First things first, what is truth anyway?

Actually, truth is an illusion. Yes, we can be pretty sure sometimes, but never actually 100%. The thing is that we have to make decisions everyday, and for that we do not really need to be 100% sure all the time. Actually, 90% is quite decent. Or even 80%. Sometimes all we can do is guessing, and that is also fine. But what is interesting is that we do not systematically check if every piece of information we receive is true or false.

If we did, we would not be able to do anything. That is why we have developed cognitive shortcuts to make our life easier. For example, we are not overly critical when we receive a piece of information that is coherent with what we have already believe to be true. If it makes sense according to what I already know is true, then I should not waste much of my time and energy looking for proof that this is also true. It also works the other way around: if something does not fit with what I believe to be true, then I will be extra-skeptical about it. Most of the time we rely on these cognitive shortcuts to decide what is true and what is not. Again, that is fine. However, it means that one way or another we are constantly navigating uncertainty.

You can look at this uncertainty from two different perspectives, and it is up to you to choose which one makes more sense:

Truth is universal. Two opposing things cannot be true at the same time. However, we are not capable of knowing with absolute certainty which thing is true and which ones are not. Truth is a personal judgement. It does not exist on its own. Every person has their own truth, so there can be multiple —even opposing— truths at the same time.

How do societies ‘organize’ truth?

Actually it does not matter that much which perspective you chose. In both cases, we as a society have to make some sort of agreement to establish truth and form a community. If you believe in the first perspective, we have to agree on the methods to uncover truth and assign different degrees of validity to claims that cannot be proved. On the other hand, if the second perspective makes more sense to you, we have to collectively organize a system that accommodates different, opposing truths. This is basically why we have science and democracy. And yes, both can coexist —indeed, they do. This happens when we collectively decide that some things are to be considered as in the first perspective, and some need to be treated as in the second one.

Anyway, societies need to organize truth in some way. Modern societies traditionally had ‘truth institutions’ in the form of media organizations, trusted by the majority of the population. Before that, we had religious institutions and oral tradition. But now we have social media and suddenly these institutions are put on the same level as everyone else — they have been massively eroded.

Vertical truth: the good old days were not so good

We may fall for the romanticized memory of the golden days when solid truth institutions did their work and society came together around shared truth and facts. But those days were not so golden, actually. That is just a model, a vertical model of truth. In this model, ‘truth institutions’ control the communication channels so they silence opposing views. Citizens are treated like passive consumers in the truth chain production, but nothing else. Indeed, propaganda and fake news have existed for a long time, because these institutions sometimes did not do their work in an honest manner. So no, that model was not good either. Is the alternative chaos? Maybe, but hopefully not.

Democratizing truth

‘Truth anarchy’ is what we are experiencing right now in most parts of the world. It is not something new, it has happened before. But every time is different and this time happens to be amplified by technology and social media in particular. The role change of citizens — from passive consumers to active producers of truth — has shattered our previous social organization of truth. That is why we are now talking of post-truth all the time, because there is a vacuum left behind by these eroded institutions. However, these periods of ‘truth anarchy’ do not usually last long. Censorship is a recurrent instrument used by endangered truth regimes in order to reestablish order, but it is works more like a band-aid, and eventually it falls too. So what is next?

That is up to us. However, there is an ‘opportunity window’ open. Now, citizens have the capability to empower themselves and leave behind the role of “passive consumer”. This is actually wonderful news for the immense majority of us, but it also means that we have a great challenge ahead. Power vacuums do not last long, and if we do not come up with a new truth system, someone else will. Tech companies may try to replace traditional media and reestablish a system of vertical truth. The good news? They have a great challenge ahead too, since it is very difficult to have a vertical truth system and active citizens at the same time.

In conclusion, the time is now. Right now we all have a bit a power in the production of truth. So the question if whether we can create a system that succesfully organizes this new reality. In my opinion, a sort of democratic system is the most obvious way forward. I do not think it is going to be easy —actually, quite the opposite— but it has never been easy and we have always managed to come up with a solution. Will we ever vote the media? Maybe it will not look like that. However, some sort of democratic social arrangement will definitely have to be implemented if we do not want to go back to the not-so-good old days.