Truth Decay: The Erosion of Common Understanding and the Need for Scientific Reality
By Jett Dunlap
Introduction: A Fractured Reality
Recently, I came across two articles that highlight a deeply troubling trend. One stated that it is “brave” of Apple Maps to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico by its established name. The other condemned Google Maps for calling it the Gulf of America.
This phenomenon is not an isolated event but part of a much larger problem one that threatens our ability to function as a society. It represents yet another crack in our framework of collective agreement. If even the name of a body of water is now a matter of ideological dispute, how will we navigate the future both literally and figuratively? What happens when more essential concepts, like history, biology, or even language, continue to follow the same trajectory?
The erosion of knowledge, facts, and shared reality has created a fluidity that renders everything subject to interpretation. What was once a common foundation of understanding rooted in logic and reason has been increasingly replaced by a framework where subjective perceptions override empirical truth.
The Erosion of Scientific and Objective Truth
A study from the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley discusses how the blurring of facts and fabrications fosters widespread acceptance of propaganda. This phenomenon, often called “truth decay,” makes it harder for large segments of the population to differentiate between reality and misinformation (UTRGV).
This is also evident in the reinterpretation of fundamental biological concepts. The discussion surrounding gender carries profound social implications and deserves thoughtful debate. However, confusion arises when discourse is permitted to redefine foundational scientific principles that were once universally agreed upon.
A 2021 controversy at Harvard illustrates this tension. Dr. Carole K. Hooven, a lecturer in Human Evolutionary Biology, faced criticism from Harvard’s DEI department for using the terms “male” and “female” in her medical instruction. She was ultimately pressured to resign. Despite her frustration over what she called “ideology infiltrating science,” she maintained, “We can be caring and sensitive to the needs and identities of everyone while also adhering to biological reality.”
The problem is not change itself but the absence of a common framework for debate. When everything is subject to reinterpretation, how do we establish a shared agreement on what is real?
The Role of Academia in Rewriting Knowledge
This phenomenon extends beyond biology. Academia has played a significant role in shifting epistemic norms, contributing to the erosion of a shared foundation of truth.
Over the past two decades, universities have increasingly revised historical teachings to reflect modern social perspectives rather than historical consensus. Notably, Harvard itself presents a contradiction. On one hand, its DEI department pressures professors like Dr. Hooven to align with ideological positions, while on the other, a Harvard University study warns of the dangers of this very approach, illustrating how shifts in epistemic norms serve distinct political agendas. If history is rewritten every few years to align with contemporary ideology, academic institutions will lose coherence, and a shared understanding of the past will become unattainable.
In this shift, science and objective knowledge are no longer viewed as neutral arbiters in these debates. Instead, they are discarded when they conflict with ideological preferences.
The Political Battle Over Reality
As reinterpretation seeps into politics, it manifests in historical revisionism, the renaming of landmarks, and the rewriting of national narratives.
When ‘Columbus Day’ was renamed ‘Indigenous Peoples’ Day,’ many saw it as necessary to acknowledge past injustices. However, it also set a precedent: once historical designations become flexible, any future administration regardless of political alignment can impose its own perspective. And in fact, they already have: in the same executive order that altered the Gulf of Mexico’s name, ‘Mount Denali’ is being reverted (again) to ‘Mount McKinley,’ undoing the Obama administration’s decision to restore its original name.
If historical narratives can be reshaped based on who holds political power at a given moment, they become tools of manipulation rather than reflections of reality.
The Loss of Philosophical and Ethical Anchors
Ancient philosophers Socrates and Plato warned against this kind of relativism. They argued that truth must be anchored in something beyond the shifting sands of personal belief. Plato’s Theory of Forms suggested that concepts like justice and truth must have a stable, unchanging reality beyond individual perception. Socratic dialogue was structured around questioning assumptions to arrive at universal understanding.
Yet today, we see a trend toward abandoning this framework entirely—rejecting not only scientific reality but philosophical reasoning as well.
Despite modern disputes, most would agree the United States was built on a foundation of Judeo-Christian values. This does not mean religious doctrine should dictate policy, but it underscores the moral principles that shaped our ethical and legal frameworks. The tradition of placing a hand on the Bible before testifying in court is not about enforcing religious belief; it is about affirming that truth and accountability exist beyond personal perception.
Our legal system depends on distinguishing right from wrong, ethical from unethical, truth from falsehood. If you doubt the influence of religion on American society, just look at your currency. The phrase “In God We Trust” is a profound statement. It represents a collective agreement on reality, giving significance to a mere piece of paper. Without that shared understanding, it’s just paper.
My argument is not that Judeo-Christian values should dictate today’s society, but rather that they provided the foundation for our moral, legal, and governance structures. Socratic dialogue and Platonic ideals sought to establish objective principles for truth, ethics, and justice—principles that shaped structured societies. Yet as modern culture distances itself from both religious and philosophical frameworks, no adequate secular replacement has emerged to instill the same level of cohesion and responsibility. If this decline continues unchecked, its consequences will extend beyond ideological disarray to widespread social unrest, instability, and increasing existential despair.
The Danger of Cyclical Revisionism
The greatest political minds in American history understood that true progress requires both stability and transformation. Abraham Lincoln did not dismantle the Constitution to abolish slavery; he worked within it, leveraging amendments rather than dismantling the system. The civil rights movement did not seek to eradicate the nation’s foundational legal structure; it used that framework to demand its full realization. Franklin D. Roosevelt may have fundamentally reshaped the role of government during the Great Depression, but he did so through existing mechanisms.
Every time the country has undergone political evolution, progress has come not through reactionary revisionism but through disciplined reform. Constantly rewriting policies, legal precedents, and cultural norms based solely on shifting political power is not progress it’s a cycle of reversal. If each administration undoes the previous one’s policies and cultural shifts, true advancement remains out of reach. Instead of moving forward, the nation is caught in an endless loop of dismantling and rebuilding, never allowing any reform to take root long enough to be evaluated.
Conclusion: A Call for Stability and Truth
The only way forward is for citizens, institutions, and leaders alike to step beyond ideological dogma and work within the structure of governance to create lasting improvements. If genuine progress is the goal, we must recognize the biases within our chosen political affiliations and resist allowing personal beliefs to override the greater good.
Without a collective agreement on reality, society fractures. Progress can only be real if it is anchored in stability—not reactionary shifts. If history, science, and truth are rewritten with every political administration, eventually, there will be no history, no science, and no truth left.