[skissane]

> Could it be that the younger folks are less inclined to acknowledge the existence of objective truth than older generations?

Does anyone really question the existence of objective truth in general? Even those who claim they do, don’t actually act like they do-when it comes to non-controversial factual claims such as “1+1=2” or “Canada is north of the (mainland) United States” or “World War II happened”.

People only really question objective truth when it comes to issues connected to social/political/ideological/ethical/philosophical/etc controversies-on issues distant from those controversies, everyone accepts it in practice.

And I think a lot of people don’t make a careful distinction between the existence of objective truth and our ability to know it. Some people who question the existence of objective truth, what they are really trying to say, is our ability to (confidently) know what is objectively true has been significantly overrated-which is a claim far more worthy of intellectual respect than what they are literally claiming, especially if one restricts the scope of that claim to certain topics.

[thrown_22]

As a simple thought experiment on objective truth: if we are having a debate about objective truth and you say objective truth doesn't exist is it then acceptable for me to beat you to death with a crowbar?

If not then why?

There is an external reality independent of people's thoughts. We have spend so many centuries insulating people from it that they can believe all sorts of nonsense that would have killed them near instantly in previous ages.

[goto11]

A media select what news to report. Even if a news media reports only objective truths, they have been selected subjectively.

[skissane]

The media reports a subjectively chosen mixture of objective truths and objective falsehoods–always has, always will. That's got nothing to do with the question of whether objective truth itself exists or not.