Post-Truth (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series)

*Post-Truth* (The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series) – A Graduate-Level Exploration of the Modern Crisis of Truth** In an era where information overload, digital echo chambers, and political polarization dominate public discourse, *Post-Truth* by Lee McIntyre stands as an essential guide to understanding one of the most pressing issues of our time. As part of The MIT Press Essential Knowledge series, this succinct yet profoundly insightful work takes on the contemporary crisis of truth, dissecting the roots, implications, and philosophical underpinnings of a world that increasingly seems to prioritize belief over fact. For graduate students in fields ranging from philosophy to political theory, communication, and sociology, this book offers a clarifying lens through which we can understand the dynamics of truth, misinformation, and the ethics of knowledge in a post-truth world. ### Unmasking the Post-Truth Phenomenon: An Intellectual Journey At the core of McIntyre’s *Post-Truth* is the idea that we are living in a moment when traditional concepts of truth and objective reality are being systematically undermined. For graduate students studying ethics, philosophy, and political theory, this work offers an invaluable exploration into the nature of truth in the contemporary world. McIntyre doesn’t merely describe the phenomenon; he rigorously **analyzes the cultural, political, and philosophical forces** that have given rise to the post-truth era, urging students to think critically about the consequences of such an intellectual shift. McIntyre’s argument is both sobering and enlightening. Drawing from the fields of philosophy, psychology, and political science, he demonstrates how **emotion, identity, and ideology** have become powerful drivers in shaping our perceptions of truth. As the lines blur between objective fact and subjective belief, McIntyre warns of the dangers of epistemic relativism, where "truth" becomes a matter of personal preference rather than rational inquiry or empirical evidence. For graduate students in an ethics class, McIntyre’s work raises profound ethical questions: **What is our responsibility in defending the truth in an era where facts are contested?** What does it mean to engage in public discourse when shared facts no longer serve as a foundation for mutual understanding? This book pushes students to reflect not just on the nature of truth, but on the **moral obligations** inherent in protecting it. ### The Rise of Misinformation: A Political and Social Crisis One of the most compelling aspects of McIntyre’s analysis is his exploration of how post-truth thinking has **infected politics and public life**. The political landscape is littered with **alternative facts**, deliberate misinformation, and “fake news,” making it increasingly difficult for citizens to distinguish between reality and rhetoric. McIntyre demonstrates that this is not a mere passing trend but a **structural issue** that threatens the very foundations of democracy. For graduate students studying political ethics, McIntyre’s work is invaluable in examining the **political consequences** of the post-truth era. The rise of populism, the spread of conspiracy theories, and the undermining of expert knowledge are all byproducts of a society where **facts are no longer sacrosanct**. The book provides a thorough analysis of the **moral responsibility** that lies with politicians, the media, and the public in combating the dangerous effects of misinformation. In a graduate ethics class, McIntyre’s insights offer a much-needed opportunity to interrogate how **truth manipulation** can undermine democratic institutions and destabilize societies. Students are invited to consider how ethical principles—such as accountability, transparency, and integrity—can be applied to restore a **shared commitment to facts** in public discourse. McIntyre’s work underscores the importance of **ethical leadership** in this struggle, urging a return to rational dialogue grounded in evidence-based reasoning. ### Truth, Objectivity, and the Role of Experts A key philosophical question that McIntyre explores is the relationship between truth and objectivity. In a world dominated by post-truth rhetoric, what does it mean to be **objective**? How can we trust expertise when **scientific consensus** is increasingly questioned, and those in power cherry-pick data to fit their agendas? For students in graduate programs focused on ethics, this question is pivotal. *Post-Truth* urges readers to confront the **value of expert testimony** and the **integrity of scientific inquiry** in a world where expertise is often dismissed as “elitist” or “biased.” McIntyre’s examination of the **scientific method** and its role in uncovering truth challenges students to think critically about the delicate balance between **empirical knowledge** and **public perception**. In a graduate class, McIntyre’s arguments offer a timely reflection on the **ethics of knowledge dissemination**. What happens when scientific knowledge is obscured or disregarded for political gain? How do we safeguard intellectual integrity when misinformation is deliberately spread to undermine trusted sources of authority? These questions are at the heart of the ethical challenges presented by the post-truth world, and *Post-Truth* serves as an indispensable text for grappling with them. ### The Psychological Dimensions of Belief While the political and philosophical aspects of *Post-Truth* are certainly captivating, McIntyre also delves into the **psychological mechanisms** that make people so susceptible to misinformation. Cognitive biases, the need for cognitive closure, and the influence of social media algorithms all contribute to the spread of falsehoods and the rejection of evidence-based reasoning. For graduate students in fields such as psychology, sociology, or communications, McIntyre’s exploration of the **cognitive roots** of post-truth thinking provides essential insights into why people cling to **false beliefs** in the face of contradictory evidence. His analysis of **confirmation bias**, the echo chamber effect, and the **backfire effect** illuminates how deeply entrenched ideologies can warp perceptions of reality, creating a dangerous disconnect between **fact and belief**. In a graduate classroom, these psychological insights prompt vital discussions about **educational responsibility** in combating misinformation. How do we equip individuals with the critical thinking tools necessary to resist cognitive biases and make informed decisions? *Post-Truth* provides the theoretical and practical foundation for fostering **media literacy**, **critical thinking**, and **civic engagement** in the face of widespread misinformation. ### A Call to Action: Restoring the Truth In the final chapters, McIntyre offers a call to action: How can we reclaim truth in a world increasingly defined by post-truth rhetoric? The answer, he suggests, lies in **reaffirming our commitment to reason, evidence, and dialogue**. The restoration of truth requires not just the efforts of intellectuals, scientists, and political leaders but a **societal shift** toward a renewed respect for facts and shared knowledge. For graduate students, *Post-Truth* functions as both a warning and a roadmap. It reminds us that the crisis of truth is not just an intellectual issue—it is an **ethical and political challenge** that demands immediate attention. Students are encouraged to reflect on their own role in **defending truth**, **challenging misinformation**, and **creating spaces for open dialogue** in their professional and personal lives. ### Conclusion: A Must-Read for Graduate Scholars In conclusion, *Post-Truth* by Lee McIntyre is a must-read for any graduate student engaged in the study of ethics, philosophy, political theory, and the social sciences. It offers a **timely**, **rigorous**, and **thought-provoking** exploration of the post-truth era, providing students with a wealth of insights into the complex dynamics of truth, misinformation, and belief in the modern world. McIntyre’s work challenges students to think critically about the role of truth in shaping society, the ethical responsibilities of individuals and institutions, and the vital need for **rational discourse** in addressing the many challenges of the post-truth world. This book is not only an invaluable resource for graduate-level coursework—it is also a **call to action** for anyone concerned with the integrity of knowledge, democracy, and public life. *Post-Truth* is more than just a diagnosis of the present moment; it is a blueprint for the future of truth, reason, and intellectual integrity. Whether you’re engaged in political theory, philosophy, or any other field, McIntyre’s book offers critical lessons for navigating the complexities of our post-truth society with wisdom and responsibility.

