Search results

The purpose of this study is to explore in depth the anatomy of post-truth in the quest to set a new research agenda. The author interrogates knowledge production/dissemination and the political positions of those behind them. This study diagnoses and challenges existing claims of supremacy of certain hegemonic epistemological and ontological orthodoxies that have been weaponized.

This study philosophically engages with different worlds of credible ‘pluriversal’ knowledge(s) and leads to the exposure of historically ‘taken-for-granted’ definitions of the nature and composition of acceptable truth and how it is deeply entrenched in interest group politics.

Each generation in different contexts has had to battle with specific troubling forces of deception and organized hypocrisy. Here, both new social actors and incumbents influence the disgruntled, deceive the gullible or connect with the enlightened masses at the emotional level whilst strongly undermining the rules-of-logic and fact-based discourses using disruptive social media technologies. The author specifies how the five P’s: political power, profits, populism, politics and the private visions of technologists and scientists will continue to play very influential roles in how knowledge production will affect future policies and global governance.

Based on historicized explanations, the author argues that deception and mass ignorance as weaponized features of global governance and its capitalist order are typical Machiavellian strategies for gaining control over knowledge production/information dissemination. Massive changes are not expected in the future unless society and academia introduce novel science, technology and political platforms for engaging society and policy-makers.

The author provides ample historical illustrations to support the claims made in this study that public insights into the postulated structures of post-truth remain extremely superficial, making people insufficiently informed to engage in crucial discourses about knowledge production and dissemination that affect their futures. This study provides several ingredients for stimulating further debate.

The post-truth moment comes at a time of deference for epistemic authority, which has serious implications for democracy. If democracy implies an epistemology, attempting to live a democratic way of life implies a theory about the nature of knowledge among other theoretical aspects (e.g. political and ethical). At the time of ‘fluid modernity’, the post-truth politics of renouncing truth damages the foundations of democracy, for how could we proceed with a democratic way of life without truth as a common denominator for deliberation? While a defining feature of the post-truth era is its intrinsic relativism, Gellner (2013) warns this could lead to ‘cognitive nihilism’. Thus, it is imperative to (i) find our way back to reasonableness (based on both reason and emotions) based on a Freirean dialogic middle ground, instead of renouncing truth (that is any notion of truth), and (ii) critically discuss possibilities for various approaches to truth-seeking. While it is important to question the foundation and reasonableness of truth, two crucial issues arise: which theory of knowledge and whose theory of knowledge should be accepted as the epistemological basis of truth? Moreover, this chapter will argue that a more plausible notion of truth is neither one that is based on intrinsic objectivity nor intrinsic relativism, but one that is based on the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity; that is a relational (nor relative) and dialectic understanding of truth which does not rule out the existence of facts but questions the political constructs of facts. The final section of the chapter focuses on the application of the understanding of truth as a relational dialogical epistemology. While arguing for a dialogical theory of truth, the chapter also problematizes the predominant view of evidence-based research and policy and offers an in-depth discussion of how our understanding of the relational dialogical notion of truth can be utilized in the analysis of cases involving pro-active discrimination and affirmative action.

One of the rallying cries of the blockchain community is that of immutability: the irreversibility of the past, the absolute truth which, once stored, remains there forever. The technology was designed with this foundational pillar in mind to ensure that changes to history are inordinately expensive and practically impossible to execute – and increasingly so, the further in the past the event which one intends to manipulate lies. This platonic view of absolute truth is in stark contrast with a world of manipulated truth, and it is not surprising that it is being revisited as a means of combating fake news. We argue that claims to the absolute nature of the blockchain are at best exaggerated, at worst misrepresented or even ‘fake news’. We discuss implicit centralised points of trust in blockchains, whether at a technological, social or governance level, and identify how these can be a threat to the ‘immutable truth’ stored within the blockchain itself. A global pandemic has unleashed an unprecedented wave of contradictory positions on anything from vaccines and face masks to ‘the new normal’. It is only natural that the pursuit of blockchain as a placebo for society's ‘truth’ problems continues.

