Here we arrive at the second thesis of postmodernism: that any profession of truth is nothing more than a reflection of the political ideology of the person who is making it.

The Oxford Dictionaries define “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

But the tricky part is not to explain ignorance, lying, cynicism, indifference, political spin, or even delusion. We have lived with these for centuries. Rather, what seems new in the post-truth era is a challenge not just to the idea of knowing reality but to the existence of reality itself.

When we open our ideas up to group scrutiny, this affords us the best chance of finding the right answer. And when we are looking for the truth, critical thinking, skepticism, and subjecting our ideas to the scrutiny of others works better than anything else.

In some instances laypersons feel it is in their interest to question both the motives and the competence of scientists. And this is where “science denialism” is born.

Fake news confuses us and makes us doubt whether any source can be trusted. Once we don’t know what to believe anymore, this can be exploited. Perhaps true propaganda comes later—once it doesn’t matter whether we believe it—because we already know who is in charge.

A central concept of human psychology is that we strive to avoid psychic discomfort. It is not a pleasant thing to think badly of oneself. Some psychologists call this “ego defense” (after Freudian theory), but whether we frame it within this paradigm or not, the concept is clear. It just feels better for us to think that we are smart, well-informe

The goal of propaganda is not to convince someone

Tom Nichols explains in his book The Death of Expertise,