What does post-truth mean for a philosopher?

Sean Coughlan Education correspondent

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-38557838

"Post-truth" has come to describe a type of campaigning that has turned the political world upside
down. Fuelled by emotive arguments rather than fact-checks, it was a phrase that tried to capture
the gut-instinct, anti-establishment politics that swept Donald Trump and Brexit supporters to
victory. Oxford Dictionaries made it the word of the year, defining it as where "objective facts
are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief". But
what does this new world mean for academics and scientists whose whole purpose is trying to
establish objective facts?

AC Grayling, public thinker, master of the New College of the Humanities, and Remain campaigner,
views the post-truth world with undisguised horror. The philosopher, awarded a CBE in the New Year
Honours, warns of the "corruption of intellectual integrity" and damage to "the whole fabric of
democracy". But where does he think the post-truth world has come from? "The world changed after
2008," says Prof Grayling - politics since the financial crash has been shaped by a "toxic" growth
in income inequality. As well as the gap between rich and poor, he says a deep sense of grievance
has grown among middle-income families, who have faced a long stagnation in earnings. With a
groundswell of economic resentment, he says, it is not difficult to "inflame" emotions over issues
such as immigration and to cast doubt on mainstream politicians.

Another key ingredient in the post-truth culture, says Prof Grayling, has been the rise of social
media. It's not the soundbite any more, but the "i-bite", he says, where strong opinion can shout
down evidence. "The whole post-truth phenomenon is about, 'My opinion is worth more than the
facts.' It's about how I feel about things. "It's terribly narcissistic. It's been empowered by the
fact that you can publish your opinion. You used to need a pot of paint and a balaclava to publish
your opinion, if you couldn't get a publisher. "But all you need now is an iPhone. Everyone can
publish their opinion - and if you disagree with me, it's an attack on me and not my ideas.

"The fact that you can muscle your way on to the front row and be noticed becomes a kind of
celebrity." "Fake news" on social media became part of the post-election debate in the US - and
Prof Grayling warns of an online culture that can't distinguish between fact and fiction. "Put the
words 'did the' into Google and one of the first things you see is, 'Did the Holocaust happen?' and
the links will take you to claims that it didn't," he says. This process is "corrosive of our
public conversation and our democracy" and he warns of a culture where a few claims on Twitter can
have the same credibility as a library full of research. Appropriately for a philosopher, he
identifies post-modernism and relativism as the intellectual roots "lurking in the background" of
post-truth. "Everything is relative. Stories are being made up all the time - there is no such
thing as the truth. You can see how that has filtered its way indirectly into post-truth." He says
this has unintentionally "opened the door" to a type of politics untroubled by evidence. But hasn't
this always been part of the battle of ideas?

Prof Grayling tells the story of Adlai Stevenson, the unsuccessful liberal contender in the 1952 US
presidential election, who was told: "Mr Stevenson, every thinking person in America is going to
vote for you. And he said: 'Great, but I need a majority.'" But the philosopher argues that there
has been a significant shift beyond the boundaries of election spinning and into something
fundamentally different. He places his argument into a historical perspective, saying the
international landscape is more like the volatile, intolerant era before World War Two. "There are
some really uncomfortable parallels with the 1930s," he says. "These guys have realised you don't
need facts, you just lie."