![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines the post-truth debate and questions the argument that post-modernism and social constructivism is responsible for post-truth and alternative facts, including in climate denial. The article argues that social constructivism is not the problem but rather an epistemological orientation that helps us better understand the rise of post-truth. Toward this end, the essay examines the way empirical findings are translated into political knowledge and the role of science in “truth regimes”. From this perspective, there is no amount of fact-checking alone that will resolve the post-truth problem. The argument is illustrated with the case of climate denial.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. Climate skeptics and deniers are two different groups of doubters who raise questions about climate change, although some of them overlap. Skeptics, unlike deniers, do not necessarily deny climate change but argue that the evidence about the causes is far from certain and call for more rigorous scientific research to determine the factors contributing to climate change.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Frank Fischer
Frank Fischer is a research scholar at both the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, research group on co-creation and policy advice, and Humboldt University, climate and food democracy project, Berlin, Germany. He is the author of numerous books, including Citizens, Experts and the Environment (Duke) and Climate Crisis and the Democratic Prospect (Oxford) and has received the Harold Lasswell and Aaron Wildavsky awards for contributions to the field of public policy. He is also a member of the Executive Council of the International Public Policy Association.