What is truth? There are about 2 types of truths, namely scientific truths and literative truths.

When a object is pressed against a flat surface, then there will be an equivalent amount of reactive force, and a physician probably can work out the formulae to find out the values. The laws of physics care little about the contexts and the person who performs the actions. We can say these kinds of truths being objective, as they solely depend on the objects.

Yet scientific truths are not the entirety of all things we perceive as truths. Some truths can only be obtained from other people. Even something of a scientific truth cannot be used directly in some settings. In a court hearing, an objective scientific truth still requires some form of validity establishment. An expert in science is usually called forth and his own opinions will be given in testifying whether the proposed scientific phenomenon holds true.

And thus we sometimes have to work with these ideas. A scientist who has only been in the field for a few months is likely not called forth as a witness, but rather an experienced forensic scientist will usually testify for or against a case. In the law of science, the truth doesn’t differ from whoever speaks it, no matter it is the young scientist who has joined the industry less than a year, or the experienced veteran physicist. And thus we understand that in some disciplines or settings, the authority of an author is the main determining factor of the truthfulness of the claimed knowledge. The authority seems to be related to both the relavance of the subject matters and the time he has spent studying the subject. We can call these truths subjective truths as they depend on the authors who claim the truths.

In summary, some knowledge, especially scientific ones, depends on the scientific principles, correctness and precision of the procedures you obtain the results and are unrelated to the identity of the one who claims the knowledge. On the other hand, some knowledge depends on how closely related the author is with the knowledge claimed.

We will name them verifiability and authority correspondingly. And they are the true nature of truths.

However the truths that politics claims never work on these axes. A seemingly benign tool was thus invented – “Fact Checking”.

Prima Facie, Fact Checking seems to work well with scientific truths, if we simply don’t care about anything beneath the superficials.

Facts are never the same as the truth. Facts are something akin to data (the given) and measurements. They constitute to the readings, indications of what has happened. Based on facts, truths and deceptions can both be conjured, nonetheless, most deceptions are based on facts. Thus by controlling the justification of “Fact Checking”, whoever calls forth fact-checking basically gets granted the rights to freely dismiss or reinforce any idea by interpreting “facts” differently, oblivious to the above understanding of truths.

The next step is of course to hijack the word “science”.

Science refers to “things about to be understood”. The word was invented in Renaissance from Latin to denote things to be understood by the average people instead of to be taught by the churches who dominated Europe at the time.

The scientific priciples call for asking questions from observationg, making a hypothesis and finding out the truth from some forms of standardised procedures. For as long as science has existed, it has always been objective, that no matter who performs the experiments, as long as procedures are carried out correctly, the results should stand. People are welcome to challenge claims by others, and that whoever performs the challanges never matter.

And suddenly, “trust the science” was uttered. It is a sentence of contradiction. Science is never to be trusted, as the essence of the word encourages trying out yourself, and reproducing the same results as long as procedures are followed. Yet certain chosen scientists have been granted authority to the matters they speak, and people become conspiracy theorists to challenge science. I cannot highlight more of the irony.

By controlling how truths are established, the media have become the very tools of control, from back when media were used to empower a revolution.

And by distorting the word “science”, only sponsored knowledge gets to accepted as canonic in people’s understanding of the world. It means that any knowledge, despite validated by either verifiability or authority depending on the disciplines, as long as not sponsored by the powerful elites, will simply be dismissed out of hands.

And at this time, some outlandish claims fabricated out of pure fiction and romanticisation of urban legends get added to the “Conspiracy theories”, obfuscating actually strange observations of suspicious behaviours performed by the elites that people have taken note. Thus, dismissing the actual evidents of any mysterious, occultic or esoteric connections people have made about the club of elites who run the show behind the curtains. And thus, the cabinet of the occultic worshippers remain behind the scene, pulling the strings of puppets.

Nonetheless, the idea of sponsored knowledge is a dangerous precedence. Sponsored knowledge basically has the same meaning of the Ministry of Truth, or state-controlled of knowledge and ideas. 1984 is never about Communism, but about how the whole world is operated alike.

As we already have a set of canonic sponsored knowledge, it is impossible to tell whether the physical world is as purely physical as we think, and how much of the spiritual world is actually influencing us, and how much participation of occult is taking place amongst the elites, as we simply dismiss any idea coming out of there.

If the patterns hold, the manipulation of such knowledge is similar to the way Christian theology, legalism, and classism have been manipulated to hide the actual powerholders from the frontal scenes.

At this point, I have more questions than answers, as all things should be, as explorers of truths.