not the content of the writing.

Yeah...you.

I cannot prove you wrong by virtue of defining them.

The irony...

Of course you could if you could define them. You've proven you can't and proven me right.

The Irony...:)

With the overwhelming amount of information available, it is increasingly important to have a clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as being sufficient reason to believe...

And it's adorable you write this but you keep proving you have no clue about what counts as evidence, what counts as being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe...just as you did above.

Any interested reader who should care enough can easily browse through another author's comments on this forum, and after doing so can draw their own conclusions regarding whether or not that member has a clue when talking about evidence, being justified, and/or warrant.

Anyone can provide definitions. That only requires knowing how to use a dictionary. It doesn't prove that the person understands the notions being defined.

Any interested reader who should care enough can easily browse through another author's comments on this forum, and after doing so can draw their own conclusions regarding whether or not that member has a clue when talking about evidence, being justified, and/or warrant.

Any interested reader can see Creative has just proven again he has no clue when talking about evidence, being justified, and or warrant. He is practically a virtuoso at the art of proving himself wrong.

Anyone can provide definitions. That only requires knowing how to use a dictionary. It doesn't prove that the person understands the notions being defined.

Clearly you can't since you can't provide either the dictionary definitions or your own, even when you're free to do so.

In a really important sense all our most cherished beliefs concerning social realities are PT in the sense that they are rely on the acceptance of others around us believing the same stuff. Life outside science relies much on faith. You've only to look at attitudes to money; that curious thing that can be created and destroyed at the touch of a computer button. But even in the says when it was back up with hard metal such as gold or silver, the value of that metal was based on trust.
PT should tell us that hard truth in the social realm is fleeting at best. As for coming up with a new idea; they seem to happen daily.

So, you still can't provide definitions for evidence, being justified, and what counts as sufficient reason to believe, as you said people must be able to do. Thanks for playing.

It does not follow from the fact of someone providing a definition of a term that s/he understands the term.

This is not a response to what I was saying.

It does not follow from the fact of someone providing a definition of a term that s/he understands the term.

And yet you can't even define it, which shows you understand it even less. So, we're done on this discussion Creative. I'm getting tired of your proving me right.

I know. I thought you were Creative.

It doesn't follow from the fact that I haven't defined a term that I do not understand it.

Yes it does, since you can't even do that. Anyone who understands a term can at least define it.

PT is about the framing of an item of news. On the twittersphere many people have concluded that
Muslim men groom white girls
On the bare face of it that statement is true. However, when you scratch the surface it turns out there is one or two highly publicised instances of groups of men of mostly Muslim origin (not necessarily devout or even practicing) who have been charged with the grooming of girls. This has fuelled an attitude against creeping Sharia, loss of British identity and terrorism.
Yet the "TRUTH" of these instances is statistically insignificant, and the vast majority of abuse of young women is perpetrated by white men, and by people known to the women as a family member.
It does not matter a rat's arse how or if you "DEFINE" your terms.
What the media effectively achieves is a stilted view of the modern world which feeds prejudice. Where is the "TRUTH"?

↪John Harris
In a really important sense all our most cherished beliefs concerning social realities are PT in the sense that they are rely on the acceptance of others around us believing the same stuff. Life outside science relies much on faith. You've only to look at attitudes to money; that curious thing that can be created and destroyed at the touch of a computer button. But even in the says when it was back up with hard metal such as gold or silver, the value of that metal was based on trust.
PT should tell us that hard truth in the social realm is fleeting at best. As for coming up with a new idea; they seem to happen daily.

None of this points to us being in a Post-Truth world as opposed to other times.