Post truth society

Post Reply New Topic

Thank you for defining post-truth, OP.

To me, what you're describing sounds like argumentum ad populum. It's nothing new, really. I suppose you're saying a post-truth society is one where argumentum ad populum reigns supreme and you feel we're living in one now.

PLATO, not Pluto!

What good is the truth if no one understands it?

So, did Galileo or the Pope lie consciously? Were there no sincere errors in olden times?

It is said that the first religion was founded when the first liar met the first fool.

I thought it was when the first average person took a spiritual metaphor literally.

Ah! Here it is:

I think any starting point here is as ridiculous as any other; as Fnord points out above, politicians have been lying to us from time immemorial - it's their function. I accept that it's become more pervasive with the emergence of TV and the internet, though.

I don't know what you mean by "faith-based community"; if you mean that Blair is a Christian (or pretends to be), then the same is true of almost all western politicians, but I don't see what it's got to do with what we're talking about.



By the definition suggested above, the answer is no. Again - not that it'd be relevant one way or another.



A cult of personality has to surround every major successful politician in an age of universal suffrage. The masses will go for appearance over substance every time.

No.
But what lie did you think Galileo committed?

To lie is to convince someone into thinking something you know is untrue

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... od-enough/

I don't know why I keep trying to explain the difference between truth and falsehood to people that can't tell one from the other.

Like I said truth is objective reality, you have no concept of any reality other than consensus reality so assume that Objective Reality is the same thing.

Facts aren't just someone else's Alternative Facts, something your not able to acknowledge, ether because your to stupid or your trolling me.

Maybe this will explain it. It's not an Alternative fact because someone disagrees with it, It's an Alternative Fact because our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ doesn't believe it.

It's not that argumentum ad populum reigns supreme its that people don't recognize there's any alternative to argumentum ad populum.

Faith-Based Community is what the Reality-based community refers to those that think like the Bush Administration

I have won world prizes by applying physics to engineering, without benefit of formal schooling, so I'm reasonably certain that I do have a grasp of objective reality.

However, I think that the Pope was sincere in maintaining the belief taught by all his predecessors, even if changing his mind would have shaken his own power. When I was young, the Universities were still saddled with tenured professors who could not believe in continental drift.

Hsingai, you've presented the same spurious "logic" that is used by wooists and flim-flam artists to "prove" the alleged validity of their assertions of alternate realities, psychic abilities, and otherkin (et cetera) -- you seem to rely more on "splitting hairs" than on any empirical evidence to support your claims. You also seem to have little to no understanding of the physical sciences (much less quantum science).

We who earn our STEM degrees have an advantage over those who don't -- we have a greater understanding of STEM subjects in general, and of the specific STEM subjects for which we have earned our degrees. Thus, it is obvious to us when someone is asserting fallacious claims, and offering only a convoluted salad of ill-chosen words and half-baked concepts in their vain attempts to support those claims.

You will need a lot more than that to convince the rest of us of the alleged validity of your claims.

Oh, the irony of life. We, as a gross generalization, who value truth, ethics, and equity, can't manage the social skills to be politicians. I'm sure there are exceptions (Lincoln comes to mind), but people that are elected to office are there because of their salesperson skills, not their ideas.

I don't think there is any way in the US to get to a truth society as long as there are lobbyists. Who would not be corrupt when you are paid off to vote one way or the other?

Interesting topic. I find myself watching tons of youtube videos that are about "the truth" but they are all about "the lies" rather than the actual truth. It's a lot of focus on the negative, and I'm beginning to distance myself from that mentality as it does nothing for me. For some reason, most "truthers" seem to favor Jesus as The One True God of The Universe! And well...Jesus was just another bloke like you and I. In fact, maybe Jesus was autistic, and felt that if he gave up his life for everyone's sins then the real god would forgive him for his autism. (Sorry if this offends anyone...life is a funny thing to me. If it's not funny then it's terrifying and unbearable!)

Most "Truthers" do not rely on established facts and/or material evidence to back up their claims, but seek only to inspire doubt in truthful claims. Even when all available evidence supports only one logical conclusion, "Truthers" will seek to undermine the validity of those claims through assumptions, guesswork, and spurious "logic" rife with subjunctive clauses and regressive conclusions.

When a thesis against a known truth raises more questions than it answers, when one assumption leads to several more, when each piece of valid evidence and every factual statement is ignored or dismissed as trivial until the truthful argument collapses like an overplayed Jenga, then I know that the "Truthers" have been hard at work.

Now, if they would only apply as much effort into holding down real jobs, they might gain some credibility.

You were unsure if Galilo or the Pope was the one that was wrong.


However, I think that the Pope was sincere in maintaining the belief taught by all his predecessors, even if changing his mind would have shaken his own power. When I was young, the Universities were still saddled with tenured professors who could not believe in continental drift.[/quote]
What do you believe it would take for his beliefs to be insincere?

I don't think the pope was sincere is questioning his beliefs therefore his beliefs are also insincere.