The problem of truth

 I'll admit that I am a social media junky. That is not saying that I do anything reckless on social media, I am saying that I enjoy the exchanges that can occur. I am a 46 year old man who has worked almost exclusively from home for the past 14 years, and so exchanges with other adults (even if virtually) is a mental and emotional need that finds some relief in online spheres. My only other real source of adult conversation is my wife and my barely adult daughters.

There are many problems with social media. From trolls to hackers, and from political incivility to religious (and anti-religious) bigotry, all of these problems will greet you in the online spheres. While all of these problems are frustrating and painful, these may be but symptoms of greater problems. The root problems I see are 1.) that we no longer have a shared belief of objective truth 2.) sources of religious or moral development have been marginalized by nonbelievers and exploited for power consolidation by some purported believers 3.) most Americans live in isolation (even if they are in the center of civilizations) and we no longer look at our neighbors as friend but rather as strangers (I am fully guilty of this). The problem that has been on my mind this week has been the problem of truth.

Twitter was originally, my least favorite form of social media. The idea of dumbing down public discourse to 140 characters or less seemed insulting to the idea of thoughtful conversation. I started my experience in social media through the blogosphere of the early 2000s (this blog having started back then). The blogosphere was full of often thoughtful analysis of public issues, civic problems, and social debates. Even though the comment pages could be harsh, the comment were almost always well thought out (because if the logic was not thought out, you would be humiliated LOL)

However, Facebook killed the blogosphere with Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and blog comments dried up soon after followed by regular blog postings. As Facebook became insufferable with advertising, Twitter became a diverse sphere where opposing voices could argue. The commentary stayed comparably sane if often uncivil until Musk decided to buy Twitter a few years ago.

I still visit X on a semi daily basis, but the thing that is most glaringly apparent is that there is a massive gulf in defined objective truth that is making American political polarization almost impossible to correct. The average visitor that defines themself as conservative on X or Twitter appears to believe that the United States is run by a cabal who is out to destroy people in their tribe, they believe in massive conspiracies, and that Donald Trump has always been an honest and successful businessman whose only crime has been to expose the cabal (often the cabal seems to me to simply be anyone who disagrees or criticizes Trump). They seem to sincerely believe that there is definitive and irrefutable evidence for this worldview. I'll be frank in that I may be narrating this view incorrectly because it seems to be in such opposition to my objective truth.

My understanding of the truth about the world in this regard is so diametrically opposed to the apparent "conservative" view that I don't even try to converse with them about it. It is depressing and frightening. 

Depressing because defining the truth in current events should not be difficult. These are happening right now, or they happening the recent past - something we all experienced together. I watched January 6th unfold live in anger and (I still feel) righteous indignation. The idea that this was an offense against the constitution that I believe in seems completely obvious to me. The election was run just like every election before it, the vote count was more skewed in one direction than it was when Romney lost to Obama, and all of the alleged evidence has always failed Occam's razor (the simplest explanation is usually the true explanation) and the whole conduct of Donald Trump and the GOP officials that supported his actions were in direct opposition to almost all post presidential conduct for 200+ years.

Frightening because such large segments of society cannot agree on current (what should be objective) fact or truth. Voltaire allegedly said "If you can make people believe the absurd, you can make them commit atrocities". Given the wide chasm between the object truth about our current state of affairs in US government, one clear truth is that one side must currently believe absurdities. If this is true, how far away are we from seeing atrocities committed? The German's accepted the absurdities of Nazism and committed the atrocities of the Holocaust, the absurdities of communism led to countless atrocities. Currently, Putin has used this to great affect. He and his machine has done all they could to make the Russian people (and shockingly to me many "conservative" Americans) believe absurdities about their Ukrainian neighbors, and they are committing atrocities right now. Some member of Congress and the Senate are committing similar the atrocities of withholding aid to Ukraine right now.

What can be done?

I hate to say it, but the time may have come for tighter control on ethical journalism. I don't say that I think this network or that is full of liars, I mean there may need to be some form of truth auditing for legitimate journalistic organizations (this is seriously just spit balling). Annual reviews of stories written along with retractions and apologies to determine whether a journalistic organization can be relied upon. Maybe something like the CPA audit opinion of a corporations financial statements. This may help increase public confidence in the journalistic organizations that have and do try and maintain integrity. The narrative that the "mainstream media is corrupt" has decimated the sources of agreed upon ethical truth in America. Liberal Americans only believe news reported on CNN, MSNBC, WaPo and the New York Times and maybe their local news, and conservative Americans what they agree with on Fox News, and the stuff reported on the news outlets like OAN and Newmax and sometimes their local news. Since conservative Americans are the least likely to trust traditional media, they are far more prone to believe heavily biased blog-type articles that often fail to adequately research and vet the stories they tell. This seeking truth from obscure sources has had a devastating effect.

The other thing we need is a new emphasis in education and in public on epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge, justification, and rationality. This will help give American's the function machine that will help them decide in an effective manner whether information should be believed or disbelieved. The remainder is admittedly from Chat GPT, but I think it highlights how to develop a good epistemology.

Good epistemology involves articulating a framework for how knowledge is acquired, justified, and evaluated. Here's a simplified explanation:

Reliability and Rationality: A good epistemology should prioritize methods that are reliable and rational. This means relying on processes that consistently lead to accurate beliefs and conclusions.

Empirical Evidence: An effective epistemology places a strong emphasis on empirical evidence. This involves using observation, experimentation, and sensory experience to gather data about the world. Empirical evidence helps to ensure that beliefs are grounded in reality rather than speculation.

Logical Reasoning: Logical reasoning is another essential component of a good epistemology. This involves using principles of logic and deduction to analyze evidence, draw conclusions, and identify inconsistencies in arguments. Logical coherence helps to ensure that beliefs are internally consistent and free from contradictions.

Open-mindedness and Critical Thinking: A good epistemology encourages open-mindedness and critical thinking. This means being willing to consider alternative viewpoints, subjecting beliefs to rigorous scrutiny, and revising beliefs in light of new evidence or arguments.

Skepticism: Healthy skepticism is integral to a good epistemology. It involves maintaining a cautious attitude towards accepting claims or beliefs without sufficient evidence. Skepticism helps to guard against credulity and encourages careful evaluation of sources and claims.

Peer Review and Verification: A good epistemology values peer review and verification. This involves subjecting claims and research findings to scrutiny by other experts in the field. Peer review helps to identify errors, biases, and weaknesses in arguments or evidence, leading to more reliable knowledge.

Consistency with Well-Established Knowledge: A good epistemology ensures that beliefs are consistent with well-established knowledge and principles. This involves building upon existing understanding and avoiding beliefs that contradict firmly established facts or theories without compelling evidence to support them.

Overall, a good epistemology is characterized by a commitment to rationality, empirical evidence, critical thinking, skepticism, and the continual refinement of knowledge through rigorous inquiry and evaluation.