What do you think?
Rate this book
The MIT Press Essential Knowledge
Post-Truth
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.
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.
240 pages, Paperback
First published February 16, 2018
306 people are currently reading
3440 people want to read
About the author
Lee McIntyre
16 books203 followersI am a philosopher and my goal is to write books that engage our minds and connect with issues that we all care about. In my non-fiction, I am particularly interested in defending science against all forms of science denial and post-truth. In my fiction, I seek to raise moral questions that push us to the limit of what we would do to protect the people we love. It gets me excited when I reach an audience who may never have thought they would like philosophy, but it speaks to them. These days I still do some philosophical scholarship--and I teach ethics--but most days I can be found at my desk writing, with two big German Shepherds snoring at my feet.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 263 reviews
November 21, 2020
[Review published in Organon F 2019, 26(2): 311–316]
Lee McIntyre’s book Post-Truth (2018), part of the MIT Press’ Essential Knowledge series, attempts the unenviable task of pinning down a vague, but very popular concept in our discourse. He settles on the understanding that post-truth denotes the notion of feelings being more accurate than facts, of believing something because it feels right. This also implies the potential for ideological domination by politically subverting the possibility of gathering facts about the real world. Interestingly, the implications of this latter half of his definition do not receive as much attention. Instead McIntyre focuses on the personal responsibility of epistemic agents to discover truth and the confluence of developments that made it so much harder for them.
The book’s primary audience are lay people curious about the ongoing discursive practice of labeling lies and disinformation as post-truth. The book correctly reminds us that politically motivated denial of facts is not a creature of the current American electoral cycle. It offers a sweeping overview of why the phenomenon occurs – and why it appears to be everywhere today. McIntyre makes some very good points about the history and toxicity of science denialism, the nature of our motivated thinking, the development of the prestige press, the idea of objectivity in media, the fragmentary effects of social media information silos, and so on – though these are hardly novel, it is commendable to have them explained briefly and accessibly.
The book is ultimately unconvincing, however, not just because it appears to suffer with symptoms of what it diagnoses – post-truth errors of both fact and interpretation (more on that later) – but because for a work that seeks to tackle an epistemological issue – even if in a popular vein – it does not really engage with the relevant literature on social epistemology. The book neglects the very essential epistemological questions any treatment of truth (post- or otherwise) needs tackling: what truth is and how do we come to believe it in the first place. Neither do we get a convincing account of why post-truth is a distinct phenomenon (for a recent skeptical take, see Habgood-Coote 2018), and not a moral panic, a conceptual muddle of lies, propaganda, and bullshit (in the Frankurtian sense), or merely a discursive shortcut for numerous disquieting social, political, and technological developments. Instead we get the by-now somewhat tired chapters on science denialism, cognitive biases, the decline of traditional media, the rise of social media and – with a surprising twist – the blameworthiness of post-modernism.
The errors of fact can be illustrated by the following examples. The chapter on cognitive biases discusses the backfire effect, the notion that corrective information can not only fail to register but make the recipient of the correction double down on the falsehood and believe it even more strongly. This effect, however, has famously failed to replicate (Wood & Porter 2016) – with the study’s original authors co-authoring a further replicating study with a similar lack of results (Nyhan et al. 2017). This problem was known for almost a year before this book went to print yet is not acknowledged anywhere. It was almost as if this fact failed to register.
Another curious error can be found in the final chapter on combating post-truth and the need to strongly challenge lies and deceptions in a timely manner. Here the lesson starts with a parable that John Kerry failed to react strongly to lies during the 2004 presidential campaign and consequently “lost the election by a few thousand votes in Ohio” (p. 155). A cursory search for the results quickly reveals those ‘few thousand’ votes to be 118 thousand, or a margin of slightly more than 2%. (George W. Bush also won the popular vote by about 3 million, but let’s not get inconvenient facts in the way of a good narrative.)
The errors of interpretation require a bit more space. Here his chapter about post-modernism is emblematic of the books’ weaknesses. McIntyre’s basic argument is that post-truth as a modern phenomenon was enabled by the developments in post-modern philosophy, which problematized the notion of objective truth as unideological and apolitical, wholly disconnected from the world of human power, interpretation, and values.
The chapter makes valid points about incongruous pronouncements from certain science and technology studies scholars. McIntyre shows many to have gone beyond circumspect critiques of the ways scientific findings or concepts come to be treated as facts into outright denial of facts: it is all ideology anyway. McIntyre makes a great deal out of the famous, heart-felt mea culpas from Bruno Latour (2004), one of the most famous scholars who talked about social construction of scientific facts, but who now wishes to restore the idea of scientific fact as something objectively true.
But McIntyre’s argument is far from smooth. His primary argument follows the one in a paper by philosopher of science Robert Pennock (2010) about Phillip Johnson, the god-father of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. Johnson consciously cited critical theory and relativism he had read about in law school as his operating principles for advancing his preferred creationist version of biological explanations. From here McIntyre makes a jump to other instances of science denial, such as climate science denialism, or anti-vaccination movements, for which the ID movement served as a blueprint. But the said blueprint consisted of examples of funding ‘counter-research’ and pushing their own ‘experts’ to create the illusion of controversy and debate, not from a relativistic deconstruction of scientific practices, a point McIntyre elides.
McIntyre further credits the Sokal hoax for bringing post-modern posturing into the mainstream but is unwilling to extend the blame for the fallout of this wider awareness, even though this is crucial for his argument elsewhere. Earlier he laments that these post-modern notions ‘leaked’ into wider consciousness and have been used unscrupulously beyond obscure academic journals. I am not saying we should be blaming Sokal too, for popularizing post-modern intellectual posturing, only that for McIntyre to be consistent in his belief that people are blameworthy for how their ideas are used (never mind what were their intentions), he must also lay blame at the feet of those who propagate such ideas, whatever their intentions.
But most of all, his treatment of ‘post-modernism’ as one of the sources of our current post-truth predicament seems more ideological than anything else. It is far too easy to blame an ill-defined, elusive concept such as post-modernism for post-truth. McIntyre echoes long-standing conservative obsessions with post-modernism (or “cultural Marxism” or “critical theory” in other, similar iterations) as a scourge of truth and beauty instead of what it really is: a set of divergent, theoretical propositions about knowledge in our society. Here he joins the narrative of the likes of Dennett, Pinker, Dawkins et al. who are at the forefront of the discursive efforts to straw-men all post-modern criticism of how science is done into a belief system committed to radical skepticism at best, or a relativizing incoherence, at worst.
No privileged elder statesmen of science and objective truth probably like vexing inquiries about their potential biases or about why their intellectual pronouncements go beyond their immediate expertise. Though to point out this vested interest would probably already reveal one as a post-modernist, too. Any recognition of the plurality of discourses and perspectives about the world would do that, yet this post-modern reflection on the lack of a monopolized control over meta-narratives does not commit one to a full-blown relativist standpoint.
Indeed, not all post-modernist constructivism in science is the enemy of the quest for truth – on the contrary, one cannot get to truth without realizing the extent of subjectivity when we ask research questions, build concepts, choose the tools, & model the world and how this – often unconscious – dealing with the world around us can color our perceptions of the world.
According to McIntyre’s veritably post-factual treatment of Derrida and Foucault, they are radical sceptics, nihilists claiming it is all only about the text and/or power. However, they did not really deny the possibility of objective reality (cf. Prado 2006). Contrary to McIntyre’s (especially) unfair portrayal of him, Foucault would probably not agree that professions of truth are “nothing more than a reflection of the political ideology of the person” making them (p. 126). Knowledge claims are not “just” assertions of authority, a “bullying tactic” used by the powerful (p. 126) – but it is important to realize that they can be. In search for truth we must be aware of this possibility and add this warning into our calculus of trust over particular claimants and their claims to authority. This is a profound insight that we credit Foucault and other scholars with. Without it our understanding of objective reality would be much poorer. We cannot be blind to the truth that knowledge claims are potentially also ideological. This is not necessarily a rejection of objective reality, this is a reminder of the warranted distrust towards those who have historically claimed to own the truth.
Claims to truth must be interrogated with an eye to the context in which they were made to spot any potential biases or alternative explanations. This is no truth-denying relativism but sound epistemic practice, one which is still far from being the norm. Espousing such commitment to skepticism over knowledge claims does not commit one to denialism. Only very uncircumspect or naïve people would make that conceptual jump, but McIntyre seems only too willing to push his readers to precisely such somersaults about post-modernism.
In the final analysis, McIntyre also offers advice on how to fight post-truth, but it is equally un-inspiring. He admonishes us to take responsibility over our personal epistemic practices: be skeptical, buy a quality newspaper now and then, fight the instinct for partisanship and confirmation bias – we can do it, it is our decision how we react to the world. There is no accounting of structural issues, institutions and their epistemic effects (cf. Rini 2017), or simply of how ridiculous it is to epistemically pull yourself by your bootstraps out of bullshit in the information environment he described in the previous chapters.
Thus, the biggest missed opportunity of the book is that, in our current environment ripe for educating the lay public about how we come to know and trust things as factual, it does not take social epistemology seriously enough – it completely neglects the discussion of testimony (e.g., Lackey 2008), reputation (e.g., Origgi 2017), and the individual and social norms, as well as institutions (e.g., Goldman 1999), that make knowing and believing the truth possible. Instead, apart from offering pop-science explanations, it seems intent on waging a clandestine ideological proxy war – right in the spirit of the times it purports to diagnose.
References:
GOLDMAN, A. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HABGOOD-COOTE, J. (2018). Stop talking about fake news! Inquiry [pre-print online],
available at: DOI:10.1080/0020174X.2018.1508363 (1.9.2018).
LACKEY, J. (2008). Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LATOUR, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30 (2), 225-248.
NYHAN, B., PORTER, E., REIFLER, J., WOOD, T. (2017). Taking Corrections Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Information on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability. SSRN [online], available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2995128 (1.9.2018).
ORIGGI, G. (2017). Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
PENNOCK, R. (2010). The postmodern sin of intelligent design creationism. Science & Education, 19 (6-8), 757-778.
