‘Post-truth’ may be OK in politics, but not much else

The Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year for 2016 is “post-truth.” “Posttruth” is an adjective defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’

“The compound word post-truth exemplifies an expansion in the meaning of the prefix “post” that has become increasingly prominent in recent years. Rather than simply referring to the time after a specified situation or event — as in post-war or post-match — the prefix in post-truth has a meaning more like “belonging to a time in which the specified concept has become unimportant or irrelevant.” This nuance seems to have originated in the mid-20th century, in formations such as post-national (1945) and post-racial (1971).

It has also become associated with a particular noun, in the phrase “posttruth politics.”

So much for politics, and I would like to offer that this term should not find roots in business. As I think more about the term, I feel it should not find roots in the military, medicine or any other area where the truth is critical to the success of an event.

The importance of truth was presented to me in very stark terms within the past week. My sisterin-law was hospitalized with a critical case of pneumonia. The medical teams at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center and the Pennsylvania Hospital provided my sister-in-law with superb medical care.

They provided my family with timely and accurate information throughout the time she was with them. They diagnosed her condition based upon their combined years of training and experience. They conducted tests with the latest equipment to determine the severity and location of the illness. Based upon the information, they developed treatment protocols that were moving in a positive direction.

Because of the severity of her illness, multiple teams of physicians were involved with her care. Finally, the medical team offered a positive direction; however, the neurological team presented a fact-based forecast of her mental capability. The family made a courageous decision based upon my sister-in-law’s living will. Needless to say, regardless of our reliance of facts, this has been a very emotional and prayerful time for our family.

You can be assured that the family checked with other physicians and various internet sources to confirm the accuracy of the presentations by the medical staff. Their recommendations were spot on.

We live in a time where the accuracy of information can be substantiated in relatively short order. We rely on professionals, regardless of their disciplines — from plumbers to physicians — to allow us not to take the time to research every decision we make. The important fact for me is that once I am presented with inaccurate information from a source, I can no longer accept what the source presents without additional verification, preferably from an unaffiliated source.

Years ago, I worked with a program manager who had a sign above his desk, that read, “In God we trust, all others we audit.”