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. —George Orwell” (how did he know?) “The phenomenon of “post-truth” rocketed to public attention in November 2016, when the Oxford Dictionaries named it 2016’ s word of the year. After seeing a 2,000 percent spike in usage over 2015, the choice seemed obvious.” Wow! First I heard of this. “The Oxford Dictionaries define “post-truth” as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’” Yep, I definitely, absolutely have heard of this! “Post-truth was foreshadowed by what has happened to science over the last several decades. Once respected for the authority of its method, scientific results are now openly questioned by legions of nonexperts who happen to disagree with them. It is important to point out that scientific results are routinely scrutinized by scientists themselves, but that is not what we are talking about here.’’ McIntyre makes a lot of good points in this work. However, the foundation of his argument — unfortunately — seems closer to sand than rock. Why? This appeal to ‘authority of science’ and trust in the ‘scientific method’ will only convince ‘true believers’ in science and scientists. Why weak foundation? Well . . . remember it required thousands of years for Aristarchus of Samos (310 - 230 BC) and his proposal of a sun centered solar system to be adopted. Aristotle made more disciples than Aristarchus. Scientific consensus prevented truth. More modern examples . . . No idea was more scientifically certain than Newton’s universe. Changed not only science, but politics, religion, philosophy, culture and started modernity. What then? Faraday, Maxwell and Einstein replaced that with general relativity. Newton was wrong. ‘Luminiferous ether’ was the foundation of physics until early twentieth century. Completely discredited. And of course, now quantum electrodynamics, which nobody can explain. Then we have — dark energy and darker matter. Absolutely no clue! Paul Feyerabend’s “Against Method” and Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’’ both provide abundant reasons to doubt ‘scientific authority’. What is so odd, is that Mcintyre understands this very clearly. For example . . . “Some of this is based on a straightforward misunderstanding (or cynical exploitation) of how science works, based on the mistaken idea that if scientists would just gather enough evidence they could prove a theory. But this is not how science works: no matter how good the evidence, a scientific theory can never be proven true. No matter how rigorously it might have been tested, every theory is “just a theory.” Because of the way that scientific evidence is gathered, it is always theoretically possible that some future piece of data might come along and disprove a theory. This does not mean that scientific theories are unjustified or unworthy of belief. But it does mean that at some point scientists must admit that even their strongest explanations cannot be offered as truth, but only strongly warranted belief based on justification given the evidence.’’ Right! In fact, in the last page . . . “It is hard to try to depoliticize factual questions, especially when we feel that the “other side” is being ridiculous or stubborn. It is probably helpful to realize that the same tendencies exist within us too. And there is a lesson here, which is that one of the most important ways to fight back against post-truth is to fight it within ourselves. Whether we are liberals or conservatives, we are all prone to the sorts of cognitive biases that can lead to post-truth. One should not assume that post-truth arises only from others, or that its results are somebody else’s problem. It is easy to identify a truth that someone else does not want to see. But how many of us are prepared to do this with our own beliefs? To doubt something that we want to believe, even though a little piece of us whispers that we do not have all the facts?’’ Well said! This is a humble, realistic analysis. Nevertheless, he can’t seem to apply this to popular (his) beliefs such as evolution or climate change. There a lot of serious, sincere, educated, intelligent scientists who find considerable evidence against these ideas. (See: “Chill, a reassessment of global warming theory’’ by Scientist Peter Taylor; “The Climate Caper: Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming’’ by Garth W. Paltridge. Atmospheric Scientist) One problem with entrusting authority is confusing ‘fact’ with ‘conclusion’ . . . “Eventually, when it makes a difference to us, we are capable of resolving our cognitive dissonance by rejecting our ideological beliefs rather than the facts. Indeed, there is good evidence that this can occur not just in the lab but in the real world as well. The city of Coral Gables, Florida, sits at nine feet above sea level. Scientists project that in a few decades it will be under water.’’ ‘Scientists project’, note a ‘projection’ is a conclusion — not a ‘fact’. It may or may not become a ‘fact’ in the future. Mcintyre processes ‘projections’ as equal to ‘facts’. This is too bad, since his presentation of cognitive bias, motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, etc., is outstanding. 1 What Is Post-Truth? 2 Science Denial as a Road Map for Understanding Post-Truth 3 The Roots of Cognitive Bias 4 The Decline of Traditional Media 5 The Rise of Social Media and the Problem of Fake News 6 Did Postmodernism Lead to Post-Truth? 7 Fighting Post-Truth Mcintyre really did his research . . . “Commenting on the philosophical thought of Friedrich Nietzsche (who wrote one hundred years before postmodernism, as one of its precursors), Alexis Papazoglou describes this sort of radical skepticism about the notion of truth in the following way: (Nietzsche important. . .) “Once we realise that the idea of an absolute, objective truth is a philosophical hoax, the only alternative is a position called “perspectivism”—the idea there is no one objective way the world is, only perspectives on what the world is like. Think of this as the first thesis of postmodernism: there is no such thing as objective truth. If this is right, though, then how should we react when someone tells us that something is true? Here we arrive at the second thesis of postmodernism: that any profession of truth is nothing more than a reflection of the political ideology of the person who is making it.’’ (Mcintyre seems to battle back and forth — truth or no truth?) “Michel Foucault’s idea was that our societal life is defined by language, but language itself is shot through with the relations of power and dominance. This means that at base all knowledge claims are really just an assertion of authority; they are a bullying tactic used by the powerful to force those who are weaker to accept their ideological views. Since there is no such thing as “truth,” anyone who claims to “know” something is really just trying to oppress us, not educate us.’’ Yep, modernity has a real problem. This sort of reminds me of the epistemological disputes in the Middle Ages over the connection of ‘faith’ and ‘reason’, and the dispute about ‘universals’ and ‘nominalism’. They grasped the problem. Ten page bibliography (linked) Dozens of notes end of each chapter (linked) Great!

