The Ascendance of the Lie

I believe it is anchored in two outlooks that I will denote as relativism and perceptionism (without wishing to tread on philosophers' toes who may be using these terms differently).

By relativism I mean something that has little to do with Einstein (who has legions of supporters and a minority of opponents, and both sides have only a very tiny band who understand his theory in the first place). I mean the idea that what is black to you is white to me, we both have our own little truth, we are both right, because everything is relative and is what in modern babble is called a "value judgement."

This is patent nonsense and contradicts the very definition of truth.

Granted, truth is not absolute. It is what is supported by all known evidence, and is liable to be adjusted, in rare cases even upset, by new evidence. But there can be only one truth at a time. It is true, I claim, that the acceleration of free fail toward the earth is 9.81 m/sec^2? + -0.5 m (where I made the tolerance large mainly to silence quibblers about centrifugal force, air resistance, etc.). If someone stands on his head in a windowless room and claims the acceleration is negative (upwards), he is not a truth seeker, but a nut, a politician, or a Green, for what little difference there may be between them. Yet the outrageous phrase "You have to look at the facts from their point of view" has become commonplace. The truth is true from all points of view.

Closely related is perceptionism, by which I mean that feelings rate more than facts. Nuclear power is perceived to be more dangerous than other ways of generating power, perceived by people who have ascertained nothing, do not even mean "dangerous for the same energy delivered," but just feel that way for the good reason that they have been made to feel that way. And, of course, politicians and other power wielders cater to irrational feelings, the facts be damned.

There may be more underlying causes for the triumphant ascendance of the lie. But these two will explain a lot more than the abuse of science. They have smudged, and eventually may eliminate, the difference between moral right and wrong. Tolerance of opinion used to be a virtue, tolerance of parasitism used to be a vice. The two have been inverted. Universities tolerate only politically correct opinions, while loafing at taxpayers' expense is being glorified and actively supported with your money.

Burglars suing the burgled for injury, smokers suing tobacco companies for getting cancer, Viet Nam veterans suing the Agent Orange manufacturers (the unexposed Navy had a higher cancer incidence), in short, the "Where did we fail Patty Hearst?" syndrome and the urge to substitute the government for self-responsibility, are all results of the "You gotta see it their way" perceived "truth."

But there is only one truth; imperfect maybe, but only one. And truth, not feelings, must guide the actions of individuals and public decision makers. The penalty is the death of a civilization.