Much has been written about the crisis in the Humanities even as student interest in the Humanities continues to decline. In the so-called “post-truth,” “post-COVID19” period,” however, the Humanities deserve attention for the important role they must play in preparing students for the world during a period of dramatic change.

Discussion focuses on the “post-truth” period and how the Humanities have a role in confronting misinformation and “fake news.” It provides specific actions for how those in the Humanities might address the current situation. It relies on the author’s considerable background as a university Dean and President over a period of over 40 years and draws on a variety of written material addressing the future of the Humanities.

In a period when the world confronts unprecedented change, when misinformation is confused with the truth and when social media exercises so much influence, students more than ever need the insight and context of the Humanities to mitigate the cant, bogus claims and questionable ethics that so much shape the world. Responsibility falls to faculty as they must make clear to their students how the Humanities provide a perspective that allows students to work through the big questions of their time.

Much has been written about the challenges facing the Humanities. It is hoped that this paper will generate additional discussion on how the Humanities might assert themselves during what are troubling times in higher education.

The author’s long experience as a senior university administrator provides a perspective that faculty and administrators might find useful as they consider the future of the Humanities at their institutions.

This paper engages multidisciplinary perspectives on truth, authority, expertise and belief to unpack and better understand the underlying epistemology and implications of the ACRL Frame “authority is constructed and contextual.”

Following an overview of the issues confronting us in a “post-truth world,” the paper reviews critiques of the ACRL Frame “authority is constructed and contextual” and examines the related concepts of truth, authority, expertise and belief from multidisciplinary perspectives.

While the Frame acknowledges the limitations and biases of current scholarly publishing and implicitly supports social justice, it runs the danger of promoting relativism and is ambiguous regarding the relationships between expertise and authority. The critical concepts of truth and belief are conspicuously absent. Engaging a critical discussion and understanding of these concepts is a valuable contribution to information literacy.

This paper offers an important and accessible analysis of the frame “authority is constructed and contextual” and its underlying concepts. It moves beyond the library literature to include multidisciplinary perspectives and will require the engagement of the wider library community to promote discussion of the underlying epistemology and links between the construction of authority and truth, expertise and belief. In particular, the discussion of the construction of belief and the difference between judgments of fact and judgments of value offers important additions to the library literature.

The purpose of this paper is to critically engage with societal origins of public (dis)trust and public credibility of nutrition science and offer suggestions for addressing its public dismissal.

This viewpoint presents a conceptual analysis of public dismissal of nutrition science, drawing together perspectives on the relationships between science and society from the history, sociology and philosophy of science.

The origin of trust amongst scientists relies is actively tied to their social and moral status and science as a cultural activity is inextricably linked to institutions of power. Accordingly, trust in science relies heavily on public perceptions of those institutions, the ways in which citizens feel represented by them, and to what extent citizens consider these institutions to be held accountable. Ignoring this origin leads to expectations of science and scientists they cannot live up to and inevitable disappointment in those holding such expectations.

Managing responsible expectations asks that we first dismiss dominant portrayals of science as pure, neutral, value-free and fuelled by curiosity. Second, we should pursue a reorganisation of science, favouring social inclusiveness over scientific exceptionalism.

Post-truth dynamics are a source of concern in the dissemination of nutrition science. Rather than dismissing it as a consequence of public ignorance, a comprehensive engagement with post-truth arguments allows a constructive repositioning of nutrition science organisation and communication. It asks that we design research programmes and studies differently, incorporate different voices. Above all else, it asks humility of researchers and tolerant approaches to other perspectives.

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the current efforts to combat the epidemic of fake news – compiling lists of fake news sites, flagging stories as having been disputed as “fake,” downloading plug-ins to detect fake news – show a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.

This paper explores the plummeting believability ratings in conventional news outlets, as well as current efforts to combat fake news. These concepts are situated in the post-truth era, in which news is upsold on the notion of belief and opinion.

This paper finds that, in combination with a general mistrust of all news, a fundamental flaw in the system of clicks-as-reward allows fake news and other clickbait to gain unobstructed virality.

Fake news is a widely discussed topic right now. As this is primarily an issue of information literacy, library and information professionals need to understand, discuss, and address this issue as one that is directly related to the profession.