According to many journalists and philosophers, our political landscape is experiencing a knowledge crisis: a "post-truth" state where emotions and personal beliefs take precedence over facts. This is evident in fake news, conspiracy theories, echo chambers, alternative facts, and emotional manipulation on online forums. Natascha Rietdijk has investigated how post-truth communication also affects our ability to navigate an information-saturated world. She will defend her dissertation on November 29.
This ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood relies on various attitudes and skills, such as (self)confidence, open-mindedness, and the capacity to identify reliable sources. The decline in these qualities is not just a problem for knowledge but also for democracy. Politicians can lie shamelessly and without consequences, while citizens struggle to agree on facts, let alone on policies.
In her dissertation, Rietdijk uses four philosophical studies of post-truth practices to demonstrate how these qualities are undermined in various ways: (1) post-truth rhetoric, (2) populism and echo chambers, (3) false balance in traditional media, and (4) emotional manipulation on online platforms. These practices make it more difficult to acquire or share knowledge.
For example, they sow confusion, foster distrust or negative emotions, and obscure evidence. Moreover, in each of the studies, a powerful individual or institution achieves these outcomes by restructuring debates and manipulating attention.
The central findings of the dissertation provide insights into today’s political challenges. They offer a starting point for reflecting on responsibility and resistance. Finally, they can guide further research on manipulation, self-confidence, and the psychology of political knowledge.