> Universities have pushed post-modernism since the 60s which is the precursor for the deprecation of truth.

This is wildly overstating the influence of post-modernists or universities in general. There is a war on objective reality but it grew out of religious (creationism, anti-feminism/LGBTQ) and industrial (pollution) sources, not a bunch of French intellectuals in parts of some universities, and that started long before post modernism. Even if you think they’re equivalent, there’s simply no comparison for the number of people reached by mass media versus famously opaque writings discussed by many orders of magnitude fewer people.

▲

qcnguy 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Pollution doesn't make academics use terms like my truth, your truth or "indigenous ways of knowing".

The essay is written by academics who ignored all the evidence that their precious institutions are none of the things they claim to be. Universities don't care about truth. Look at how much fraud they publish. The head of Harvard was found to have plagiarised, one of her cancer labs had been publishing fraudulent papers for over a decade, the head of Stanford was also publishing fraudulent papers, you can find unlimited examples everywhere.

Universities have made zero progress on addressing this or even acknowledging the scale of it because they are immersed in post-modernist ideology, so their attitude is like, man, what even is truth? Who can really even say what's true? It's not like science is anything specific, riiiiiight, that's why we let our anthropology department claim Aboriginal beliefs about the world are just as valid as white western man's beliefs. Everyone has their own truth so how can fraud be a real thing? Smells like Republicans Pouncing!

	▲	acdha an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Pollution doesn't make academics use terms like my truth, your truth or "indigenous ways of knowing". First, it absolutely does those first two things: climate change denial has been a half century of pretending that scientific truths, even those confirmed by e.g. Chevron’s own employees in the 70s, were just some subjective opinion to be argued with. The modern right-wing attacks are founded on the legacy of trying to exempt policies from rational examination and are very much about constructing your own personal truth which is just as valid as the experts. Secondly, even to the extent that you’re not grossly exaggerating, you’re describing things which not even a majority of academics believe. Maybe there is someone in the anthropology department who really does believe in the caricature you portrayed but they don’t represent a majority of even their university. What you’re saying is like saying everyone on HN are crypto grifters trying to get rich quick, simply asserting without evidence a claim which is known to be false when applied to a large group.