[sebastianconcpt]

From that article:

Our task is to create new processes for determining what counts as a shared, socially meaningful, mutually understood “truth.” Obviously, this requires more than making sure that every fact is checked.

It's recognizing with double quotes "truth" as a different thing than Truth. Hence it's a confession that their task is to "create a new process for determining what counts as 'truth'" and not genuine fidelity to reality. This means that the process they claim to desire will have, by design, the backdoor of the shared illusion effect. In other words they want to be marketeers of a shared feeling of truth. That's not science, not professional journalism, that's Propaganda. They accuse people of using facts to manipulate the public imaginary and they propose to solve that problem by becoming that people themselves imposing their own manipulation of facts.

Here is an idea: You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Let reality show you Truth regardless of how that makes you feel and restrain yourself from wanting to impose worldviews on anybody. Nature is infinitely wiser than you (and all of us).

[tablespoon]

> It's recognizing with double quotes "truth" as a different thing than Truth. Hence it's a confession that their task is to "create a new process for determining what counts as 'truth'" and not genuine fidelity to reality.

No one has access to "Truth" (with a capital T), the best you can do is try to get closer, and it seems quite honest of them to acknowledge that.

> In other words they want to be marketeers of a shared feeling of truth. That's not science, not professional journalism, that's Propaganda. They accuse people of using facts to manipulate the public imaginary and they propose to solve that problem by becoming that people themselves imposing their own manipulation of facts.

> Here is an idea: You can have your own opinions but you can't have your own facts. Let reality show you Truth regardless of how that makes you feel and restrain yourself from wanting to impose worldviews on anybody. Nature is infinitely wiser than you (and all of us).

The biggest marketeers of "Propaganda" are those that claim they have access to the capital-T truth. If it feels like you have access to capital-T truth, you're almost certainly trapped inside an ideological construct.

That said, ideological constructs aren't necessarily bad things, since society simply could not function without the shared "truth" they allow for.

[sebastianconcpt]

You pointed out details that I actually share.

I have no solution for the culture war.

Still, we know that even while we don't have access to capital T truth, nature has the rules in place to make the Natural Selection of our paradigms to compete until one of these ideological constructs converge to capital T truth forcing the rest to reveal themselves as false truths that appeared to be valid up to a point by certain individuals in certain epoch of history.

[ace_of_spades]

You are making very big assumptions here. Think about it, what if the universe is a dynamical system? There would never be any truth only systems which work or are broken according to some set of criteria. Moreover, which systems work would also be a function of their context/environment. Nothing would ever be revealed because dynamical systems can always change (also see problem of induction). Things just work or don‘t work according to your interpretation. I would recommend to look up Pragmatism as a philosophy that elaborates on this line of thinking. It‘s quite enlightening and puts a lot of things we are talking about today into perspective.

[mistermann]

> Still, we know that even while we don't have access to capital T truth, nature has the rules in place to make the Natural Selection of our paradigms to compete until one of these ideological constructs converge to capital T truth forcing the rest to reveal themselves as false truths that appeared to be valid up to a point by certain individuals in certain epoch of history.

This seems like a fairly ambitious claim, is it a formal idea in philosophy or some other field, and does it happens always/usually or only sometimes?

And also: is it Actually True?