PRADO, C.G. (2006). Searle and Foucault on Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RINI, R. (2017). Fake News and Partisan Epistemology. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 27 (S2), 43–64.
WOOD, T., PORTER, E., (2016). The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes' Steadfast Factual Adherence. SSRN [online], available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819073 (1.9.2018).
Lee McIntyre’s book Post-Truth (2018), part of the MIT Press’ Essential Knowledge series, attempts the unenviable task of pinning down a vague, but very popular concept in our discourse. He settles on the understanding that post-truth denotes the notion of feelings being more accurate than facts, of believing something because it feels right. This also implies the potential for ideological domination by politically subverting the possibility of gathering facts about the real world. Interestingly, the implications of this latter half of his definition do not receive as much attention. Instead McIntyre focuses on the personal responsibility of epistemic agents to discover truth and the confluence of developments that made it so much harder for them.
The book’s primary audience are lay people curious about the ongoing discursive practice of labeling lies and disinformation as post-truth. The book correctly reminds us that politically motivated denial of facts is not a creature of the current American electoral cycle. It offers a sweeping overview of why the phenomenon occurs – and why it appears to be everywhere today. McIntyre makes some very good points about the history and toxicity of science denialism, the nature of our motivated thinking, the development of the prestige press, the idea of objectivity in media, the fragmentary effects of social media information silos, and so on – though these are hardly novel, it is commendable to have them explained briefly and accessibly.
The book is ultimately unconvincing, however, not just because it appears to suffer with symptoms of what it diagnoses – post-truth errors of both fact and interpretation (more on that later) – but because for a work that seeks to tackle an epistemological issue – even if in a popular vein – it does not really engage with the relevant literature on social epistemology. The book neglects the very essential epistemological questions any treatment of truth (post- or otherwise) needs tackling: what truth is and how do we come to believe it in the first place. Neither do we get a convincing account of why post-truth is a distinct phenomenon (for a recent skeptical take, see Habgood-Coote 2018), and not a moral panic, a conceptual muddle of lies, propaganda, and bullshit (in the Frankurtian sense), or merely a discursive shortcut for numerous disquieting social, political, and technological developments. Instead we get the by-now somewhat tired chapters on science denialism, cognitive biases, the decline of traditional media, the rise of social media and – with a surprising twist – the blameworthiness of post-modernism.
The errors of fact can be illustrated by the following examples. The chapter on cognitive biases discusses the backfire effect, the notion that corrective information can not only fail to register but make the recipient of the correction double down on the falsehood and believe it even more strongly. This effect, however, has famously failed to replicate (Wood & Porter 2016) – with the study’s original authors co-authoring a further replicating study with a similar lack of results (Nyhan et al. 2017). This problem was known for almost a year before this book went to print yet is not acknowledged anywhere. It was almost as if this fact failed to register.
Another curious error can be found in the final chapter on combating post-truth and the need to strongly challenge lies and deceptions in a timely manner. Here the lesson starts with a parable that John Kerry failed to react strongly to lies during the 2004 presidential campaign and consequently “lost the election by a few thousand votes in Ohio” (p. 155). A cursory search for the results quickly reveals those ‘few thousand’ votes to be 118 thousand, or a margin of slightly more than 2%. (George W. Bush also won the popular vote by about 3 million, but let’s not get inconvenient facts in the way of a good narrative.)
The errors of interpretation require a bit more space. Here his chapter about post-modernism is emblematic of the books’ weaknesses. McIntyre’s basic argument is that post-truth as a modern phenomenon was enabled by the developments in post-modern philosophy, which problematized the notion of objective truth as unideological and apolitical, wholly disconnected from the world of human power, interpretation, and values.
The chapter makes valid points about incongruous pronouncements from certain science and technology studies scholars. McIntyre shows many to have gone beyond circumspect critiques of the ways scientific findings or concepts come to be treated as facts into outright denial of facts: it is all ideology anyway. McIntyre makes a great deal out of the famous, heart-felt mea culpas from Bruno Latour (2004), one of the most famous scholars who talked about social construction of scientific facts, but who now wishes to restore the idea of scientific fact as something objectively true.
But McIntyre’s argument is far from smooth. His primary argument follows the one in a paper by philosopher of science Robert Pennock (2010) about Phillip Johnson, the god-father of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. Johnson consciously cited critical theory and relativism he had read about in law school as his operating principles for advancing his preferred creationist version of biological explanations. From here McIntyre makes a jump to other instances of science denial, such as climate science denialism, or anti-vaccination movements, for which the ID movement served as a blueprint. But the said blueprint consisted of examples of funding ‘counter-research’ and pushing their own ‘experts’ to create the illusion of controversy and debate, not from a relativistic deconstruction of scientific practices, a point McIntyre elides.
McIntyre further credits the Sokal hoax for bringing post-modern posturing into the mainstream but is unwilling to extend the blame for the fallout of this wider awareness, even though this is crucial for his argument elsewhere. Earlier he laments that these post-modern notions ‘leaked’ into wider consciousness and have been used unscrupulously beyond obscure academic journals. I am not saying we should be blaming Sokal too, for popularizing post-modern intellectual posturing, only that for McIntyre to be consistent in his belief that people are blameworthy for how their ideas are used (never mind what were their intentions), he must also lay blame at the feet of those who propagate such ideas, whatever their intentions.
But most of all, his treatment of ‘post-modernism’ as one of the sources of our current post-truth predicament seems more ideological than anything else. It is far too easy to blame an ill-defined, elusive concept such as post-modernism for post-truth. McIntyre echoes long-standing conservative obsessions with post-modernism (or “cultural Marxism” or “critical theory” in other, similar iterations) as a scourge of truth and beauty instead of what it really is: a set of divergent, theoretical propositions about knowledge in our society. Here he joins the narrative of the likes of Dennett, Pinker, Dawkins et al. who are at the forefront of the discursive efforts to straw-men all post-modern criticism of how science is done into a belief system committed to radical skepticism at best, or a relativizing incoherence, at worst.
No privileged elder statesmen of science and objective truth probably like vexing inquiries about their potential biases or about why their intellectual pronouncements go beyond their immediate expertise. Though to point out this vested interest would probably already reveal one as a post-modernist, too. Any recognition of the plurality of discourses and perspectives about the world would do that, yet this post-modern reflection on the lack of a monopolized control over meta-narratives does not commit one to a full-blown relativist standpoint.
Indeed, not all post-modernist constructivism in science is the enemy of the quest for truth – on the contrary, one cannot get to truth without realizing the extent of subjectivity when we ask research questions, build concepts, choose the tools, & model the world and how this – often unconscious – dealing with the world around us can color our perceptions of the world.
According to McIntyre’s veritably post-factual treatment of Derrida and Foucault, they are radical sceptics, nihilists claiming it is all only about the text and/or power. However, they did not really deny the possibility of objective reality (cf. Prado 2006). Contrary to McIntyre’s (especially) unfair portrayal of him, Foucault would probably not agree that professions of truth are “nothing more than a reflection of the political ideology of the person” making them (p. 126). Knowledge claims are not “just” assertions of authority, a “bullying tactic” used by the powerful (p. 126) – but it is important to realize that they can be. In search for truth we must be aware of this possibility and add this warning into our calculus of trust over particular claimants and their claims to authority. This is a profound insight that we credit Foucault and other scholars with. Without it our understanding of objective reality would be much poorer. We cannot be blind to the truth that knowledge claims are potentially also ideological. This is not necessarily a rejection of objective reality, this is a reminder of the warranted distrust towards those who have historically claimed to own the truth.
Claims to truth must be interrogated with an eye to the context in which they were made to spot any potential biases or alternative explanations. This is no truth-denying relativism but sound epistemic practice, one which is still far from being the norm. Espousing such commitment to skepticism over knowledge claims does not commit one to denialism. Only very uncircumspect or naïve people would make that conceptual jump, but McIntyre seems only too willing to push his readers to precisely such somersaults about post-modernism.
In the final analysis, McIntyre also offers advice on how to fight post-truth, but it is equally un-inspiring. He admonishes us to take responsibility over our personal epistemic practices: be skeptical, buy a quality newspaper now and then, fight the instinct for partisanship and confirmation bias – we can do it, it is our decision how we react to the world. There is no accounting of structural issues, institutions and their epistemic effects (cf. Rini 2017), or simply of how ridiculous it is to epistemically pull yourself by your bootstraps out of bullshit in the information environment he described in the previous chapters.
Thus, the biggest missed opportunity of the book is that, in our current environment ripe for educating the lay public about how we come to know and trust things as factual, it does not take social epistemology seriously enough – it completely neglects the discussion of testimony (e.g., Lackey 2008), reputation (e.g., Origgi 2017), and the individual and social norms, as well as institutions (e.g., Goldman 1999), that make knowing and believing the truth possible. Instead, apart from offering pop-science explanations, it seems intent on waging a clandestine ideological proxy war – right in the spirit of the times it purports to diagnose.
References:
GOLDMAN, A. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HABGOOD-COOTE, J. (2018). Stop talking about fake news! Inquiry [pre-print online],
available at: DOI:10.1080/0020174X.2018.1508363 (1.9.2018).
LACKEY, J. (2008). Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
LATOUR, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30 (2), 225-248.
NYHAN, B., PORTER, E., REIFLER, J., WOOD, T. (2017). Taking Corrections Literally But Not Seriously? The Effects of Information on Factual Beliefs and Candidate Favorability. SSRN [online], available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2995128 (1.9.2018).
ORIGGI, G. (2017). Reputation: What It Is and Why It Matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
PENNOCK, R. (2010). The postmodern sin of intelligent design creationism. Science & Education, 19 (6-8), 757-778.
PRADO, C.G. (2006). Searle and Foucault on Truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RINI, R. (2017). Fake News and Partisan Epistemology. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 27 (S2), 43–64.
WOOD, T., PORTER, E., (2016). The Elusive Backfire Effect: Mass Attitudes' Steadfast Factual Adherence. SSRN [online], available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2819073 (1.9.2018).