“Post-Truth" by Lee McIntyre is a compelling and timely exploration of the phenomenon of "post-truth" and its implications for our society. McIntyre expertly navigates the landscape of misinformation, fake news, and the erosion of trust in facts, providing readers with a thorough understanding of how we arrived at this juncture and what it means for the future. One of the book's strengths is McIntyre's ability to clearly define and contextualize "post-truth." He traces its roots through historical and philosophical perspectives, linking contemporary issues to broader patterns of human behavior and societal change. This approach not only deepens the reader's comprehension but also highlights the seriousness and complexity of the problem. McIntyre's writing is accessible yet profound, making complex ideas understandable without oversimplifying them. He engages with a wide range of examples, from political discourse to scientific skepticism, illustrating how post-truth has permeated various aspects of our lives. The author's insights into the role of social media and the internet in amplifying falsehoods are particularly relevant and thought-provoking. However, the book sometimes falls short in offering concrete solutions to counteract the post-truth trend. While McIntyre provides valuable strategies and emphasizes the importance of critical thinking and education, readers may find themselves wanting more actionable steps to take in their daily lives. Overall, "Post-Truth" is an essential read for anyone seeking to understand the dynamics of our current information landscape. It is a sobering reminder of the importance of truth and the need for vigilance in preserving it. Lee McIntyre has crafted a thought-provoking and necessary work that will resonate with readers long after they finish the last page.

