On post-truth and correctness over the Web

We propose the extension of previous work done on “the Web as a tool for proving” [2] to suggest a basis for a meta-theory for post-truth. We believe that such a theory cannot be based on the current philosophical theories about truth such as the correspondence theory, the coherence theory, the pragmatic theory or the consensus theory [8]. Neither can be based on the constructivist approach that truths in general are social constructions. “Post-truths” are often considered in the literature as real existing entities [7]; the only aspect that takes place in the real world is the processes of assigning truth-values to assertions. Our view is that the truth-assignment processes involve at least two agents – the claim initiator and the truth interpreter - which can be persons, groups of persons or even machines. The same kind of approach applies for Web-based proving which occurs at a particular time and place and involves particular people, some of them can act as administrators. Underlying the truth-assignment processes and the proving processes over the Web, we have some kind of social event. The nature of the Web allows the participation of people who have not necessarily particular skills as members of a certain group. Web proving has been studied [2] as a particular type of Goguen's proof events [3][4]. Proof events, are social events that involve particular persons that form social groups of experts with particular knowledge and skills. These groups are open and have no internal hierarchical structure but they usually have at least one administrator who acts as an overseer of the correctness of the proving processes. In any case, a proof event apart from involving specialists, involves mediating objects such as spoken words, data, videos, scientific papers, etc. Web-based proof-events have a social component, communication medium, prover-interpreter interaction, interpretation process, understanding and validation, historical component, and styles. By truth-interpretation we understand the determination of the definition or meaning of the signs that are fixed by the language or semiotic code of communication used for the claim initiation or for what is thought as truth- assignment. Interpretation is an active process of interactive nature, as allowed by the open Web architecture [1][2].

The concept of post-truth has received a lot of publicity the last few years [7]. It refers to situations that claims can be accepted on the basis of beliefs or emotions and not of real facts [7] [8] [9]. As a concept, it originates from the study of misinformation and in particular fake news [6] [10]. However, its formal epistemological definition is an open question. In our view we need to re-approach the process of truth-assignment within the Web technology, in order to develop a proper theory on post truth based on agents within a social environment. Many social agents that can contribute towards this goal. Still, two of them play the most crucial part in this direction: the claim initiator and the truth-interpreter, both seen as integral parts in the social approach to truth-assignment processes. This theory needs to be accompanied by the necessary socio-theoretical approach regarding the concepts of correctness and proving. Mathematical logic uses mainly mechanical methods, such as rules of inference and validation, and in a sense considers that most of the truth-related components of a logical system can be constructed as finite sequences of such rules. This approach leaves out the social dimension of the truth-assignment process as well as the social dimension of proofs, including their histories, attempts to arrive at a true conclusion, motivations, misleading interpretations, etc. Truth-assignments have much greater diversity than what most of logicians would easily accept.

Any post-truth statement depends much on the processes used for the truth assignment. Depending on which processes are used, the output differs. To conclude that “an assertion is true”, a broader notion of correctness is desirable. In the literature, correctness refers to whether or not an argument or proof follows a logical path from premises to conclusions [12]. We suggest that, apart from this logical correctness, we need a rule-based and a morally-based conception of correctness to encapsulate accurately the social aspects. Correctness of an action over the Web needs to re-defined as an action that is not only logically acceptable but complies with these kinds of social norm [11]. The open architecture of the Web, facilitates certain social behaviors and prevents others, thus it provides novel features of the truth assignment process far beyond the traditional approach to argumentation within a natural language.