August 16, 2019
Yaşadığımız dünyayı anlamak açısından, özellikle de siyaset dilini anlamlandırabilmek açısından çok önemli şeyler söylüyor kitap. Post-truth kavramını sadece basit bir kavram olarak değil öncesini, gelişimini, neden-sonuç etkilerini ve muhtemelen evrileceği boyutuyla ele alıyor. Anlatı sadece felsefi bir bakış açısı değil, son derece ilginç psikolojik ve sosyolojik deney sonuçları ile de gerekçelendirilmiş. Kitap her ne kadar Amerika halkının gündemi üzerinden konuyu tartışsa da (özellikle de Trump, Küresel ısınma, aşı karşıtlığı vs gibi konular) benzer konuların bizim hayatımızda da yeri olması sebebiyle kitabın bizler için de gayet geçerli olduğunu düşünüyorum.
March 7, 2018
Those with a working internet connection or tangential link to the outside world will notice that we are spiralling into a new realm of inhuman misunderstanding that scholars and tweeters have labelled “post-truth”. This informative primer into this unpalatable phenomenon examines the culprits, from innate cognitive biases, to the manipulations of the media moguls, to the scheming influence of career politicians, to the mainstream and upmarket medias, to bubblebound retweeters, to the postmodern theorists—no one is innocent when it comes to indulging or furthering a “post-truth” world. The chapter on postmodern theory, in its questioning of objective truth (“no such thing” said the Derrideans), presents an interesting slant on the affair, most left-wing liberals and academics placing the blame on the right-wingers (although the bulk of McIntyre’s book makes clear powercrazed moneymen are the problem), and the argument that popular satirists who have become reporters by proxy are shirking responsibility is also explored. The solution is, as DFW already knew, to pay a helluva lot more attention.
December 4, 2025
Post-Truth And The Trump Presidency
With the lying and disregard for truth shown in the presidential campaign and presidency of Donald Trump, many books have been examining what they fear is a "post-truth" culture and offer ways of reversing it. Among these books is "Post Truth" by Lee Mcintyre, Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. The book is part of the "Essential Knowledge Series" published by MIT which aims to offer "accessible, concise, beautifully produced pocket-sized books on topics of current interest."
Mcintyre has written a short, well-written book on the nature of post-truth and its causes. The book explores issues in history, philosophy, and current events to understand post-truth, which Mcintyre describes in his opening chapter as "a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it nor not." It involves the ignoring of facts in favor of feelings and preconceptions. In its broadest sense, for Mcintyre, post-truth denies the existence of objective reality.
In the Acknowledgement section of his book, Mcintyre speaks simply and truly of his "love for philosophy", and this love shows. There is much to be learned from this book, and the search and love for truth never goes out of date. Mcintryre has a background and understanding in the sciences and approaches truth and reality from a scientific perspective. This is invaluable. The other focus of his book is Donald Trump whom he criticizes sharply. His discussion about Trump is valuable and troubling, but the broader, stronger message of his book is about the nature of objectivity.
In seeking to understand post-truth, Mcintyre intermixes a variety of subjects. He begins with a discussion of the efforts in the 1950s of the tobacco industry to present an alternative story to the already overwhelming scientific evidence about the health danger of smoking. He carries the analogy forward to climate change deniers. Mcintyre finds the efforts of some politicians and putative researchers to deny climate change and its cause by the activities of humans is equivalent to the attempt by the tobacco industry to cause unfounded doubt in the public about the dangers of smoking.
In the middle chapters of his book, Mcintyre discusses the decline of objective news reporting in a morass of media and fake news. The material is well and succinctly presented, but this phenomenon has been endlessly discussed elsewhere.
The heart of this book lies in its scientific and philosophical chapters. In a chapter titled "the roots of cognitive bias" Mcintyre discusses the results of several psychological investigations which tend to show in Mcintyre's words that "we are not quite as rational as we think." This chapter includes much fascinating information and suggests the circumstances under which individuals will disregard evidence in favor of psychic well-being, group-think, or other non-rational considerations.
In the most philosophical chapter of the book, "Did postmodernism lead to post-truth"? (which he answers in the affirmative) Mcintyre explores the difficult modern philosophy, with long historical roots, of postmodernism, which broadly denies the existence of any objective truth free from the perspective of the group. Claims for objectivity involve one group imposing its values on others. Postmodernism in this sense has been applied to science and it properly draws Mcintyre's criticism Although created in part to support the weak and voiceless parts of the political spectrum, postmodernism has been used as a way to critique science and revitalize certain religious claims. And its claims about the denial of objective truth have moved from the left to the right in politics and have coalesced in the post-truth world of Trump and his supporters.
There is much of value in both the critique of postmodernism and in the psychology of this book. There is also much of value in the attack on Trump although I find it overdone. Here is something I learned from the psychology section of this book that seems to me valuable.
A group of college students were given the following number series, 2, 4,6 and asked to come up with series of their own following the rule of this series and to articulate the rule. To simplify, most of the students came up with a series such as 8,10,12 and said the appropriate rule was the sequence of even numbers. A little reflection shows that this response was jumping to a conclusion. For those students probing a bit deeper, the sequence 1,2,3 was within the rule the investigator sought as was the sequence 25, 356, 1084. The rule simply was that each of the three numbers in the sequence had to be of increasing value.
The lesson I drew from this example is that one needs to be careful in assessing the cause of an event or the form of a series that one has considered all the possibilities. And as applied to post-truth and Trump, I find them worth discussing and Mcintyres' discussion insightful. I also find the discussion overly partisan, perhaps, and bloated as an explanation. Explanations for Trump's actions and continued success with voters other than a philosophical denial of the existence of truth and of the objective character of reality may be possible. The fact that Trump lies and that he was elected and enjoys a degree of support does not, in my opinion, necessarily lead to the conclusion that we live in a "post-truth" culture.
Robin Friedman
With the lying and disregard for truth shown in the presidential campaign and presidency of Donald Trump, many books have been examining what they fear is a "post-truth" culture and offer ways of reversing it. Among these books is "Post Truth" by Lee Mcintyre, Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University and an Instructor in Ethics at Harvard Extension School. The book is part of the "Essential Knowledge Series" published by MIT which aims to offer "accessible, concise, beautifully produced pocket-sized books on topics of current interest."
Mcintyre has written a short, well-written book on the nature of post-truth and its causes. The book explores issues in history, philosophy, and current events to understand post-truth, which Mcintyre describes in his opening chapter as "a form of ideological supremacy, whereby its practitioners are trying to compel someone to believe in something whether there is good evidence for it nor not." It involves the ignoring of facts in favor of feelings and preconceptions. In its broadest sense, for Mcintyre, post-truth denies the existence of objective reality.
In the Acknowledgement section of his book, Mcintyre speaks simply and truly of his "love for philosophy", and this love shows. There is much to be learned from this book, and the search and love for truth never goes out of date. Mcintryre has a background and understanding in the sciences and approaches truth and reality from a scientific perspective. This is invaluable. The other focus of his book is Donald Trump whom he criticizes sharply. His discussion about Trump is valuable and troubling, but the broader, stronger message of his book is about the nature of objectivity.
In seeking to understand post-truth, Mcintyre intermixes a variety of subjects. He begins with a discussion of the efforts in the 1950s of the tobacco industry to present an alternative story to the already overwhelming scientific evidence about the health danger of smoking. He carries the analogy forward to climate change deniers. Mcintyre finds the efforts of some politicians and putative researchers to deny climate change and its cause by the activities of humans is equivalent to the attempt by the tobacco industry to cause unfounded doubt in the public about the dangers of smoking.
In the middle chapters of his book, Mcintyre discusses the decline of objective news reporting in a morass of media and fake news. The material is well and succinctly presented, but this phenomenon has been endlessly discussed elsewhere.
The heart of this book lies in its scientific and philosophical chapters. In a chapter titled "the roots of cognitive bias" Mcintyre discusses the results of several psychological investigations which tend to show in Mcintyre's words that "we are not quite as rational as we think." This chapter includes much fascinating information and suggests the circumstances under which individuals will disregard evidence in favor of psychic well-being, group-think, or other non-rational considerations.
In the most philosophical chapter of the book, "Did postmodernism lead to post-truth"? (which he answers in the affirmative) Mcintyre explores the difficult modern philosophy, with long historical roots, of postmodernism, which broadly denies the existence of any objective truth free from the perspective of the group. Claims for objectivity involve one group imposing its values on others. Postmodernism in this sense has been applied to science and it properly draws Mcintyre's criticism Although created in part to support the weak and voiceless parts of the political spectrum, postmodernism has been used as a way to critique science and revitalize certain religious claims. And its claims about the denial of objective truth have moved from the left to the right in politics and have coalesced in the post-truth world of Trump and his supporters.
There is much of value in both the critique of postmodernism and in the psychology of this book. There is also much of value in the attack on Trump although I find it overdone. Here is something I learned from the psychology section of this book that seems to me valuable.
A group of college students were given the following number series, 2, 4,6 and asked to come up with series of their own following the rule of this series and to articulate the rule. To simplify, most of the students came up with a series such as 8,10,12 and said the appropriate rule was the sequence of even numbers. A little reflection shows that this response was jumping to a conclusion. For those students probing a bit deeper, the sequence 1,2,3 was within the rule the investigator sought as was the sequence 25, 356, 1084. The rule simply was that each of the three numbers in the sequence had to be of increasing value.
The lesson I drew from this example is that one needs to be careful in assessing the cause of an event or the form of a series that one has considered all the possibilities. And as applied to post-truth and Trump, I find them worth discussing and Mcintyres' discussion insightful. I also find the discussion overly partisan, perhaps, and bloated as an explanation. Explanations for Trump's actions and continued success with voters other than a philosophical denial of the existence of truth and of the objective character of reality may be possible. The fact that Trump lies and that he was elected and enjoys a degree of support does not, in my opinion, necessarily lead to the conclusion that we live in a "post-truth" culture.
