Knowledge in a post truth age

Nowadays, we have so much knowledge at our disposal. Knowledge has, in some sense, become very democratic. We can access online newspapers, websites and videos. We can even look up things we heard about and expect to find new information in a few seconds. Some people might find it overwhelming to have so much knowledge at their disposal. After all, we can come across contradictory perspectives and/or evidence in our search for new knowledge.

How do we know what is true? How can we decide what we should or should not accept as knowledge? How can we distinguish between fact and non-fact? A few generations ago, things were quite different. You knew what you learned at school, read in a book or were told by someone with authority. However, throughout post-modern times (1980's-1990's), we started to question these absolute truths. We understood that single stories could be dangerous and we started to approach concepts such as "truth" with scepticism and even relativism.

Post-modern ideas proposed that we should include a wider range of perspectives, including those of the non-elite and less powerful groups. This idea was very attractive at the time because it led to tolerance and and a greater inclusion of a wealth of ideas. Moving on a few years, came the age of information technology. In addition to our changed post-modern mindset, we also had the Internet at our disposal. With the advent of the Internet came the access to information on a scale that was unheard of before. Knowledge has become more democratic in two ways: virtually anyone can access it and virtually anyone can disseminate it. On the one hand, this is great. Knowledge has become much less a thing of the elite or the entitled. It is much easier to find knowledge, and in this sense, it feels like we "know more". However, with all this information at our disposal, how do we distinguish between "good" and "bad" knowledge, "fact" and "fabrication", or "reliable" and "unreliable" sources?

This is not easy. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, many people have given up on this quest. Instead, they do not only think that it is impossible to say something with certainty (they refute the notion of facts); they also feel that facts have become somewhat irrelevant. In politics, this phenomenon is called the post-truth: "Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief." (Oxford Dictionary). Although it is very important to be wary of people who claim to have found "the truth" (this can lead to dogma), we should equally be wary of people who claim that the truth does not matter. When we pretend that facts don't exist, or present obvious knowledge as "fake" news, we create room for our own agenda, propaganda and emotionally appealing but sometimes morally incorrect politics. Some politicians take advantage of this situation. ‘In this era of post-truth politics, it's easy to cherry-pick data and come to whatever conclusion you desire’ Oxford Dictionary).

The possession of knowledge can be political. It carries with it moral responsibility as well as power. Indeed, what people accept or reject as knowledge is of great importance to those who are in power. It may come as no surprise that politicians can be very skilful at shaping what will be accepted as knowledge. We can use language to shape thought and "plant" ideas into someone's mind. We can use rhetorical devises and even logical fallacies to present an argument as more valid than it actually is. We can use emotional language to instil fear amongst our potential voters. We can offer false dilemmas and pretend that there is no middle ground (eg Bush's words regarding the "fight against terrorism": "Either you are with us, or you are against us"). We can use propaganda to propagate our ideas. Although propaganda could be used with the best intentions, it is usually simplistic in nature.

Through propaganda, we can withhold knowledge from the public and highlight knowledge that suits our political or moral agenda. Obviously, politicians are not necessarily devious and not all propaganda is sinister. When you are very much convinced that your political ideas are correct, you may feel that convincing others is the morally correct thing to do. In this context, however, it is interesting to wonder on what basis politicians can make decisions for larger groups.

At some points in history, during political uprisings for example, groups of people who overtook (dominant) political powers, have aimed to re-write history and eradicate previous knowledge. Instances where libraries were destroyed, textbook were burned or historical artefacts annihilated illustrate this. Knowledge can indeed represent power. The destruction of knowledge linked to previous powers, such as the intellectual elite (eg Khmer Rouge), and even ostracised minorities (eg burning of Jewish books by Nazis) was a way to overturn, oppress or silence discourse. Such examples illustrate, once again, the close connection between knowledge, power and politics.

It is interesting to analyse where our political views come from and how public opinion is shaped. In this sense, it is important to be aware of your own political perspective and where this perspective might come from. Which discourse have you engaged with throughout your life? Which (charismatic) leaders, narratives or cultural artefacts have shaped your views? Imagine that all the statues in your home town had been removed, your library entirely revamped and your online search controlled by a particular political movement. Might you have different political affinities? Why do you willingly engage with some ideas and reject others? What are the underlying assumptions embedded in the political ideologies that you have accepted so far? How does your historical and geographical context shape your political views? All this brings us back to the core theme of knowledge and the knower.

Politics deals with power and big issues in life, such as values, morality and fairness. We often feel passionate about these things, which means we can be deeply divided about these matters. In that sense, we could wonder how it is possible to rightly impose political and moral rules on other members of a society? This is where the concept of "public reason" might come in. "Public reason requires that the moral or political rules that regulate our common life be, in some sense, justifiable or acceptable to all those persons over whom the rules purport to have authority" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Public reason can be used to assess the political rules within a society and also to offer us standards for our own behaviour. Although this sounds good in theory, in practice, politics does not always operate this way.

We like to think that reason is at the basis of politics and policy making. After all, reason seems to play an important role in driving moral progress, the improvement of our society's health and education systems, a fairer distribution of wealth and the development justice system that works for the many rather than the few. We also like to think that our political decisions are rational. However, it appears that this is not always the case. For example, (as argued by Jonathan Haidt), large amounts of working class people keep voting for political parties that clearly act against their interests. So why would we make such irrational decisions when it comes to politics?

Perhaps, in politics (in practice), reason is used to propagate our deeply held beliefs and affinities, rather than being a genuine method to come to rational conclusions. For example, in a debate, you can use reason to convince others of your views and win them over. This does not mean that you have used reason to come closer to the truth regarding your debating motion. In addition, through fallacious reasoning (see below) we can use "emotion in disguise" to appeal to others' existing intuitions and deeply held beliefs. We may present our arguments as if they are based on reason, whereas in fact, they are not.

Do politics make us irrational? https://youtu.be/8yOoOL9PC-o

Politicians are often very good at the art of persuasion. Some politicians may tap into your emotions (often fear) to create room for their arguments or agenda. At the same time, they like to present their arguments as reasonable. After all, when something is presented as reasonable, we are more likely to accept it as true. Sometimes, however, politicians resort to what we call "fallacious reasoning" or "logical fallacies".

These logical fallacies are incorrect arguments that may look like they were built on the foundations of logic or reasoning, whereas in fact, they are not. Although the clever use of fallacious reasoning may help sway an audience and even "win" a debate, it will most certainly not help you get closer to the truth. It is useful to know about these logical fallacies, because it helps you to distinguish between genuine knowledge and erroneous knowledge claims. This is important in politics, but it may be helpful your personal life as well.

25 logical fallacies in politics https://youtu.be/KRywWsnxXfo