What is truth?

In the digital disinformation age, how do we define reality?

MisinformationKills

May 23, 2023

Truth, at its simplest, is reality, but what is reality? Reality is more challenging to define. Despite being independent of perception, nothing a single human observes is ever a perfect representation of the state of things as they actually exist. What follows is a primer for those interested in the different kinds of truth, the indefinable nature of reality, and why the truth matters now more than ever.

Let’s begin with the simplest form of truth, subjective truth. Subjective truth is, at its core, strictly a person’s perspective, feelings, and opinions obtained by using their senses, past experiences, and preferences. No two people will ever know with 100% certainty what another person experiences as their subjective truth. Well, at least for now, because of biological and technological limitations. Cool your jets, Elon.

Objective truth is often thought of as the opposite of subjective truth. Objective truth is what exists as it does, independent from individual subjectivity. Objective truth should be something that multiple people should be able to agree upon regardless of their particular biases. Objective truth is something that empirical evidence, logical deduction, or scientific method can prove. To some, objective truth is synonymous with reality.

Then there is intersubjective truth, an agreement between individuals to accept something as a self-evident “fact” using subjectivity, objectivity, or both. Intersubjective truths are not objective as they are not universally true outside of the group that agrees to this axiom. Social and cultural factors shape intersubjective truth as much as these truths influence the perceptions of those who believe them. Intersubjective truth allows complex societies to turn abstract thoughts and dreams into concrete entities based on shared fiction turned real.

Human rights are an example of intersubjective truth. Religious and political beliefs are also forms of intersubjective truth. The less grounded intersubjective beliefs are to objective truth, the more likely reality becomes less accurate for those who accept these axioms. Religious fundamentalists and cult members illustrate this kind of truth’s power over those who willingly believe. A sad reality about humanity is that it only takes a few unethical individuals to fabricate a myth that turns into others’ intersubjective truth. Today these myth makers can directly inject fictional self-evident facts into the marketplace of ideas provided by the internet and social media. With little or no regulation to protect consumers from lies, intersubjective truths presented as self-evident facts directly compete with objective truth as equally legitimate.

Undereducated and politically motivated consumers present a ripe opportunity for those peddling fiction as objective truth. Under the guise of free speech and impartiality, intersubjective truth is purposefully weaponized to assault objective evidence that challenges the fictional nature of the desired narrative. The result is a marketplace of ideas flooded by self-evident facts wildly disconnected from objective evidence and scientific reality.

The danger here is the rejection of objective facts for intersubjective convictions. When two groups develop diverging ontological understandings of reality, intergroup communication to resolve conflict and disagreement is nearly impossible. Without communication, trust erodes. Ample historical examples demonstrate the kind of atrocities this can enable.

Alarmingly, the marketplace of ideas has failed to manifest its ideal of truth through competition and now devalues expertise and objectivity for engagement and entertainment. This result is unsurprising in a market where knowledge is treated as a commodity to advance individual interests to meet market demands. Those who value objective truth and the scientific method consider this a market failure, yet those who benefit economically only shrug - regardless of the cost to society. In so doing, they accept no responsibility for what is effectively false advertisement and place the onus of picking which ideas people believe are true on consumers. Which can also mean voters.

Adding insult to injury, they dismiss the harm enabled and claim higher moral ground by supporting free speech while ignoring algorithms’ influence on what content is promoted. Discarding that humans are imperfect observers and susceptible to their biases, particularly when driven by emotions. Those who lack the skill to decern fact from fiction are easily preyed upon by unscrupulous salespeople - some of whom have been elected to office or hold prestigious titles. No one should be surprised that madness ensues when individuals place their needs above their responsibility to others or their sworn oaths to protect. In a highly complex and interconnected world, it is self-evident that expecting consumers to be omnicompetent is insane. This insanity threatens the world’s ability to discern reality and puts humanity and democracy at risk of irrationally splitting itself into pieces.

While no single person can claim they know everything and therefore are the master of reality, a collection of experts who, in unison, form a consensus can get us closer to the truth. Regardless of what the market demands, expert consensus is invaluable when the truth matters - especially when lives depend on it. It is unwise to believe entrepreneurial salespeople who make money selling lies as they disparage the value of expertise. Unfortunately, determining who is an expert is difficult for the layperson because the marketplace of ideas equates attempts to protect consumers from falsehoods or alternative facts with censorship. This permits the presentation of fringe ideas or, more honestly, flat-out lies as equivalent to expert consensus and creates an ideal environment for contrarianism to flourish.

This is the same tactic utilized by big tobacco, proponents of intelligent design, and environmental issues such as pollution and climate change. Unsurprisingly, funders for these kind of disinformation campaigns consistently have ties to libertarian and conservative individuals and groups. Conservativism’s main aim is to maintain the status quo of power. Its most powerful tool is the combination of traditional values (intersubjective truths) with the laisser-faireness of libertarianism. This combination is instrumentalized to halt any kind of change that threatens the status quo even if it means the rejection of objective truth and creates an alternative reality that harms those who lack the expertise to sort fact from fiction.