Conspiracy theories, some ridiculous, are believed or at least taken seriously. There’s anti-vaxxers, climate change denial, a President lying repeatedly and followers flat out denying it, and then the flat earthers too. We have a problem, we’ve always had a problem with the truth, but now it has become a crisis. There are many reasons for this, cognitive biases, the Dunning-Kruger effect, tribalism, the partisan political climate, religious superstition, and then the people and propagandists taking advantage of our weaknesses in the internet era. Political propagandists such as Limbaugh has effectively set themselves up as a source of truth in opposition to the rest American media. On page 3 & 4 a journalist is interviewing Newt Gingrich who flat out states that facts don’t matter to him, it is what people feel is true that matters. This is a good definition of post-truth; the "Contention that feelings are more accurate than facts, for the purpose of the political subordination of reality." The book appears to be taking political sides when the author state that fake news and false beliefs are a bigger problem among American conservatives. The statistics tells us that and based on what I’ve seen as an independent “outsider” it is quite easy to believe. The book offers some advice for how to deal with post-truth problems. When people are faced with facts that contradict their beliefs, they commonly don’t reevaluate their beliefs, which would be logical. Instead they double down and defend their belief so that the contrary evidence ends up strengthening their belief (the backfire effect). That seems backwards and hopeless. Despite that keep telling the truth and presenting the evidence because the backfire effect is temporary. I have personal experience that this works. This is a timely and quite interesting book and it is a quick read. I highly recommend it. Let us all intentionally seek the truth not confirmation of your belief.

The author defines post-truth as the "Contention that feelings are more accurate than facts, for the purpose of the political subordination of reality." He uses the history of the cigarette industry as a pattern people employ to attack existing science: set up your own experts; use the idea that it is "controversial" to demand equal time to established facts; use the media; and do lobbying, funded by those with financial interests. He uses climate change as an example, although he mentions instances like the vaccine-autism controversy and intelligent design. He goes into some of the cognitive biases that make us susceptible to fake news, such as discomfort at believing two contradictory things at once; giving more weight to the information that agrees with our ideas; and the tendency to dig in further if our belief is challenged. One thing that was interesting to me was the "Dunning-Kruger effect," where our lack of ability in something causes us to overestimate our skill--and the people with the least ability tend to think they have the most skill! Another nugget was that conservatives' brains are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than liberals. Of course, he includes the information silos and the vast choice of (often unvetted) information available. Remedies he suggests are to attack untruth where it occurs (don't assume that people couldn't believe that, no matter how weird); flood with the truth (people have a tipping point where the facts sink in); and remember that graphs and pictures can be more persuasive than narrative. The writing style and the examples the author used made for interesting reading. He persuaded me that feeling that something is right can outweigh the facts. I FEEL IT!