Robin Friedman
September 26, 2022
Kötü değil ama bana göre yetersiz bir kitap Hakikat-Sonrası. Beklentim daha çok "hakikat nedir ve farklı kişiler tarafından nasıl farklı algılanır, yorumlanır" üzerine bir beyin fırtınası okumakken McIntyre konuya tamamen pozitif bilimler odaklı bir noktadan yaklaşıp post-truth'u gerçeklere -yani facts'e- karşı çıkan bir akım olarak konuşlandırmayı tercih etmiş. Yanlış bir yaklaşım değil belki bu ama eksik. Literatüre azıcık bakınca "gerçeklerin yaratıcı kullanımıyla" nasıl farklı hakikatler oluşturulabileceğinden ta 1986'da bahsedildiğini görmek mümkün (https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241686015...). Yazarın bu fikri benimsemesini beklemiyordum ama üzerine bu kadar yazılıp çizilmiş, tartışılmış bir konuyu kısaca "Trump dönemi siyasetinde hakikat-sonrası" şeklinde çok dar kapsamla ele alıp bir de post-truthla mücadele için New York Times abonesi olalım şeklinde tavsiyeler vermesi beni hayal kırklığına uğrattı. Oysa hakikat-sonrası çok daha eskiye giden ve uzun zamandır hayatımızda büyük etkisi olan bir olgu. Kitapta da çok kısaca bahsedilen ve post-truth'la aşağı yukarı aynı anlama gelen Stephen Colbert icadı kelime truthiness (hakikatimsi) ta 2005'te The American Dialect Society ve 2006'da Merriam-Webster tarafından yılın kelimesi olarak seçilmişti zaten.
Bir bilim tarihçisinin post-truth kitabında bilim savaşları ve Alan Sokal'a birkaç sayfa, Latour'a ise birkaç paragraf ayırıp kitabın büyük bir kısmını son 5-6 senenin konusu olan Trump'la harcaması, sürekli basılı medyayı övmesi ve özellikle belli medya kuruluşlarının reklamını yapması benim için popüler kültüre sırtını yaslamaktan fazlası değil. Post-truth'u postmodernizme bağlama çabası da bunun bir parçası. Ben bile konuya oldukça uzak bir STS öğrencisi olarak daha geniş bir perspektiften bakabilirim gibi hissediyorum. İyimser bir yaklaşımla en azından farklı açılardan kısaca da olsa bahsetmiş diyerek orta bir puan verdim fakat bu kitaptan "hakikat-sonrası nedir ve Trump döneminde nasıl bir etki yaratmıştır"ın ötesinde bir şey beklemeyin bence.
Şimdi gidip birileri Trump sonrası Amerika'da sosyal bilimler literatürü konulu bir makale falan yazmış mı diye bakınacağım, çünkü son 5 senede bir Amerikalı tarafından yazılıp da büyük kısmı Trump'a ayrılmamış bir sosyal bilimler makalesi/kitabı görmedim galiba. Bizim sosyal bilimler akademisinin önümüzdeki dönem için ellerini nasıl ovuşturduğunu görüyor gibiyim.
Güncelleme: Bitirmemin üzerinden geçen birkaç haftanın ardından verdiğim puanı 2'ye düşürüyorum. Bir kurgudışı kitabın okura yeni şeyler öğretmesini ya da farklı bir bakış açısı kazandırmasını beklerim ben ancak Hakikat-Sonrası'nın bana iki konuda da faydası olmadığını fark ettim.
Bir bilim tarihçisinin post-truth kitabında bilim savaşları ve Alan Sokal'a birkaç sayfa, Latour'a ise birkaç paragraf ayırıp kitabın büyük bir kısmını son 5-6 senenin konusu olan Trump'la harcaması, sürekli basılı medyayı övmesi ve özellikle belli medya kuruluşlarının reklamını yapması benim için popüler kültüre sırtını yaslamaktan fazlası değil. Post-truth'u postmodernizme bağlama çabası da bunun bir parçası. Ben bile konuya oldukça uzak bir STS öğrencisi olarak daha geniş bir perspektiften bakabilirim gibi hissediyorum. İyimser bir yaklaşımla en azından farklı açılardan kısaca da olsa bahsetmiş diyerek orta bir puan verdim fakat bu kitaptan "hakikat-sonrası nedir ve Trump döneminde nasıl bir etki yaratmıştır"ın ötesinde bir şey beklemeyin bence.
Şimdi gidip birileri Trump sonrası Amerika'da sosyal bilimler literatürü konulu bir makale falan yazmış mı diye bakınacağım, çünkü son 5 senede bir Amerikalı tarafından yazılıp da büyük kısmı Trump'a ayrılmamış bir sosyal bilimler makalesi/kitabı görmedim galiba. Bizim sosyal bilimler akademisinin önümüzdeki dönem için ellerini nasıl ovuşturduğunu görüyor gibiyim.
Güncelleme: Bitirmemin üzerinden geçen birkaç haftanın ardından verdiğim puanı 2'ye düşürüyorum. Bir kurgudışı kitabın okura yeni şeyler öğretmesini ya da farklı bir bakış açısı kazandırmasını beklerim ben ancak Hakikat-Sonrası'nın bana iki konuda da faydası olmadığını fark ettim.
December 5, 2022
ما بعد الحقيقة هو التشكيك، ليس في فكرة معرفة الواقع، بل في وجود الواقع نفسه. فعندما يكون الشخص مُضلَّلًا أو مُخطئًا، فمن المحتمل أن يدفع الثمن لكن عندما ينكر قادتنا أو أغلبية مجتمعنا الحقائق الأساسية، فإن العواقب يمكن أن تكون كارثية وتدميرية للعالم.
كتاب جميل وشرحه سلس ويخلو من العقد الفلسفية.
كتاب جميل وشرحه سلس ويخلو من العقد الفلسفية.
June 24, 2025
Post-truth, as a concept, used to confuse me. Do we really live in an era where truth no longer matters? It felt like a stretch, and it was.
Instead, the author explains:
“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.” In this, they underline that the prefix “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed.”
When you phrase it like that, namely that objective facts are less influential (not that they don’t matter) to forming public opinion than emotional appeals, it gives you a strong foundation for understanding the political landscape of the 21st century, exacerbated by social media.
Overall, this book couldn’t have been a better entry point for me to expand and sort my knowledge on the post-truth era, the difference between fake news and propaganda, the nuances of journalistic integrity, and the complexity of reporting news in a fast, deeply mediated world. The author helped me feel adequately equipped to start my academic research in this field, for he explained things in a clear manner and provided plenty of references for his claims.
Instead, the author explains:
“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.” In this, they underline that the prefix “post” is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are “past” truth in a temporal sense (as in “postwar”) but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed.”
When you phrase it like that, namely that objective facts are less influential (not that they don’t matter) to forming public opinion than emotional appeals, it gives you a strong foundation for understanding the political landscape of the 21st century, exacerbated by social media.
Overall, this book couldn’t have been a better entry point for me to expand and sort my knowledge on the post-truth era, the difference between fake news and propaganda, the nuances of journalistic integrity, and the complexity of reporting news in a fast, deeply mediated world. The author helped me feel adequately equipped to start my academic research in this field, for he explained things in a clear manner and provided plenty of references for his claims.
July 30, 2019
This is published by The MIT Press, which ought to be a guarantee of quality; but I was disappointed. To be sure, this book is easy to read and at times informative. However, it suffers from numerous departures from impartiality and academic rigour, which are especially difficult to forgive in a book about post-truth.
Let me give four examples of such flaws.
First, the book criticises postmodern ideas as one of the sources of post-truth. This is controversial in the humanities but it is (in my opinion) correct. However, while rejecting postmodernism McIntyre often adopts postmodern manners of speaking. For instance: "when we become untethered from truth we become untethered from reality" (p169); "when a political leader is really powerful, he or she can defy reality" (p113). In context, it is clear enough what the author intends to say with these statements... But decode these sentences literally, and you realize they make sense only in a post-truth paradigm. What does it mean to say that a leader can "defy reality" (not a socially accepted description of reality, but reality itself)? Leaders can sometimes successfully lie, or they may be rich or powerful enough to afford the price incurred by embracing a falsehood... but they are part of reality, and there is no meaningful sense in which they can literally "defy" it. Likewise, we cannot become "untethered" from reality: where would we go?! We are embedded in it, and we remain that way whether or not we accept it. Instead what we lose, when we abandon the truth, is our collective ability to understand, predict, adapt to, or manipulate the world... It may seem that I am nitpicking, but the defense of truth in philosophy begins with clear and precise language. It's essential to avoid misleading ways of speaking which conflate reality with the description of reality, facts with reports of facts (as when Latour confusedly writes about "the construction of scientific facts"), etc., which sneakily and repeatedly misuse established concepts, and which are bound to become mistaken ways of thinking.
Perhaps even more concerning is the apparent adoption not only of certain postmodern concepts, but also some postmodern values that are directly opposed to truth. In "Post-Truth", McIntyre rejects some postmodern positions on the grounds that they had negative consequences for society, rather than because they are wrong (false): "this is the cost of playing with ideas as if they had no consequences" (p145). Should we have rejected Darwinism because of its social consequences, namely its part in constructing many of the nationalist and then racist ideas that led to both World Wars, or in social darwinism? No! We should accept the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is true, and fight its negative consequences because they derive from wrong interpretations. Likewise, postmodern ideas should be combatted because they are wrong, because they have very limited explanatory power, because their proponents do not adhere to elementary academic good practices of discourse (clarity, simplicity), because their views ignore or contradict well-established facts. Indeed, postmodernism by and large subscribes to the belief that ideology trumps truth, and that is wrong even when your ideology is otherwise generous and honorable. It was wrong of certain academics to use the weapon of truth-denial in the first place, regardless of whether they were "liberals" or "conservatives"!
This brings me to my third criticism: McIntyre's "Post-Truth" is shockingly US-centric. It is as if this was written in a universe where human civilization was born fully formed out of the primordial clay on July 4th 1776, and has, since then, existed on the sole nation on planet Earth: the USA. Post-truth in the UK (Brexit), in Western Europe, in Eastern Europe, in Russia, in China, in the Islamic world, etc., is almost entirely ignored. Thus politics is reduced to the good American liberals versus the bad American conservatives. The appearance of objectivity is dated back to 1850 and the birth of the Associated Press (what about the enlightenment, for instance?)... Much could have been gained from even a minimal openness to what's going on in the "rest of the world".
