Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) by Lee McIntyre (PDF)

Description

How we arrived in a post-truth era, when “alternative facts” replace actual facts, and feelings have more weight than evidence.Are we living in a post-truth world, where “alternative facts” replace actual facts and feelings have more weight than evidence? How did we get here? In this volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series, Lee McIntyre traces the development of the post-truth phenomenon from science denial through the rise of “fake news,” from our psychological blind spots to the public’s retreat into “information silos.”What, exactly, is post-truth? Is it wishful thinking, political spin, mass delusion, bold-faced lying? McIntyre analyzes recent examples—claims about inauguration crowd size, crime statistics, and the popular vote—and finds that post-truth is an assertion of ideological supremacy by which its practitioners try to compel someone to believe something regardless of the evidence. Yet post-truth didn’t begin with the 2016 election; the denial of scientific facts about smoking, evolution, vaccines, and climate change offers a road map for more widespread fact denial. Add to this the wired-in cognitive biases that make us feel that our conclusions are based on good reasoning even when they are not, the decline of traditional media and the rise of social media, and the emergence of fake news as a political tool, and we have the ideal conditions for post-truth. McIntyre also argues provocatively that the right wing borrowed from postmodernism—specifically, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth—in its attacks on science and facts.McIntyre argues that we can fight post-truth, and that the first step in fighting post-truth is to understand it.

