It is more than commonplace these days to lament that truth has become a casualty of our digital era.  It is also baloney.  There are clear tests for truth that have served humankind for centuries, and there is no reason to abandon them now.  We just need to bring them back into focus.

Among philosophers there are three broad schools of truth, each foregrounding a different attribute, as follows:

The Correspondence theory of truth, which says that if a statement can be verified by a large number of observations undertaken by a diverse population of observers, then it is true.  Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level.The Coherence theory of truth, which says that if a statement is consistent with one’s time-tested system of beliefs, then it is true.  Pigs cannot fly.The Pragmatic theory of truth, which says that if a statement enables successful action in the world, then it is true.  Wikipedia is a trustworthy source of information.

Unfortunately, any one of these theories of truth can be co-opted by the forces of disinformation.  Thus, by selecting a small number of observations that have been pre-selected to back up your claim, you can assert correspondence truth because these facts do indeed correspond to the claim.  Similarly, by creating a conspiracy theory and recruiting people who are predisposed to want to believe it, you can assert coherence truth because your claims are indeed consistent with the theory.  And finally, if you are able to use whatever claims you make to get elected to public office, then you can assert pragmatic truth because you were indeed successful in winning the election.

It is much harder, on the other hand, to subvert an integrated understanding of truth that combines all three schools into one battery of tests:

As represented by this Venn diagram, the area where all three circles overlap represents our best testing ground for truth.  That is, to be reliably true, a claim must be correspondent, coherent, and pragmatic—and not, which two do you want?

Let us apply this test to the claim that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump.  For people who believe in the relevant conspiracy theories, this claim is completely coherent.  However, it is neither correspondent nor pragmatic.  That is, there has been little if any credible evidence produced in support of the claim, and over fifty state and federal judges have dismissed lawsuits filed in support of it.  We can say with confidence therefore that the claim is untrue.

A similar approach can be taken to claims that the Covid vaccine is too dangerous to be used.  Again, this is based on a coherence theory of truth anchored in political or metaphysical narratives that are deeply compelling to its proponents.  They believe this to be true, and they are acting accordingly.  However, from a correspondence theory perspective, after two and a half years, there is overwhelming evidence that the vaccine is safe to administer.  And from a pragmatic perspective, there is tragic mortality data testifying to the fates of those who were not vaccinated.  Again, we can say with confidence that the claim that the vaccine is too dangerous to use is untrue.

Truth, however, can be decidedly unpopular, so there will always be strong social pressures to acquiesce to alternative claims, which, while untrue, are more palatable.  Such pressures play into the hands of the autocratic and the righteous across the entirety of the political spectrum.  This is not a new challenge.  Demagogues and dictators have played this game throughout history.  And history teaches us that allowing such people to exploit their narratives without contradiction undermines the rule of law and the foundations of liberal democracy.  Today, as Americans, we are privileged to live under rule of law, but much as we would like it to be, that does not make it an entitlement.  Rather it is a freedom we must commit to preserving.  As citizens, therefore, regardless of party or persuasion, we must make ourselves competent in the tests for truth and ensure that our children are well trained in them as well.  That’s what I think.  What do you think?