Truth 4.0

Over the years, I have returned several times to the concept of “truth”.  In 2008, I blogged about “Truth 2.0,” where I explored the challenges of determining truth and reliability of information in the age of Web 2.0, prompted by Monica Hesse’s Washington Post article entitled “Truth: Can You Handle It?”.

I discussed how students increasingly relied on crowd-sourced information without critical evaluation, and extended this concern to early adopters of Web 2.0 technologies.  I reflected on my own experience of suggesting blogs as research sources for graduate students, questioning the validity and representativeness of such sources. The post highlighted the potential echo chamber effect of personal learning networks and online associations, drawing attention to digital divides, the risk of operating in information silos, and the implications of these issues around the pursuit of truth in an era of information saturation.

Then, 9 years later, I questioned “What is Truth?”  This post explored the concept of truth in the digital age, contextualizing it within the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the rise of “post-truth” politics. It describes a lesson plan for EDU 6323 on web-based search, emphasizing the importance of critical thinking and digital literacy, comparing and contrasting different search engines and investigating website ownership, aiming to prompt students to question the reliability and bias of online information. The post referenced contemporary discussions on truth from business leaders and academic publications, highlighting concerns about media bias, transparency, and the oversimplification of complex issues by search algorithms. It concluded by stressing the importance of critical thinking in navigating the digital landscape and determining the validity of online information, reflecting again on the challenges of discerning truth in an era of information overload and emotional appeals.

Two years later in 2019, again drawing on a Masters level edtech class I was teaching, I posted about “Truth 3.0.”  This post revisited the concept of truth in the digital age, framed within the context of this technology and learning course. It connected contemporary issues of misinformation and “post-truth” politics with earlier concerns about digital literacy and critical thinking. I drew in danah boyd’s 2018 video You Think You Want Media Literacy…Do You?, the persistence of online echo chambers, and the challenges of determining truth in a networked world. Using examples from current events and social media, I highlighted the ongoing struggle to navigate information accuracy and bias, emphasizing the crucial role of educators in fostering critical thinking skills and promoting dialogue about truth and epistemology in the digital era. I concluded by calling for networked conversations to address these complex issues, acknowledging the limitations of technological solutions alone and the need for active engagement in redefining how we construct and verify knowledge in our interconnected society.

All of this was swirling through my mind as I watched events unfold following the recent Presidential debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump.

No…that is not an image from the July debate!  DALL-E visualized a debate between an elderly politician and a cyberneutic individual in this way…and that might have been more fun than watching the current President falter in the real debate.

Bryan Alexander discussed his views on the debate, views I appreciate and tend to agree with.  But I wondered how GenAI might respond.  I fed his thoughts into Claude and asked Claude how a Democrat and a Republican might respond.  Claude’s summary was as follows:

A Democrat in her 40s might:

1. 1. Express concern about Trump’s potential return to office and its impact on higher education policies, especially regarding climate change research, international students, and diversity initiatives.
   2. Appreciate Alexander’s analysis of Biden’s statements on student debt relief and jobs not requiring college degrees.
   3. Worry about the potential for campus unrest and federal intervention under a Trump presidency.
   4. Support continued efforts to address climate change in academia, even if federal funding is reduced.
   5. Be alarmed by the possibility of weakening Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and its effects on academic staff and faculty.
   6. Agree with Alexander’s personal sentiments of being “aghast, horrified, depressed” about the debate outcomes.

A Republican in his 40s might:

1. 1. View Trump’s potential presidency more positively, seeing it as an opportunity to reform higher education.
   2. Appreciate Trump’s focus on jobs that don’t require college degrees, viewing it as validation for alternative career paths.
   3. Support stricter immigration policies, even if they might reduce international student enrollment.
   4. Be less concerned about climate change initiatives in academia, possibly seeing them as unnecessary or overly politicized.
   5. Agree with leaving abortion decisions to states, potentially supporting the idea of ideological diversity among institutions in different states.
   6. Be less worried about potential campus unrest, possibly viewing stronger federal intervention as necessary for maintaining order.
   7. Disagree with Alexander’s personal negative reaction to the debate, potentially seeing it as biased against Trump.

Both might find common ground in:

1. 1. Interest in how the political climate will affect higher education funding and policies.
   2. Concern about the rising costs and reputation issues in higher education, noting that these weren’t addressed in the debate.
   3. Curiosity about how emerging political issues like DEI and LGBTQ+ rights will be handled in academia under either administration.

It’s important to note that these are generalized perspectives, and individual views within each party can vary significantly.

I think that it is interesting to gather this type of AI feedback to objectively view the debate and the upcoming election.  As an optimist, I think things will  work out in the long term…but it is going to be an interesting next few months!

I wonder what “truth” will emerge from these months?

{Graphics: Jean-Francois Chenier, EvidenceUnseen, DALL-E, Meyer}