User’s Reviews

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. —George Orwell”(how did he know?)“The phenomenon of “post-truth” rocketed to public attention in November 2016, when the Oxford Dictionaries named it 2016’ s word of the year. After seeing a 2,000 percent spike in usage over 2015, the choice seemed obvious.”Wow! First I heard of this.“The Oxford Dictionaries define “post-truth” as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’”Yep, I definitely, absolutely have heard of this!“Post-truth was foreshadowed by what has happened to science over the last several decades. Once respected for the authority of its method, scientific results are now openly questioned by legions of nonexperts who happen to disagree with them. It is important to point out that scientific results are routinely scrutinized by scientists themselves, but that is not what we are talking about here.’’McIntyre makes a lot of good points in this work. However, the foundation of his argument — unfortunately — seems closer to sand than rock. Why? This appeal to ‘authority of science’ and trust in the ‘scientific method’ will only convince ‘true believers’ in science and scientists.Why weak foundation? Well . . . remember it required thousands of years for Aristarchus of Samos (310 – 230 BC) and his proposal of a sun centered solar system to be adopted. Aristotle made more disciples than Aristarchus. Scientific consensus prevented truth.More modern examples . . .No idea was more scientifically certain than Newton’s universe. Changed not only science, but politics, religion, philosophy, culture and started modernity. What then? Faraday, Maxwell and Einstein replaced that with general relativity. Newton was wrong.‘Luminiferous ether’ was the foundation of physics until early twentieth century. Completely discredited. And of course, now quantum electrodynamics, which nobody can explain.Then we have — dark energy and darker matter. Absolutely no clue!Paul Feyerabend’s “Against Method” and Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’’ both provide abundant reasons to doubt ‘scientific authority’.What is so odd, is that Mcintyre understands this very clearly. For example . . .“Some of this is based on a straightforward misunderstanding (or cynical exploitation) of how science works, based on the mistaken idea that if scientists would just gather enough evidence they could prove a theory. But this is not how science works: no matter how good the evidence, a scientific theory can never be proven true. No matter how rigorously it might have been tested, every theory is “just a theory.” Because of the way that scientific evidence is gathered, it is always theoretically possible that some future piece of data might come along and disprove a theory. This does not mean that scientific theories are unjustified or unworthy of belief. But it does mean that at some point scientists must admit that even their strongest explanations cannot be offered as truth, but only strongly warranted belief based on justification given the evidence.’’Right! In fact, in the last page . . .“It is hard to try to depoliticize factual questions, especially when we feel that the “other side” is being ridiculous or stubborn. It is probably helpful to realize that the same tendencies exist within us too. And there is a lesson here, which is that one of the most important ways to fight back against post-truth is to fight it within ourselves. Whether we are liberals or conservatives, we are all prone to the sorts of cognitive biases that can lead to post-truth. One should not assume that post-truth arises only from others, or that its results are somebody else’s problem. It is easy to identify a truth that someone else does not want to see. But how many of us are prepared to do this with our own beliefs? To doubt something that we want to believe, even though a little piece of us whispers that we do not have all the facts?’’Well said! This is a humble, realistic analysis. Nevertheless, he can’t seem to apply this to popular (his) beliefs such as evolution or climate change. There a lot of serious, sincere, educated, intelligent scientists who find considerable evidence against these ideas.(See: “Chill, a reassessment of global warming theory’’ by Scientist Peter Taylor; “The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming’’ by Garth W. Paltridge. Atmospheric Scientist)One problem with entrusting authority is confusing ‘fact’ with ‘conclusion’ . . .“Eventually, when it makes a difference to us, we are capable of resolving our cognitive dissonance by rejecting our ideological beliefs rather than the facts. Indeed, there is good evidence that this can occur not just in the lab but in the real world as well. The city of Coral Gables, Florida, sits at nine feet above sea level. Scientists project that in a few decades it will be under water.’’‘Scientists project’, note a ‘projection’ is a conclusion — not a ‘fact’. It may or may not become a ‘fact’ in the future. Mcintyre processes ‘projections’ as equal to ‘facts’. This is too bad, since his presentation of cognitive bias, motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc., is outstanding. 1 What Is Post-Truth?2 Science Denial as a Road Map for Understanding Post-Truth3 The Roots of Cognitive Bias4 The Decline of Traditional Media5 The Rise of Social Media and the Problem of Fake News6 Did Postmodernism Lead to Post-Truth?7 Fighting Post-TruthMcintyre really did his research . . .“Commenting on the philosophical thought of Friedrich Nietzsche (who wrote one hundred years before postmodernism, as one of its precursors), Alexis Papazoglou describes this sort of radical skepticism about the notion of truth in the following way:(Nietzsche important. . .)“Once we realise that the idea of an absolute, objective truth is a philosophical hoax, the only alternative is a position called “perspectivism”—the idea there is no one objective way the world is, only perspectives on what the world is like. Think of this as the first thesis of postmodernism: there is no such thing as objective truth. If this is right, though, then how should we react when someone tells us that something is true? Here we arrive at the second thesis of postmodernism: that any profession of truth is nothing more than a reflection of the political ideology of the person who is making it.’’(Mcintyre seems to battle back and forth — truth or no truth?)“Michel Foucault’s idea was that our societal life is defined by language, but language itself is shot through with the relations of power and dominance. This means that at base all knowledge claims are really just an assertion of authority; they are a bullying tactic used by the powerful to force those who are weaker to accept their ideological views. Since there is no such thing as “truth,” anyone who claims to “know” something is really just trying to oppress us, not educate us.’’Yep, modernity has a real problem. This sort of reminds me of the epistemological disputes in the Middle Ages over the connection of ‘faith’ and ‘reason’, and the dispute about ‘universals’ and ‘nominalism’. They grasped the problem.Ten page bibliography (linked)Dozens of notes end of each chapter (linked)Great!

⭐This book is timely, concise, and illuminating. LM threads together a clear story about how we got to this era of political polarization and misinformation. Despite being a short book it covers each piece of the puzzle with enough detail to be convincing.He retraces the history of the news from a trustworthy, niche, no-profit endeavor with high journalistic standards into the present day 24/7 infotainment industry, with flavors offered to nearly any political preference and even corporate propaganda. Social media and cognitive biases are covered as an explanation for how susceptible we all are to fake news and how the internet has merely exposed an old problem of science denial and misinformation in a new light.Reviewers who are criticizing LM for his “blatant liberal bias” seem to have missed the many points made that this is a fundamental issue on both sides, even though most current examples given fall on the right — science that conflicts with political values on the left can fall to the same denialism. In fact, the book ends by placing a large part of the blame of populist post-truth on liberal postmodern academia, as the other side of the coin and the unwitting enabler of denying objective reality for political agendas.”Whether we are liberals or conservatives, we are all prone to the sorts of cognitive biases that can lead to post-truth. One should not assume that post-truth arises only from others, or that its results are somebody else’s problem.” p.162If I had one criticism it’s that, although the book ends with a chapter on fighting post-truth, I didn’t feel very hopeful about how society might actually course-correct. The tools for critical thinking are available to everyone, we just need to learn to use them.Highly recommended for anyone trying to better understand this crazy political environment we live in today.