A fourth problem is the author's general lack of rigour in drawing conclusions. For McIntyre, a single scientific study is sometimes enough to establish a complicated fact (namely that liberals are immune to the backfire effect). Elsewhere, the author takes for granted Kahneman's approach that we are irrationally biased, even though this is now being challenged on the basis of bounded optimality (it looks like we are in fact excellent at making the best use of limited cognitive resources). To be sure, these are quibbles - such small departures from academic precision are found even in scientific papers. But one would be justified in expecting higher standards from a book about post-truth.
So, there are a lot of problems in that book. But do not get me wrong. None of these problems is critical, and most could be fixed by careful editing - I suspect the book was a bit rushed because it dealt with such urgent issues. And if I needed so much space to describe these issues in this review, it is mostly because they are rather subtle and require substantial argumentation to be properly conveyed. "Post-Truth" has other merits - it is pleasantly readable and entertaining, while offering much food for thought.
Still, I rate it a little under 3 stars, because this is too serious a problem to be treated so lightly.
Let me give four examples of such flaws.
First, the book criticises postmodern ideas as one of the sources of post-truth. This is controversial in the humanities but it is (in my opinion) correct. However, while rejecting postmodernism McIntyre often adopts postmodern manners of speaking. For instance: "when we become untethered from truth we become untethered from reality" (p169); "when a political leader is really powerful, he or she can defy reality" (p113). In context, it is clear enough what the author intends to say with these statements... But decode these sentences literally, and you realize they make sense only in a post-truth paradigm. What does it mean to say that a leader can "defy reality" (not a socially accepted description of reality, but reality itself)? Leaders can sometimes successfully lie, or they may be rich or powerful enough to afford the price incurred by embracing a falsehood... but they are part of reality, and there is no meaningful sense in which they can literally "defy" it. Likewise, we cannot become "untethered" from reality: where would we go?! We are embedded in it, and we remain that way whether or not we accept it. Instead what we lose, when we abandon the truth, is our collective ability to understand, predict, adapt to, or manipulate the world... It may seem that I am nitpicking, but the defense of truth in philosophy begins with clear and precise language. It's essential to avoid misleading ways of speaking which conflate reality with the description of reality, facts with reports of facts (as when Latour confusedly writes about "the construction of scientific facts"), etc., which sneakily and repeatedly misuse established concepts, and which are bound to become mistaken ways of thinking.
Perhaps even more concerning is the apparent adoption not only of certain postmodern concepts, but also some postmodern values that are directly opposed to truth. In "Post-Truth", McIntyre rejects some postmodern positions on the grounds that they had negative consequences for society, rather than because they are wrong (false): "this is the cost of playing with ideas as if they had no consequences" (p145). Should we have rejected Darwinism because of its social consequences, namely its part in constructing many of the nationalist and then racist ideas that led to both World Wars, or in social darwinism? No! We should accept the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is true, and fight its negative consequences because they derive from wrong interpretations. Likewise, postmodern ideas should be combatted because they are wrong, because they have very limited explanatory power, because their proponents do not adhere to elementary academic good practices of discourse (clarity, simplicity), because their views ignore or contradict well-established facts. Indeed, postmodernism by and large subscribes to the belief that ideology trumps truth, and that is wrong even when your ideology is otherwise generous and honorable. It was wrong of certain academics to use the weapon of truth-denial in the first place, regardless of whether they were "liberals" or "conservatives"!
This brings me to my third criticism: McIntyre's "Post-Truth" is shockingly US-centric. It is as if this was written in a universe where human civilization was born fully formed out of the primordial clay on July 4th 1776, and has, since then, existed on the sole nation on planet Earth: the USA. Post-truth in the UK (Brexit), in Western Europe, in Eastern Europe, in Russia, in China, in the Islamic world, etc., is almost entirely ignored. Thus politics is reduced to the good American liberals versus the bad American conservatives. The appearance of objectivity is dated back to 1850 and the birth of the Associated Press (what about the enlightenment, for instance?)... Much could have been gained from even a minimal openness to what's going on in the "rest of the world".
A fourth problem is the author's general lack of rigour in drawing conclusions. For McIntyre, a single scientific study is sometimes enough to establish a complicated fact (namely that liberals are immune to the backfire effect). Elsewhere, the author takes for granted Kahneman's approach that we are irrationally biased, even though this is now being challenged on the basis of bounded optimality (it looks like we are in fact excellent at making the best use of limited cognitive resources). To be sure, these are quibbles - such small departures from academic precision are found even in scientific papers. But one would be justified in expecting higher standards from a book about post-truth.
So, there are a lot of problems in that book. But do not get me wrong. None of these problems is critical, and most could be fixed by careful editing - I suspect the book was a bit rushed because it dealt with such urgent issues. And if I needed so much space to describe these issues in this review, it is mostly because they are rather subtle and require substantial argumentation to be properly conveyed. "Post-Truth" has other merits - it is pleasantly readable and entertaining, while offering much food for thought.
Still, I rate it a little under 3 stars, because this is too serious a problem to be treated so lightly.
December 11, 2022
هذا الكتاب قصير قليل الحمولة، يشبه مقالا استطال وتضخم بالأمثلة.
"ما بعد الحقيقة" عالم تضيع فيه الحقائق بفعل الأكاذيب التي تنافسها. وبفعل النفوس التي تتشوف إلى أن تعيش الواقع كما تريده لا كما هو. وهو عالم تفقد فيه الحقيقة ألقها ووقعها وإن لم تختف تماما.
عالم يكون فيه الكذب هو المنافس للحقيقة حتى على مستوى الواقع! ويلعب فيه الإعلام باسم الحياد والموضوعية دورا كبيرا في تشكيل عالم بلا ملامح ولا حقيقة!
يشكل "ترامب" وعصره المثال الغالب في الكتاب.
ويربط الكاتب في فصلين منفصلين بين "ما بعد الحقيقة" وأصولها النفسية والمعرفية. كما يربط بينها وبين (ما بعد الحداثة) التي شكلت بابا واسعا تدخل منه (ما بعد الحقيقة) باسم العلم والفكر!
"ما بعد الحقيقة" عالم تضيع فيه الحقائق بفعل الأكاذيب التي تنافسها. وبفعل النفوس التي تتشوف إلى أن تعيش الواقع كما تريده لا كما هو. وهو عالم تفقد فيه الحقيقة ألقها ووقعها وإن لم تختف تماما.
عالم يكون فيه الكذب هو المنافس للحقيقة حتى على مستوى الواقع! ويلعب فيه الإعلام باسم الحياد والموضوعية دورا كبيرا في تشكيل عالم بلا ملامح ولا حقيقة!
يشكل "ترامب" وعصره المثال الغالب في الكتاب.
ويربط الكاتب في فصلين منفصلين بين "ما بعد الحقيقة" وأصولها النفسية والمعرفية. كما يربط بينها وبين (ما بعد الحداثة) التي شكلت بابا واسعا تدخل منه (ما بعد الحقيقة) باسم العلم والفكر!
November 7, 2025
باسمه
🔰 فکر کردین روزانه چنتا خبر جعلی برامون توی فید میاد یا بدتر از اون از طرف دوست و آشنا ارسال میشه؟ چطور میشه که محتوای آبکی گروههای خانوادگی آزارمون میده و میفهمیم عمدتاً درست نیستن؛ اما توی بحرانها و حتی غیر از اون، اینقدر در برابر خبرهای انبوه جعلی آسیبپذیر میشیم؟ چطوریه که نگاه من و رفیقم به یه پدیده کاملاً یکسان اینقدر متفاوته؟ اینها و کلی سؤالات ذهنی دیگه باعث شد کتاب «پساحقیقت» رو برای مطالعه انتخاب کنم. پساحقیقت چیه؟ بنا به تعریف کتاب، وقتی که اثبات یه چیزی برای ما بیشتر از مستندات به احساسات مربوط باشه. این احساسات میتونن محرکههای مختلفی از جمله دلبستگیهای ما داشته باشن. درنتیجه این فرایند هست که واقعیت موازی خودمون با جهان خارج رو میسازیم... نکته مهم اینجاست که اینجا بحثمون «عقاید» نیست؛ بلکه «حقایق» هست! اینجا برخلاف زمانی که گفتوگو درخصوص عقاید مفید و معنیدار هست، انتخاب بین درست و غلطه!
🔰 کتاب، چهار دلیل اصلی که به این سطح از انکار عمومی حقیقت رسیدیم رو بیان میکنه: انکار علم، تحولات رسانههای خبری (مکتوب و غیرمکتوب)، گسترش رسانههای اجتماعی و تبدیل اون به منبع خبری و در نهایت پستمدرنیسم. انصافاً هرکدوم رو هم دقیق جریانشناسی میکنه و نشون میده که ابزارهای درونی و بیرونی انسانی برای انکار دستاوردهای علم، دادن تریبون یکسان به انکارکنندگان و مدافعین حقیقت در رسانهها، تبدیلشدن رسانههای اجتماعی به قفس فکری و زائلشدن معنای حقیقت در مکتب پستمدرنیسم از کجا شروع شدن و به چه وضعیتی رسیدن. نکته جالب در همین مورد آخره که توی این روند، نهتنها عموم افراطگرایان راست، بلکه دانشگاهیان لیبرال رو هم بهخاطر تضعیف وجود حقیقت عینی مقصر میدونه و اصراری به نگاه جناحی نداره که خب خیلی خوبه! به جز این، نگاهش به سه مورد دیگه هم از جنس نقزدن یا نفی کلی نیست و روی شناخت دقیق متمرکزه؛ مثلاً برام جالب بود که تعریف خبر جعلی به خبری با هدف تلاش ذینفع اصلی برای دستیابی به قدرت (سیاسی یا مالی) محدود شده که خب تفاوت خیلی جدی در تحلیل ایجاد میکنه...
