There’s been much discussion about ‘fake news’ recently, leading to renewed arguments on the nature of truth. In fact, most people are totally disinterested in understanding the nature of truth, but instead only wish to prove their own view irrefutable, which is actually impossible. This topic explains why, via examination of the formal definition of the meaningfulness of 'post truth,' within the context of the truth theories of modern philosophy.
Rhetorical assertions have arisen whereby people state what they wish to be true as being true, without having any evidence at the time. Then they strive to find facts to prove that truth afterwards, giving rise to a dual meaning of ‘post-truth’ in the post-truth era. One famous example, illustrated above, is President Trump’s recent assertion that President Obama was ‘wiretapping’ his phone. President Trump held that he was telling the truth because he believed it certain that evidence will be found, regardless that he had no evidence at the time, and he had heard an assertion to this end. When the claim he had heard was proven false, he continued to hold that he knew Obama had wiretapped him, because he was certain other evidence would be found.
While people might well be inclined to ridicule such a belief out of hand, one can actually find a basis for its meaningfulness in formal logic--a fact that has made post-truth conceptions more successful than many expected. This is because one advanced thinker on the semantics of truth is Donald Davidson, who is an absolute anomalous monist (there are only ideas, or mind, or matter, or phenomenological experience, or language, but it cannot be known which). Therefore, he deduces, truth is ultimately undefinable, yet through our ability to reason meaningfully, truth can be known. However, people do not know that they know the truth until after they have stated it. This is a deduction from the observation that such truth can only be determined empirically after the statement is made. For example, Davidson states, people can know that the sun will rise tomorrow; however, people do not know that they knew that until after the sun has risen.
Of course, not everyone agrees with Davidson, but it is nonetheless a formal explanation of how ‘post truth’ has become meaningful. However much one might attempt to dismiss the new post-truth doctrines as obviously absurd, it is not so easy, because of the complexities of formal definitions of what truth actually is.
In the school of formal logic, truth is found by evaluating propositions (the formal representation of equivalent statements) according to a theory of meaning (semantics). Before considering semantics in more detail, a descriptive framework follows that is commensurate with the thinking of Russell, Whitehead, Moore, Wittgenstein, Ramsay, Tarski, Carnap, Ayer, Strawson, Quine, Putnam, Searle, Sartre, Mendelson, Austin, Kripke, Popper, Kuhn, and Davidson. All of these thinkers advance rational doctrines based on various premises, with differing degrees of roots in prior writing by Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Hume, Kant, Frege, Leibniz, Boole, and Husserl. Here is Aristotle's ‘Square of Opposition’ which has remained the basis of almost all formal logic for ~2,400 years.
While these thinkers discuss the relative merits of each doctrine, they do not hold their own premises to be dogmas (principles that are incontrovertibly true). Instead, they work communally to define how much truth can be understood via reason. As such their doctrines are together considered a school.Across the school overall, the following kinds of truth exist, depending on the proposition's type. Not all doctrines include all types.
- Theology strives to define that which cannot ultimately be proven.
- Morality strives to define that which is good or bad for an individual.
- Ethics strives to define that which is good or bad for a society.
- Law strives to define that which is right or wrong.
- Metaphysics strives to define what is real.
According to all modern logicians, truth is the result of evaluating a proposition, but the relation between truth and the proposition itself can be different depending on epistemological considerations. While one might initially believe the nature of truth to be intuitively obvious, the semantics of truth are complex. This starts with the issue as to whether one believes that tautological propositions are true before any person evaluates them; in which case, the truths must exist independently in some abstract space independent of material reality. That introduces the metaphysical considerations.
- Classical realists hold that Platonic ‘ideas’ do exist independent of perception, and truth is discovered by cognitive correlation. Modern realists state only external material reality exists, and abstractions are simply known by common sense (as a result, many modern philosophers refer to classical realism as idealism). Dualists hold that there separate domains of physical materiality and conceptual ideas, both of which exist, and some hold tautologies are a priori true (are still truth regardless whether they are considered). Monists hold the known reality is only physical, or only exists in the mind, or something else. Some monists hold that truth can only be known phenomenologically (for experience). Other monists follow Wittgenstein's idea of logical positivism, which holds that language is the only thing which can be absolutely known. Such different perspectives change what is actually known when a truth is ‘discovered.’ For example, deflationary theorists extrapolate from logical positivism to hold that truth by correlation is all that exists, leading many skeptics to the popular post-modern idea of truth nihilism, although they are often unaware that such ideas rationally derive from logical positivism and instead believe themselves realists.
- Regardless how and whether propositional truth does exist independently of physical reality, a priori or not, empirical and causal truths may be properties attached to the proposition which are not ‘discovered,’ but rather ‘assessed.’ These latter cases introduce the meaningfulness of incorrect assessments, and how exactly something can be meaningful if its truth is beyond simple binary evaluation, such as for example, propositions which refer to non-existent objects or which contain metaphors. Thus the semantics of truth are not so simple, and become involved with metaphysical decisions defining the nature of reality, meaningfulness, and the definition of knowledge itself.
- There are also three separate positions on causality. Some hold that there is no causality without intent, and that it is otherwise simply a logical inference or deduction. The second main position is that intent does not really exist either, but is only an apparent phenomena created by the physical workings of the world. The third main group say one or both of those ideas are reductionist, and so do not give any meaning to the word 'because.' The different positions on intent may also influence truth evaluation of empirical observations on internal states, such as feelings.
From the above summary, it is clear that a great deal of dispute exists on the nature of truth, which is greatly to the advantage of rhetoricians wishing to persuade others that their opinions are "the truth." In reality, most of those asserting that they know 'the truth' are not attempting to state the truth at all. Instead, they are making assertions about truth to persuade others to their point of view. If pressed, they justify this simply by claiming their belief is true in a circular manner, so this does not define any knowledge of truth at all, but rather is a religious belief (whether they themselves acknowledge the existence of religion or not).
With sufficient qualification as to one's preferred metaphysical and semantic foundation, it is possible to make statements that are true within context of that metaphysical belief. There always exist alternate possibilities. Indeed, according to truth nihilism, there is actually no such thing as 'truth' at all. So according to the school of formal logic, assertions of a person that some fact is undeniable truth remain an opinion, in all cases without exception.
When a statement can be found true in more than one metaphysics, and whose interpretation is more unambiguously framed within the presumed premises and resulting rules, then it may be considered to possess greater merit.
Hence, in modern metaphysics,
the merit of a statement
is considered more fruitful to consider
than the truth of a proposition.
Let us consider again the post-truth assertion that something is true when a person has no evidence, but is certain evidence will be found later, According the anomalous monist theories of Davidson, that statement might be proven true, with two caveats, here described with reference to Trump:
- Trump could not know that he knew the truth until after the evidence is discovered.
- The empirical evidence is weak, compared to cases where people are making assumptions of knowledge based on far more extensive theory (such as, in the case of believing the sun will rise tomorrow, the predictive theories of physics, which are very well qualified in terms of the axiom of probabilistic certainty).
- The assertion only becomes a meaningful proposition in one metaphysical doctrine, so the truth is of not of great merit.
However, that is far beyond that which most people who ‘just want to know the truth’ are ready to learn. So as things are, we are likely to be stuck in the post-truth era for a very long time.