The NY Times Book Review in 2022 presented this book based on “truth” as an actual defining factor when understanding facts. In that spirit, I wanted to read what an established instructor of ethics and highly respected student (albeit professor) of modern day philosophical theory had to say about truth in our modern world. What is first discovered given this books interpretation of “post-truth” theory - has more to do with when it was published before digging into the use of facts to prove the books hypothesis. Throughout the book, while well researched, a certain slant towards political embrace distorts the otherwise very interesting context of the books intentions. In the acknowledgments - the author makes a very telling confession. He says, “In my analysis I will therefore strive to be honest, but I cannot promise to be balanced.” His explanation for this comment is presented in the next sentence when he proclaims: “When the mistakes fall disproportionately on one side, it is no respect for the notion of truth to pretend that everything is even.” Herein lies the comforting example of saying in my view: “This is my view and I’m sticking to it.” What constitutes a good read is often challenging when much has been written to dispute the findings presented in this book as facts. It is important to note, the publication year of this book is 2018. Two years prior to what will inevitably go down in world history as being our population’s most troubling era. A two-year gap when reading about truth in the 21st century is akin to betting on a game knowing the outcome the day before it’s played. A book embracing a stance about truth reliant on a liberal perspective contradicts itself as a valid definition of any proposed theory. In the text of the books best definition of post truth theory, the word “propaganda” is utilized to illustrate how easily truth can be manipulated and orchestrated to present a storyline. In recent years, a vast majority of social media outlets, all newspapers for the most part as well as every magazine treading water to stay relevant have adopted an agenda. Truth in this scenario is based more so on whatever the sort after audience for each outlet wants us to believe. The author chose to follow what is considered a popular and trendy topic of politicized dissension on campuses than bother to distinguish anything new on the evolution of lost truths. Examples of merit are well documented with regard to the Tobacco industry’s deception of truth related to the effects of cigarettes causing cancer. An argument few can dispute today. Sadly, the hornets nest surrounding “climate change” is depicted with his own aforementioned statement: “mistakes fall disproportionately on one side” - in that his conclusions fall victim to one of science’s most simplistic theories related to sight and sound. In this theory, a student having not done his homework assignment, stands in front of a classroom needing to present a hypothesis. He looks out of a window and notices the sound of thunder in the distance. He presents his hypothesis “It will rain.” Filling the classroom with a series of incidents related to memories of when it rained during his lifetime - he waits patiently for the thunder followed by lightning to present a storm. When the first drops of rain appear on the window panes- he walks to the window, sticks out his hand - presents it as wet and declares his hypothesis is correct. On the topic of “climate change” or “global warming” or whatever it is being labeled today - I wanted to fully enjoy the philosophical study of declining “truthisms” in our modern world - the author chose to stick his hand out a window and present it as being wet. The conclusions danced around in what it called an academic study depends more so on preaching to a selective and highly subjective portion of our society. As if the choices were hand picked off of an apple tree - bitten into or tossed aside without concerns for opposing viewpoints. To have a scientific value - it is recommended keeping one’s political opinions to one self. Since the publication of this book (2018) - the world has experienced widespread panic on par with Sci-Fi films and books. All in all, credit is deserved for attempting to present “truth” as a worthy topic of modern day skepticism. In an old Johnny Cash song entitled “What is Truth” the lyric goes: “ You better help the voice of youth find What is truth? And the lonely voice of youth cries What is truth?” It’s a perplexing topic of discussion on every subject. While this book has its moments of actual truth oriented factual information-it often falls victim to the author’s interpretation of reality and dislike of the other side he adamantly opposes. Had he chosen to keep politics out of the study, he may have won readers for his next book. The hypothesis presented on the back cover: “How we arrived in a post truth era, when “alternative facts” replace actual facts, and feelings have more weight than evidence.” Gets lost in translation - primarily due to the authors want to be embraced by the one side refusing to listen to reason. Godspeed to those who champion causes relying on single mindedness without a willingness to accept they may be proven wrong.

Why are "fake news" and "alternative facts" on the rise? Why is it that truth doesn't seem to matter any more? In this timely and thought-provoking book, Lee McIntyre examines the root causes of the "post-truth" phenomenon. Long before Donald Trump ran for president, long before Alex Jones or Fox and Friends, McIntyre saw this problem coming. In previous books, he tried to warn us; now, with careful research, a keen philosophical eye, and rare literary wit, McIntye gives us deep insight into why. Contemporary psychologists call our attention, time and again, to innate cognitive biases; McIntyre takes the diagnosis to the next level, reminding us that willful dishonesty and deliberate propaganda are also major parts of the story. He shows that our current predicament has roots in technical innovation (the internet), corporate propaganda (e.g. tobacco and climate denialism), postmodern evasion (truth is relative), and the religious impulse (pretending to know things we don't really know). A carefully researched and beautifully written treatment of an enormously important phenomenon. Highly recommended!

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

Assessment of the recent U.S. Administrations and elsewhere in the world's actions, policies, rhetorics, prose, and politics.

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

AWESOME

A good read to understand post-truth, it's link with fake news and other terms. Still misses detail on what to do, but provides references to further up the understanding

Un libro tan interesante, que se lo he recomendado a mis dos hijos. Una idea clara de los tiempos en que vivimos y de dónde han salido los problemas de falsedad creciente en que nos movemos y cómo las mentiras se usan sin escrúpulos con fines económicos y políticos.