🔰 این کتاب، در اوایل دوران اول ریاستجمهوری ترامپ نوشته شده. با توجه به حجم اطلاعات غلط ستاد انتخاباتی ترامپ در سال ۲۰۱۶، تقریباً محوریت مطالعه موردی کتاب به اون اختصاص پیدا کرده. از اون زمان، جنگهای شناختی بزرگی رخ دادن: ریشه بیماری کرونا، ایمنی واکسن کرونا، حمله روسیه به اوکراین، نسلکشی اسرائیل در غزه و... که به نظرم نیاز به نگارش یه ویراست جدید از کتاب رو به وجود آورده؛ جدای از اینکه ترامپ دوباره رأی آورده و حتی موتورش نسبت به قبل هم تندتر کار میکنه (بازم به خودی خود خیلی عجیبه)، اصلاً ورود هوش مصنوعی کل این چالشها رو چند پله ارتقای سطح داده...
🔰 گرچه توی بررسی هر کدوم از این دلایل، نویسنده به خوبی از مثالهای مشهور کلاسیک استفاده کرده و اونا رو با چارچوب تحقیق، تطبیق داده؛ اما یکی از دستنخوردهترین مصادیق پساحقیقت، استفاده ابزاری حسبره (دیپلماسی عمومی اسرائیل) از نسلکشی یهودیان به دست نازیها در جنگ جهانی دوم برای توجیه تأسیس و ارتکاب جنایات حال حاضر این موجودیت هست... به نظرم قابل درک هم هست که چرا به سمتش نرفته و بیشتر ترجیح داده با مثالهای کلاسیک و نمونه موردی ترامپ جلو بره...
🔰 کتاب «پساحقیقت» شناخت خوبی در مورد این پدیده میده؛ اما در حوزه راهکار توانمند نیست. به تعبیر دیگه، بیشتر بر چیستی و چرایی متمرکز هست تا چگونگی مبارزه با اون؛ اما جدای از اندوختههای مهمی که داشت، یادآوری مهمی بود که برای حفظ حقیقت، باید تا جای ممکن با دروغ و خبر جعلی مقابله کرد؛ حتی اگه به نظر سادهلوحانه باشه و حتی بدتر از اون، هزینه زیادی بطلبه...
✅❎ چاپ، ترجمه و قطع کتاب در مجموع خوبه. حجم زیادی هم نداره؛ اما به خصوص در فصلهای ابتدایی نیاز به تمرکز نسبتاً زیادی داره و کشش هم زیاد نیست. سر همین و مسئلهای که توی بند قبلی گفتم، به نظرم اینقدرها کتابی نیست که بشه به همه توصیهاش کرد. به صورت کلی، اگه شخصی هستین که تعامل زیادی با اخبار (منابع رسمی و غیررسمی) و مخاطب دارین و دغدغههای اینچنینی دارین، کتاب میتونه برای شما آورده خوبی داشته باشه...
🔰 فکر کردین روزانه چنتا خبر جعلی برامون توی فید میاد یا بدتر از اون از طرف دوست و آشنا ارسال میشه؟ چطور میشه که محتوای آبکی گروههای خانوادگی آزارمون میده و میفهمیم عمدتاً درست نیستن؛ اما توی بحرانها و حتی غیر از اون، اینقدر در برابر خبرهای انبوه جعلی آسیبپذیر میشیم؟ چطوریه که نگاه من و رفیقم به یه پدیده کاملاً یکسان اینقدر متفاوته؟ اینها و کلی سؤالات ذهنی دیگه باعث شد کتاب «پساحقیقت» رو برای مطالعه انتخاب کنم. پساحقیقت چیه؟ بنا به تعریف کتاب، وقتی که اثبات یه چیزی برای ما بیشتر از مستندات به احساسات مربوط باشه. این احساسات میتونن محرکههای مختلفی از جمله دلبستگیهای ما داشته باشن. درنتیجه این فرایند هست که واقعیت موازی خودمون با جهان خارج رو میسازیم... نکته مهم اینجاست که اینجا بحثمون «عقاید» نیست؛ بلکه «حقایق» هست! اینجا برخلاف زمانی که گفتوگو درخصوص عقاید مفید و معنیدار هست، انتخاب بین درست و غلطه!
🔰 کتاب، چهار دلیل اصلی که به این سطح از انکار عمومی حقیقت رسیدیم رو بیان میکنه: انکار علم، تحولات رسانههای خبری (مکتوب و غیرمکتوب)، گسترش رسانههای اجتماعی و تبدیل اون به منبع خبری و در نهایت پستمدرنیسم. انصافاً هرکدوم رو هم دقیق جریانشناسی میکنه و نشون میده که ابزارهای درونی و بیرونی انسانی برای انکار دستاوردهای علم، دادن تریبون یکسان به انکارکنندگان و مدافعین حقیقت در رسانهها، تبدیلشدن رسانههای اجتماعی به قفس فکری و زائلشدن معنای حقیقت در مکتب پستمدرنیسم از کجا شروع شدن و به چه وضعیتی رسیدن. نکته جالب در همین مورد آخره که توی این روند، نهتنها عموم افراطگرایان راست، بلکه دانشگاهیان لیبرال رو هم بهخاطر تضعیف وجود حقیقت عینی مقصر میدونه و اصراری به نگاه جناحی نداره که خب خیلی خوبه! به جز این، نگاهش به سه مورد دیگه هم از جنس نقزدن یا نفی کلی نیست و روی شناخت دقیق متمرکزه؛ مثلاً برام جالب بود که تعریف خبر جعلی به خبری با هدف تلاش ذینفع اصلی برای دستیابی به قدرت (سیاسی یا مالی) محدود شده که خب تفاوت خیلی جدی در تحلیل ایجاد میکنه...
🔰 این کتاب، در اوایل دوران اول ریاستجمهوری ترامپ نوشته شده. با توجه به حجم اطلاعات غلط ستاد انتخاباتی ترامپ در سال ۲۰۱۶، تقریباً محوریت مطالعه موردی کتاب به اون اختصاص پیدا کرده. از اون زمان، جنگهای شناختی بزرگی رخ دادن: ریشه بیماری کرونا، ایمنی واکسن کرونا، حمله روسیه به اوکراین، نسلکشی اسرائیل در غزه و... که به نظرم نیاز به نگارش یه ویراست جدید از کتاب رو به وجود آورده؛ جدای از اینکه ترامپ دوباره رأی آورده و حتی موتورش نسبت به قبل هم تندتر کار میکنه (بازم به خودی خود خیلی عجیبه)، اصلاً ورود هوش مصنوعی کل این چالشها رو چند پله ارتقای سطح داده...
🔰 گرچه توی بررسی هر کدوم از این دلایل، نویسنده به خوبی از مثالهای مشهور کلاسیک استفاده کرده و اونا رو با چارچوب تحقیق، تطبیق داده؛ اما یکی از دستنخوردهترین مصادیق پساحقیقت، استفاده ابزاری حسبره (دیپلماسی عمومی اسرائیل) از نسلکشی یهودیان به دست نازیها در جنگ جهانی دوم برای توجیه تأسیس و ارتکاب جنایات حال حاضر این موجودیت هست... به نظرم قابل درک هم هست که چرا به سمتش نرفته و بیشتر ترجیح داده با مثالهای کلاسیک و نمونه موردی ترامپ جلو بره...
🔰 کتاب «پساحقیقت» شناخت خوبی در مورد این پدیده میده؛ اما در حوزه راهکار توانمند نیست. به تعبیر دیگه، بیشتر بر چیستی و چرایی متمرکز هست تا چگونگی مبارزه با اون؛ اما جدای از اندوختههای مهمی که داشت، یادآوری مهمی بود که برای حفظ حقیقت، باید تا جای ممکن با دروغ و خبر جعلی مقابله کرد؛ حتی اگه به نظر سادهلوحانه باشه و حتی بدتر از اون، هزینه زیادی بطلبه...
✅❎ چاپ، ترجمه و قطع کتاب در مجموع خوبه. حجم زیادی هم نداره؛ اما به خصوص در فصلهای ابتدایی نیاز به تمرکز نسبتاً زیادی داره و کشش هم زیاد نیست. سر همین و مسئلهای که توی بند قبلی گفتم، به نظرم اینقدرها کتابی نیست که بشه به همه توصیهاش کرد. به صورت کلی، اگه شخصی هستین که تعامل زیادی با اخبار (منابع رسمی و غیررسمی) و مخاطب دارین و دغدغههای اینچنینی دارین، کتاب میتونه برای شما آورده خوبی داشته باشه...
May 14, 2021
Якщо брехні подарувати нове ім‘я, чи перестане вона бути брехнею?
Я переконана, що ні.
Як на мене, термін «постправда» - це не стільки означення певних маніпуляцій із істиною, скільки спроба пом’якшити слово «брехня», коли йдеться про впливових осіб.
Не можна ж називати усіх без розбору брехунами, надто - коли йдеться про учасників передвиборчої гонки у США (а саме цій темі й присвячена левова частка книги Лі Макінтайра). Саме тому Трамп, який спирається на свою «чуйку» - він провадить політику постправди. Путін, який розповідає байки - керується постправдою.
Лі Макінтайр навіть розбирає різницю між постправдою, пропагандою та іншими явищами одного ланцюга.
Але давайте чесно, по правді:
йдеться все одно про брехню.
Книга Лі Макінтайра може стати в нагоді студентам-медійникам, можливо - соціологам, напевно - тим, кого цікавить політичне життя США. Але брак інформації про решту світу і фокус на Америці справді суттєво звужує аудиторію (ну бо чи багато ви знаєте про консерваторів та республіканців, про лівих і правих?), а дивна форма оповіді з «підвішеними» кінцівками розділів мені здалась недоречною. Мене автор не переконав у тому, що постправда - це щось варте окремого слова. Особливо - коли зазначив, що велика частка відповідальності за подібне явище лежить на... постмодерністах!
Тому для мене «Постправда» не стала ані відкриттям, ані настільною книгою, ані захопливою мандрівкою у світ соціальних комунікацій. Як на мене, українському читачеві набагато ближча книга «Бачити, щоб бути побаченим» @mykhed, і я справді була б вдячна, якби @art.huss видали щось про маніпуляції на українському медіаполі. І мені чомусь видається, що ще видадуть.
