On the Nature of Truth; A Rebuttal to Post-truth

Post-truth has become a household word since the start of 2016. Post-truth is the concept that facts are becoming less useful towards swaying popular opinion. Post-truth is based off the ideation that the truth is laced in the metaphysical, which means that facts are independent of the human mind. Post-truth states two methods in which we derive truth: one is an objective truth, or a statement based on scientific and statistical analysis; the other is or a subjective truth, or a statement based on a feeling or value. Objective truth and subjective truth are interpretations of the “truth”: where objective truths use objective methods, such as research and statistics, and subjective truths use subjective methods, such as emotions or values. Further interpretations of post-truth interpret post-truth being a struggle between the objective truth and the subjective truth, and that objective truths are the correct interpretation of the truth. However, the current interpretation of post-truth becomes problematic. The case studies presented show that something that could be considered a subjective truth is grounded in reality, even though it is objectively wrong. There are instances where statistical analysis fails in its goals to represent reality in both war and science. There are also instances where capitalizing on the strongest emotional aspect of an issue creates a better understanding of that issue. The objective and subjective truths may not conflict with each other, in fact they may inform each other. The thesis concludes that a different interpretation of truth should be used to understand post-truth.