Rationality and post-truth - The threat to democratic society

Abstract

Two-thirds of Americans get at least some of their news from Facebook and over half get some of their news from Twitter. What has happened to reason? The post-modernists and relativists are in the ascendancy. The great Enlightenment philosopher David Hume said that errors in religion are dangerous but that errors in philosophy are only ridiculous. That is not the case. Rejecting established sources of reason and accepting that belief should have equal sway with fact puts an open, free society in great danger. This paper examines two issues: what is meant by the words "is true"? And the criteria for truth - how can we establish whether something is true or false? The situation is further complicated by the cognitive processes humans used to consider these issues. To determine whether a judgement, a choice, or a decision is likely to be successful, there are two to things consider. First: is the judgement rational - that is, is it coherent with the prevailing paradigm? and second: is the judgement accurate - does it correspond to established, accepted facts? Both are necessary for a sound judgement to be reached but neither is sufficient. But human cognition is flawed - our rationality is bounded and this can lead to serious errors. Bringing these two subjects together - philosophy and cognitive psychology - can give some insight into the nature of post-truth and the implicit threat to our open, democratic society.