А доки постправда і далі лишатиметься для мене брехнею (нехай із примітками, якщо того бажають дослідники).
Я переконана, що ні.
Як на мене, термін «постправда» - це не стільки означення певних маніпуляцій із істиною, скільки спроба пом’якшити слово «брехня», коли йдеться про впливових осіб.
Не можна ж називати усіх без розбору брехунами, надто - коли йдеться про учасників передвиборчої гонки у США (а саме цій темі й присвячена левова частка книги Лі Макінтайра). Саме тому Трамп, який спирається на свою «чуйку» - він провадить політику постправди. Путін, який розповідає байки - керується постправдою.
Лі Макінтайр навіть розбирає різницю між постправдою, пропагандою та іншими явищами одного ланцюга.
Але давайте чесно, по правді:
йдеться все одно про брехню.
Книга Лі Макінтайра може стати в нагоді студентам-медійникам, можливо - соціологам, напевно - тим, кого цікавить політичне життя США. Але брак інформації про решту світу і фокус на Америці справді суттєво звужує аудиторію (ну бо чи багато ви знаєте про консерваторів та республіканців, про лівих і правих?), а дивна форма оповіді з «підвішеними» кінцівками розділів мені здалась недоречною. Мене автор не переконав у тому, що постправда - це щось варте окремого слова. Особливо - коли зазначив, що велика частка відповідальності за подібне явище лежить на... постмодерністах!
Тому для мене «Постправда» не стала ані відкриттям, ані настільною книгою, ані захопливою мандрівкою у світ соціальних комунікацій. Як на мене, українському читачеві набагато ближча книга «Бачити, щоб бути побаченим» @mykhed, і я справді була б вдячна, якби @art.huss видали щось про маніпуляції на українському медіаполі. І мені чомусь видається, що ще видадуть.
А доки постправда і далі лишатиметься для мене брехнею (нехай із примітками, якщо того бажають дослідники).
July 21, 2018
Lee McIntyre's book explains how we're now in a post-truth age. He tells us what it is and how it came to be part of our lives. Post-truth is the "contention that feelings are more accurate than facts, for the purpose of the political subordination of reality." Using such developments--new or old--of our times as information silos, confirmation bias, fake news, and cognitive dissonance he discusses how science or climate denial, the decline of traditional media and the rise of social media, and postmodernism has contributed to it all. And, of course, the effect of the high priest who stands behind the pulpit of post-truth, Donald Trump. McIntyre shows we're in a pickle. But he offers solutions and hope. A fascinating explanation of all this that, in my opinion, should be read by everybody.
July 25, 2020
Lühikokkuvõte: Trump on väga paha, sest ta valetab palju; tõde on kõik, mida iganes CIA ütleb; libauudised on halvad – hakake juba ometi NYT tellijateks!!
Pmts järjekordse tsentristliku intellektuaali TM põlve otsas kirjutatud teos päevakajalisel teemal TM. Lugesin lõpuni ainult sp, et pidin sellest arvustuse kirjutama. Muide eestikeelne tõlge on ka täiesti kohutav.
Pmts järjekordse tsentristliku intellektuaali TM põlve otsas kirjutatud teos päevakajalisel teemal TM. Lugesin lõpuni ainult sp, et pidin sellest arvustuse kirjutama. Muide eestikeelne tõlge on ka täiesti kohutav.
August 5, 2019
1: Pick a country at random.
2: Pick a year between 1950 and 2000 at random.
3: Read 5 books which discuss that country, and that year.
4: Pick 2 stories you like.
5: Read the newspaper articles about those stories -- as many local papers as you can find and at least two foreign (One NATO, one not).
You should have done this exercise before writing this book. Nobody should get a degree in the Liberal Arts without doing this exercise. And if you had done this exercise, you would have written a different book (or, for anyone but the author, the exercise is a good sue of your time, and this book is not).
2: Pick a year between 1950 and 2000 at random.
3: Read 5 books which discuss that country, and that year.
4: Pick 2 stories you like.
5: Read the newspaper articles about those stories -- as many local papers as you can find and at least two foreign (One NATO, one not).
You should have done this exercise before writing this book. Nobody should get a degree in the Liberal Arts without doing this exercise. And if you had done this exercise, you would have written a different book (or, for anyone but the author, the exercise is a good sue of your time, and this book is not).
May 4, 2021
Все логічно-доступно і легко (і, як мені здається, і так зрозуміло) описано у всіх розділах, крім одного, який стосується зв’язку постправди і постмодернізму, звинувачує цю течію у творенні світу постправди. Дивний розділ, який наче вставили звідкись ще, і не зрозуміло яку роль він грає у книзі. Поради в кінці книги слушні, і гарно, що вони підлаштовані під наші реалії. Загалом, очікувала чогось більшого.
August 5, 2019
Oh only after I realized I'm reviewing the paperback version ... lol
Although I took the time to read this, it was an interesting and educational read.
I believe that even out of the academy, this is a reading that is worth being made. When is it so current for the problem we face in today's society
Although I took the time to read this, it was an interesting and educational read.
I believe that even out of the academy, this is a reading that is worth being made. When is it so current for the problem we face in today's society
January 12, 2022
Short and sweet. Very well written. Highly recommended.
September 23, 2021
Будьмо чесні, таке поняття як "постправда" виникло не вчора, і навіть не за часів створення інтернету чи взагалі створення медіа. Відколи є людина, відтоді "неправда" стає на шальку терезів. От тільки ще 30 років тому поняття "правди" так яскраво не стояло.
Лі Макінтайр у своїй книзі "Постправда" дає таке визначення "постправда - це твердження, нібито почуття вірогідніші за факти, заради політичного підкорення реальності". Дискутувати не буду, бо визначення мені подобається (привіт, підтверджувальне упередження). Та і немає про що?
Хіба вас не тригерить на тему вакцинації, COVID19 чи політики? Ні? А ви впевнені? Бо мене тригерить на ці і не тільки теми, от тільки на різні сторони різна реакція. Я досить скептична людина, наука і підтверджені факти становлять основу мого світогляду. А навчання в медичному довело скептицизм до найвищого рівня. Так-так, я та людина, яка читає новини на офіційних сайтах, переглядає передвиборчі програми і закон України перед виборами та проти безцільного використання антибіотиків. Принеприємна.
Дл мене книга не відкрила абсолютно нового світу. Але я люблю книжки на дану тематику, тому пройти повз не змогла. Та ще й з такою приємною знижкою на Книжковому Арсеналі. О, а ще я дуже хотіла книгу від @art.huss бо їхні книги - це неймовірна естетика.
Книга проста, цікава і доступно написана(ну і вітання гарному перекладачеві). Структуровано та обґрунтовано підходить до питання фейкових новин, постправди та маніпуляцій дійсністю. В кінці книги є використана література та відповіді на всі посилання. Плюс оформлення від видавництва неймовірне. Рекомендую ознайомитись для загального розвитку кожному, без вказівки на вік.
Лі Макінтайр у своїй книзі "Постправда" дає таке визначення "постправда - це твердження, нібито почуття вірогідніші за факти, заради політичного підкорення реальності". Дискутувати не буду, бо визначення мені подобається (привіт, підтверджувальне упередження). Та і немає про що?
Хіба вас не тригерить на тему вакцинації, COVID19 чи політики? Ні? А ви впевнені? Бо мене тригерить на ці і не тільки теми, от тільки на різні сторони різна реакція. Я досить скептична людина, наука і підтверджені факти становлять основу мого світогляду. А навчання в медичному довело скептицизм до найвищого рівня. Так-так, я та людина, яка читає новини на офіційних сайтах, переглядає передвиборчі програми і закон України перед виборами та проти безцільного використання антибіотиків. Принеприємна.
Дл мене книга не відкрила абсолютно нового світу. Але я люблю книжки на дану тематику, тому пройти повз не змогла. Та ще й з такою приємною знижкою на Книжковому Арсеналі. О, а ще я дуже хотіла книгу від @art.huss бо їхні книги - це неймовірна естетика.
Книга проста, цікава і доступно написана(ну і вітання гарному перекладачеві). Структуровано та обґрунтовано підходить до питання фейкових новин, постправди та маніпуляцій дійсністю. В кінці книги є використана література та відповіді на всі посилання. Плюс оформлення від видавництва неймовірне. Рекомендую ознайомитись для загального розвитку кожному, без вказівки на вік.
Read
April 19, 2021Como introducción a un fenómeno tan en boga y tan peligroso como la posverdad este libro de McIntyre es inmejorable. Aporta claves, realiza una pequeña historia y genealogía del concepto y la realidad que describe, define y se muestra siempre crítico y beligerante contra un término y un fenómeno que no nos pueden dejar indiferentes. Como decía en la reseña del libro anterior de Harry Frankfurt, Sobre la charlatanería y Sobre la verdad, esta es una de esas obras que te transmite amor por la verdad como algo a lo que podemos aspirar, que estimamos y que necesitamos como individuos y como miembros de una sociedad. Siempre con contundencia, McIntyre nos recuerda que los hechos existen e importan y que no debemos equiparar a quienes ofrecen teorías a partir de los mismos y aquellos cuyas teorías se basan en presentimientos, emociones o "versiones alternativas", mucho menos en la arena política y con cuestiones tan urgentes como el cambio climático o tan espinosas como la violencia o la migración. No sé si la verdad es revolucionaria, pero después de leer este libro me queda claro que la posverdad es siempre reaccionaria y que por ello aferrarse a la realidad, por limitado y sesgado que sea nuestro entendimiento, es la única estrategia para combatirla.
July 19, 2018
Overall, I enjoyed this book. I especially enjoyed the author's synopsis of social psychology terms that I was fuzzy on... like confirmation bias, etc. His analysis of Trump and our current political quagmire is also compelling. However, McIntyre's misunderstanding of Postmodernism and overt hostility towards it's influence on western culture is bizarre. There is plenty of Postmodernist thought that is worthy of many an eye-roll but his presentation of some basic principles of that -ism is severely flawed. He also conflates terms like "reality" and "truth" and "facts" which to me are not interchangeable. That just seems like sloppy philosophy.
