Which truth actually matters?

[JA]

The 2016 election pitted two versions of truth against each other, with the takeaway, as described by members of Trump's team, being that truth is relative. So it raises the question of which interpretation of truth is the correct one. The truth that is emperical and objective, capable of being falsifiable and formed by experts and professionals? Or the truth of one's convictions, or the convictions of one who is most thoroughly assured of their correctness? For example, is anthropogenic climate change real, as is the consensus of professionals within the scientific community? Or is it correct to doubt their consensus on the basis of one's convictions, whether they stem from religious faith, personal doubt, or information gathered from sources outside the scientific community?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Two versions of lies was more like it.

[JA]

Two versions of lies was more like it.

I do not doubt that lies were told on the Clinton side, yet their deference to expert consensus or at least expert opinion was undeniable. Trump habitually lied, yet his lies were either embraced or tolerated by a populace skeptical of experts analysis. They were not equal in this regard. Period.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For expert consensus to mean something, the critical mass of experts must themselves be at least interested in the pursuit of truth. There was a time when that appeared to be true, but I doubt it to be the case anymore. Bellesisles and Arming America comes to mind as an example, when historians initially acclaimed a deeply dishonest piece of work that was later revealed to be fraudulent in much of its research.

[RI]

Both matter in different contexts, though objective truth is in no way determined by professionals, who are as trapped by their own subjective values and social settings as anyone else.

[Xing]

The "truth" that matters to 80% of Americans is the one that proves them right. Anything else is a conspiracy, hoax, or evidence of bias by the corrupt crooked establishment/media/left/right/etc.

[SATW]

     For expert consensus to mean something, the critical mass of experts must themselves be at least interested in the pursuit of truth. There was a time when that appeared to be true, but I doubt it to be the case anymore. Bellesisles and Arming America comes to mind as an example, when historians initially acclaimed a deeply dishonest piece of work that was later revealed to be fraudulent in much of its research.

Exactly. For objective truth to be objective we need a proper definition and we need a commitment to that definition.

[Beet]

The objective truth, as I argued before the elections, is that emotion always trumps everything else. If I believe a man is looking out for me and my interests, I truly don't care if he shoots someone on fifth avenue. And if the perception that he did, whether 'true' or not, is going to prevent his success, then as far as I'm concerned, he didn't.

[Murica!]

But what is the nature of truth?

[Figueira]

Both matter, but I'd say the first matters more.

To use your example, climate change will still happen whether people believe in it or not.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Both matter in different contexts, though objective truth is in no way determined by professionals, who are as trapped by their own subjective values and social settings as anyone else.

[DC Al Fine]

Both matter in different contexts, though objective truth is in no way determined by professionals, who are as trapped by their own subjective values and social settings as anyone else.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"What is truth?"
-Pontius Pilate

[bagelman]

In politics it's always been the latter.