Almost anyone can own their own facts or justify criminal conduct, with underlying good intentions. Or perversely, claimed good intentions!?

Economic advice given by a six-time bankrupt with a degree in economics is not advice any rational or sane person would adopt!?

Living in a post-truth world is like living in a world where the inmates have taken over and are now running the asylum.

Or are behind the wheel of a bus, petal to the metal, hurtling toward a precipice and a 2,000-metre drop. And singing at the top of the lungs, row, row, row your boat, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

Or seeing light at the end of the tunnel, which in truth, is the headlamp of the (coal-fired) steaming express loco-motive, thundering in our direction!
Alan B.

Jason,

You cite Ocasio-Cortez:

<<We know that people disapprove of murder and that being killed is not good for the victim, but these facts do not prove that it is wrong. 'Wrong' is just the wrong kind of thing to be subjected to empirical demonstration.>>

And,

<<According to Baggini, anyone doubting the value of human life is a "psychopath (who) lacks not rationality but feeling." Would Baggini apply the same approach in the abortion debate to support the pre-born's right to life I wonder?>>

If murder is not objectively wrong by some objective standard, then how is one going to empirically demonstrate that murder is wrong - morally? This sounds like 'post-truth' nonsense in action.

This is accentuated further by Julian Baggini's relativism that assigns those who doubt the value of human life to that of a 'psychopath' who doesn't have rationality.

On what basis does he value human life other than his definition of that 'value'? He labels those who doubt the value of human life as psychopathic, but what would he call the Qld govt who is asking Queenslanders if euthanasia should be extended to those under 18 years of age? See: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/politics/queensland/queenslanders-asked-if-voluntary-euthanasia-should-be-allowed-for-under-18s-20190214-p50xqr.html

What is the nature of Truth has of course always been the hotly contested perennial question?

In previous times hundreds of thousands of human being were murdered for being "heretics" by the then in power "religious authorities".

What if we are all basically hell-deep insane?

This reference describes the nature of the much hyped Western mind (in particular)
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html

This reference provides a unique assessment of our normal dreadful sanity http://www.beezone.com/thought_and_mind_is.html

This reference titled Truth For Real features 13 essays.
http://www.beezone.com/da_publications/truthfrl.html

Alan B,
thank you for explaining the LNP/ALP policies for this Nation !

Individual: You're most welcome. And you'll like this?
Two criminals escaped justice, by convincing the authorities they were completely around the bend and got out of jail time in an institution for the permanently bewildered.

Where they hatched a cunning escape.

Bill had just received one of those brand new searchlight torches for his B'day. And said to his mate Mick, I'll turn the light on and you can slide down the beam!

@#%&^*JCF! replied Mick, you must think I'm completely bonkers!? I'd get halfway down and you'd switch the #@&^%(!) off!

Daffy:
You and I are the only two sane ones here, and I'm not too sure about you.

Be kind to your fine feathered friends, cause a duck may be somebody's mother.
Cheers, Alan B.

Jason,

<<Miracles are compatible with science in what sense exactly? To a mind willing to accept anything on faith there is no rational limit to what is possible….>>

That statement is loaded with your presupposition of miracles being in the realm of faith. To the contrary, historical investigation of the evidence demonstrates that Jesus turned the water into wine at Cana of Galilee. That is a decision, not based on faith, but by using the criteria of history to determine if the event happened.

All historical investigation, whether it is the life of Plato, the First Fleet coming to Australia, and the miracle of water into wine, is based on historical probability. Since we are hundreds of years removed from these events, historical research only arrives at probability. This applies to the secular and the sacred.

Oxford Dictionaries (2019. s.v. post-truth) defines post-truth as "an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief'".

So is that the way the Australian government determines its policy about border security - ignore the objective facts and go on how the public 'feels' about border security?

How about deciding my vote at the 2019 federal election? Will I base it on my emotional response to a local candidate or the Prime Minister or Opposition Leader?

I would put myself into dire circumstances if I made my political, voting decision on my personal beliefs about a person - without objective examination of the Party's policies and the integrity of the candidate.

Yes, there are some, perhaps many, who make politically correct, post-truth decisions, but I have no plans to go down that route and I'll try to convince my friends to engage with politics at the objective level.

Speaking of 'post-truth', as " .... circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief'", here are a couple of home-grown examples:

* An Aboriginal Stolen Generation: how many cases have been demonstrated in courts, out of the airy claims of 'tens of thousands' ?

One. Bruce Trevorrow, of Meningie, SA. Everybody who claims to be SG has a file which, I presume, they have already taken to a lawyer, but regrettably .....

*. Indigenous Deaths in Custody: currently, around 28 % of all people in custody are Indigenous. Of those in custody, less than 23 % of deaths in custody are Indigenous. There was even talk of counting those two blokes who were drowned in a storm-water drain in Townsville recently, as 'deaths in custody'.

Were they actually in custody ? No.

Were the police even aware of what had happened ? No.

But bend definitions as you like, that's how post-truth works. Both ways, it seems.

Joe