May 18, 2023
kitapla ilgili notlarımı düzenleyince bir şeyler yazabilirim diye düşünüyorum. kitabı okumam beş ay sürmedi de ben beş ayın dört buçuk ayı kitabı okumadım.
May 26, 2023
لم يقنعني هذا الكتاب
ولم أجد فيه بحث حقيقي عن الحقيقة
ربما يمكن اختزال الكتاب بالقول أنه يهاجم اليمين الأمريكي
ولم أجد فيه بحث حقيقي عن الحقيقة
ربما يمكن اختزال الكتاب بالقول أنه يهاجم اليمين الأمريكي
July 8, 2019
I read in English but this review is in Bahasa Indonesia
Buku Post-Truth yang merupakan tulisan Lee McIntyre ini berbeda dengan tulisan Matthew d'Anconna yang pernah aku baca beberapa waktu lalu. Dalam Post-Truth, McIntyre memperkenalkan terlebih dahulu apa itu "post-truth" dan bagaimana manusia di era sekarang memaknai kata tersebut.
McIntyre sering sekali menggunakan kisah Trump yang berhasil menjadi presiden Amerika Serikat sebagai studi kasusnya. Narasinya menuturkan betapa Trump dan tim suksesnya bisa menjalankan "post-truth" hingga memengaruhi orang lain dan memenangkan pemilu di Amerika Serikat sana. Hingga akhirnya, kata "post-truth" pun menjadi Word of the Year di tahun 2016 oleh Oxford Dictionary.
Dari situ, McIntyre menuliskan bagaimana bisa ada yang namanya "post-truth". Ia pun memilih untuk membahasnya ke dalam beberapa bagian dan secara bertahap. Ada bagian dimana McIntyre mengatakan bahwa "post-truth" ini sebenarnya sudah ada sejak di dalam otak kita. Bahwa manusia tidak serasional yang kita bayangkan (atau harapkan) selama ini. Ada yang namanya "cognitive bias" yang membuat kita merasa bahwa informasi yang kita dapatkan adalah tidak/kurang benar. Padahal itu semua hanyalah sangkalan pribadi tanpa ada landasan data/teori.
Eits, namun jangan salah. McIntyre juga mengatakan bahwa adanya "post-truth" adalah hasil dari pemikiran "post-modern" dimana mereka menjadi lebih skeptis dan kritis terhadap informasi yang diterima. McIntyre juga menyuplik dari teori-teori milik Lyotard, Foucault, dan Derrida. Bahwa teks dan wacana diindikasi memiliki relasi kuasa dan dominasi. Dan dari situlah, "post-truth" berasal.
Tidak hanya itu saja, McIntyre punya 2 bab sendiri yang membahas tentang "information silo". Yakni dimana media dan bahkan kita pun sebagai konsumen informasi bisa memilih sendiri kanal-kanal mana yang ingin dibaca/didengar/ditonton. Itulah yang juga memperbesar ruang berkembangkanya "post-truth." Diperkuat pula dengan kehadiran media sosial yang lagi-lagi mempermudah pengguna untuk memilih siapa saja yang ingin diikuti.
Post-Truth karya Lee McIntryre berisi lebih banyak referensi. Pada setiap bab, pasti ada catatan yang bisa ditelusur lebih jauh oleh pembaca. Bahkan di akhir buku, McIntyre juga memberikan rekomendasi bacaan lebih lanjut untuk mereka yang ingin mendalami topik ini.
Terima kasih kelas pertama Philosophy Underground (5 Juli 2019)! Karena kelas tersebut membahas buku ini sebagai pemantik diskusi, aku jadi tertarik untuk membacanya lebih jauh.
"In this, they underline that the prefix "post" is meant to indicate not so much the idea that we are "past" truth in a temporal sense (as in "postwar") but in the sense that truth has been eclipsed -- that it is irrelevant."
Buku Post-Truth yang merupakan tulisan Lee McIntyre ini berbeda dengan tulisan Matthew d'Anconna yang pernah aku baca beberapa waktu lalu. Dalam Post-Truth, McIntyre memperkenalkan terlebih dahulu apa itu "post-truth" dan bagaimana manusia di era sekarang memaknai kata tersebut.
McIntyre sering sekali menggunakan kisah Trump yang berhasil menjadi presiden Amerika Serikat sebagai studi kasusnya. Narasinya menuturkan betapa Trump dan tim suksesnya bisa menjalankan "post-truth" hingga memengaruhi orang lain dan memenangkan pemilu di Amerika Serikat sana. Hingga akhirnya, kata "post-truth" pun menjadi Word of the Year di tahun 2016 oleh Oxford Dictionary.
Dari situ, McIntyre menuliskan bagaimana bisa ada yang namanya "post-truth". Ia pun memilih untuk membahasnya ke dalam beberapa bagian dan secara bertahap. Ada bagian dimana McIntyre mengatakan bahwa "post-truth" ini sebenarnya sudah ada sejak di dalam otak kita. Bahwa manusia tidak serasional yang kita bayangkan (atau harapkan) selama ini. Ada yang namanya "cognitive bias" yang membuat kita merasa bahwa informasi yang kita dapatkan adalah tidak/kurang benar. Padahal itu semua hanyalah sangkalan pribadi tanpa ada landasan data/teori.
"Some of this is based on a straightforward misunderstanding (or cynical exploitation) of how science works, based on the mistaken idea that if scientist would just gather enough evidence they could prove a theory."
Eits, namun jangan salah. McIntyre juga mengatakan bahwa adanya "post-truth" adalah hasil dari pemikiran "post-modern" dimana mereka menjadi lebih skeptis dan kritis terhadap informasi yang diterima. McIntyre juga menyuplik dari teori-teori milik Lyotard, Foucault, dan Derrida. Bahwa teks dan wacana diindikasi memiliki relasi kuasa dan dominasi. Dan dari situlah, "post-truth" berasal.
Tidak hanya itu saja, McIntyre punya 2 bab sendiri yang membahas tentang "information silo". Yakni dimana media dan bahkan kita pun sebagai konsumen informasi bisa memilih sendiri kanal-kanal mana yang ingin dibaca/didengar/ditonton. Itulah yang juga memperbesar ruang berkembangkanya "post-truth." Diperkuat pula dengan kehadiran media sosial yang lagi-lagi mempermudah pengguna untuk memilih siapa saja yang ingin diikuti.
Post-Truth karya Lee McIntryre berisi lebih banyak referensi. Pada setiap bab, pasti ada catatan yang bisa ditelusur lebih jauh oleh pembaca. Bahkan di akhir buku, McIntyre juga memberikan rekomendasi bacaan lebih lanjut untuk mereka yang ingin mendalami topik ini.
Terima kasih kelas pertama Philosophy Underground (5 Juli 2019)! Karena kelas tersebut membahas buku ini sebagai pemantik diskusi, aku jadi tertarik untuk membacanya lebih jauh.
April 5, 2021
Цікава книжечка. Про те, як виникла практика заперечення наукових досліджень. Як емоційне ставлення до фактів витіснило їх достовірність. Про зародження штучного сумніву, коли брехню почали вважати одним з різновидів правди.
Сподобався момент про приколіста Алана Сокала :)
Проте, як на мій смак, впродовж книги забагато Трампа. І крейдований папір не люблю.
Але теза: "просто неможливо, щоб еволюція дозволила нам опиратися правді вічно" - обнадіює :)
Сподобався момент про приколіста Алана Сокала :)
Проте, як на мій смак, впродовж книги забагато Трампа. І крейдований папір не люблю.
Але теза: "просто неможливо, щоб еволюція дозволила нам опиратися правді вічно" - обнадіює :)
September 18, 2019
4.5
Un gran libro que le da un marco teórico al tema de la posverdad.
Me encantó! Aprendí mucho sobre el tema y trataré de usar los tips o herramientas que da para evitar caer en las garras de la posverdad
Un gran libro que le da un marco teórico al tema de la posverdad.
Me encantó! Aprendí mucho sobre el tema y trataré de usar los tips o herramientas que da para evitar caer en las garras de la posverdad
May 8, 2021
Цікаво було читати про історичний контекст появи постправди, особливо роль постмодернізму й ідеї про соціальну сконструйованість реальності і знання.
July 10, 2023
"عندما نصبح غير مقيدين بالحقيقة ،نصبح غير مقيدين بالواقع"
كنت اعتقد ان الكتاب سيتناول قضية تجاوز الحقيقة و تعمد إهمالها من الناحية الفلسفية ، ليس لأن النبذة في غلاف الكتاب توحي بذلك فقط بل لأنه أيضا من منشورات معنى الدار المهتمة بالقضايا و النقاشات الفلسفية ، وللأسف الكتاب لم يركز على القضية من حيث هي فلسفياً بل أختار أن يناقشها سياسياً ، فالكتاب يركز على تأثير إهمال الحقيقة عمداً في السياسية الأمريكية المعاصرة حصراً ، مما جعله كتاب في السياسة الأمريكية لا في الفلسفة كما يبدو لأول وهلة .
" ليس الهدف من الموضوعية إتاحة وقت متساو بين الحقيقة و الزيف ، بل تسليط الضوء على الحقيقة "
لا يعني ما سبق ان الكتاب خالٍ من الفائدة الفلسفية لكنها محدودة واغلبها في المراجع و الإحالات .
May 19, 2019
Great intro to the topic, especially by not only linking it to emotional biases but to post-modern thinking. The Orwellian calls to action at the beginning of each chapter set the seriousness of the task ahead and enhance the credibility of its final chapter. Highly recommend having this book physically on everyone's shelves.
March 23, 2020
An interesting quick read, but nothing terribly surprising or new. Disappointingly, it was light on hope or suggestions for how we move past this post-truth era when so many are committed to retaining it, but that could be more a recognition of reality than a failing on McIntyre's part. Humans need to evolve cognitively a whole lot more before I feel confident in our political systems again.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 263 reviews