The ambiguity of truth vs The honest truth

When we talk about truth, we can mean two very different things: something that is empirically demonstrable ("it is raining" – to verify, just look outside), but also something that is consensus-based ("ultra-processed food is unhealthy" – a belief that is widely shared, but also widely contested). Our failure to distinguish between these types leads us to treat both with equal certainty, and that can be problematic.

The debate about fact-checking versus community notes reveals an amusing irony: we all believe it is others that need to be protected from misinformation, while we ourselves can surely tell truth from falsehood. Yet we are all equally susceptible to embracing 'truths' that merely confirm our existing beliefs.

The path forward starts with intellectual honesty: recognizing our own tendency towards belief-based evidence, and recognizing that certainty does not equate truth. This is uncomfortable – it's easier to believe we alone see clearly while others need fact-checkers to guide them.