⭐This book is interesting read simply because it sheds light on what is happening in the sphere of political and cultural chaos that has engulfed our societies.

⭐Appreciated the reliance on established theories; conversational and easy to understand.

⭐A must read for our times, it is a wonderful short book with loads of references for those interested to follow up on the topic.

⭐I found this a very useful book. It illustrated the history of the post-truth era and some of the psychology underlying it. Finally, it also addresses the connection to postmodernism. The first half of the book is a real breath of fresh air for someone who believes in “truth” and facts. The book gives a good introduction into how the phrase “there are studies for both sides” came to be common place. If you’re a scientist or researcher or a very evidence-based person the chapter on how the tobacco and oil industries funded research to spread doubt will be very eye-opening. Though, obviously this is a short introduction and the book “Merchants of Doubt” for example goes deeper. The book clearly locates post-truth in the last decade and is quite precise about the Trump-presidency. Here, Bannon’s concept of “flooding the zone with ****” isn’t discussed as deeply as I, personally, would find useful. This is one shortcoming of this book. It tries hard to differentiate propaganda and fake news but doesn’t really get to a point which was made by a guest whose name I unfortunately forgot on Sam Harris podcast who stated that the new strategy is not to tell a single narrative but to have so many misleading and contradicting “facts” spread that people start believing that the truth is unknowable. Further,the chapter on postmodernism focused hard on how postmodernism is misused by the right. This is a little too partisan in my taste for a book on post-truth when the left is clearly also getting more extreme with a clear postmodern post-truth attitude. The final chapter on how to combat post-truth is short. I think for deeper coverage Adam Grant’s “Think Again” is a helpful resource. Here, in this book, the main aim was determine what post-truth is and where it came from. The text is very good at that. One final point is that the book focuses on topics such as elections, climate change, etc. In my current perception, however, it would have been interesting to look at the connection with day-to-day personal disagreements and their issues with factuality.

⭐All in all, Post-Truth is a well-organized description of the alternate reality that exists in our country today. It includes a concise explanation of the history and sources of post-truth as well as the psychological terminology and phenomena underpinning it. The style is to a certain degree that of an academic journal article – indeed the publisher is The MIT Press. Thankfully, McIntyre manages to infuse a passion for the urgency of truth into the work. There are two aspects of the book which might give some people pause. First is chapter 6, which deals with post-truth in relation to the academic and philosophical concept of postmodernism. For those who are not philosophically inclined, this chapter might muddy the waters or dull the appeal. The second aspect concerns the fact that there are practically no alternative facts or post-truth examples from the left side of the political spectrum. Right wing reviewers might be critical of this aspect of the book, but it would be unfounded. For better or worse, it is the political right that is most at fault regarding post-truth. If anyone from the right has any good examples, they should send them to McIntyre, so he can include them in a future edition. The chapter that I was hoping most to learn from was chapter 7, Fighting Post-Truth. McIntyre mentions several approaches in the book: using truth repetition, the vetting of news by media outlets, checking veracity ourselves, and teaching school children how to fact check. All good! What was lacking for me though was what the government could do, if anything, with regard to regulating social media and fake news broadcasts. What legislative or regulatory pressures can be brought to bear on media businesses by the government to insure truthfulness? Food, drug, and electrical product businesses must place truthful and accurate labels on their products regarding contents and warnings, so why not news outlets? Indeed, FaceBook and Twitter are, to some degree, engaged in doing this now. I would like to see a government information agency much like the Food and Drug Administration for the certification of news trustworthiness. Is such a thing viable?

Keywords

Free Download Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) in PDF format
Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) PDF Free Download
Download Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) 2018 PDF Free
Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) 2018 PDF Free Download
Download Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series) PDF
Free Download Ebook Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series)