Post-truth and its epistemological challenges: the role of logical honesty in research

This article examines the phenomenon of post-truth through the lens of the metaepistemological principle of logical honesty. The term “post-truth” has become a key marker in contemporary debates in philosophy, political theory, and the sociology of knowledge, yet its conceptualization often suffers from internal inconsistencies. The works of Matthew D’Ancona (Post-Truth, 2017) and Lee McIntyre (Post-Truth, 2018) offer authoritative approaches to understanding post-truth as a cultural and political phenomenon, but they reveal methodological weaknesses that undermine analytical rigor. The aim of the article is to demonstrate how the principle of logical honesty can diagnose and correct these weaknesses, enabling a more consistent investigation. Logical honesty integrates three dimensions: cognitive rigor (logical consistency and avoidance of performative contradictions), ethical responsibility (sincerity, avoidance of rhetorical manipulation, impartiality), and reflexive self-correction (critical evaluation of one’s own epistemological assumptions). The analysis shows that McIntyre frames post-truth both as a cultural epoch, in which facts lose normative authority, and as a deliberate strategy of political manipulation. This dual framing generates a performative contradiction: while facts are described as socially undermined, the normative critique presupposes their objective status. D’Ancona, in turn, dramatizes post-truth as the “triumph of the intuitive and tribal over the empirical and rational”, producing a persuasive but overly hyperbolized narrative. Logical honesty addresses these tensions by distinguishing the ontological and social status of facts, replacing rhetorical dramatization with empirical case studies, and explicitly articulating the researcher’s epistemological commitments. The article demonstrates how applying the principle of logical honesty makes the analysis of post-truth more coherent, reflexive, and ethically responsible, while providing a methodological framework for integrating logic and ethics in epistemological inquiry. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References