The Truth is Relative

What ends up being true in a democracy is usually a compromise of multiple subjective truths. — Can we live with that?

Last year I got the chance to listen to Austria’s “Mr. Message Control”, a PR guru and head of communications to our former and current chancellor. He gave us very interesting insights into how political headlines were made and currently are made. But he also posed some more philosophical questions about how we consume news and whether what we call news is actually true.

With the speed of technological advancement, especially generative AI, I believe the question is whether we want and can find the truth and nothing but the truth. The other option is to find a way to either live with our individual view of reality or compromise on multiple different views as a subset thereof.

However, the opinion that there is an absolute truth might be obsolete.

The first transatlantic flight was probably only the 67th

“Mr. Message Control” told us a story he found when he was conducting research for his book:

When you google for information about the first transatlantic flight you find stories about a pioneer who managed to successfully complete the first solo flight across the Atlantic. You can find news stories about him, books he published, awards that have been awarded etc.

However, the deeper you dive into the research you realize that the story is not that simple. If you dig deep enough you find various stories about other pilots completing this achievement. The celebrated pioneer might have “only” been the 67th pilot to cross the Atlantic solo.

The point of the story was not to reduce the achievements but to show how this one individual pilot was celebrated as a pioneer and went into history books. It happened because he made efforts, such as giving interviews, writing books, and telling and selling his story.

That is how history is made.

The job of being “Mr. Message Control”

My small home country of Austria is always good for a political scandal. A few years ago we suddenly had a young chancellor who was celebrated. He sold a new way of governing.

Others criticized how he and his “fellowship” took over the political system and established “message control” towards the general public.

Boiled down it is quite easy what they were trying and managed to achieve for a good period of 2–3 years: They placed careful consideration on, planned, and executed a perfect communication strategy. Each day, week, and month were scheduled by topics and which person would communicate which message.

Because even the second party sharing governing responsibility with them stayed in line, journalists would barely ever receive differing opinions. The planned messages became the news.

And since the news only had one story to tell, these stories became “the truth”.

What is the other option?

My opening statement was: “The truth is relative — In a democratic republic what ends up being true is usually a compromise of multiple subjective truths.”

This is most probably and hopefully the way forward in a democracy. However, if we only receive controlled messages, do we retain the view of what is true? Shouldn’t journalists investigate, offer different points of views, and let the public form their opinion instead of typing what they are told?

Among the most prominent philosophers during the 20th century was another Austrian, Sir Karl Popper.

His major contribution to science was the theory of falsification which distinguished between scientific and non-scientific theories. He suggested that scientific theories have potential falsifiers while non-scientific theories lack them.

Very simplified his idea aimed at making sure scientific theories would be challenged enough before stating them as “true” and that they only stayed true until they were falsified again.

Another fascinating belief of his was that a society can remain tolerant if it only becomes intolerant of intolerance.

Now how do we define something as true?

We should take peer-reviewed academic publications as role models, which have been scrutinized, tested, verified, and not falsified (yet).

This process has been proven as a great way to bring us forward and find new truths. However, how do we for instance deal with a news headline claiming something has been achieved by a government?

In our fast-paced world, a general slowdown to take time and look at facts, opposing sides, and finding common ground would produce more truth(s) than the controlled news and social media craziness has brought us in the last ten years altogether.

Being a new writer here, I would appreciate some feedback and a hit on the follow button.

Additionally, I am a certified personal development coach in Austria. Check out my offer if you’d like.