“There is no established, consensus-based definition of ‘post-truth,’” warns Olivier Sartenaer, director of the Department of Sciences, Philosophy, and Society and a member of the ESPHIN Institute (Namur Philosophical Forum). He prefers to describe four trends that, together, shape the phenomenon.

First observation: our relationship with established consensus is becoming more fragile. Ideas that were once marginal now enjoy unprecedented visibility thanks to social media. Second transformation: the line between opinion and knowledge is blurring. “Everyone’s opinion is considered knowledge.” ” Third change: lying has lost some of its symbolic cost. “Until recently, when a political figure was caught lying shamelessly, they had to pay a price—whether electoral or symbolic. Today, lying can even become a sort of badge of honor.”

The fourth transformation, the most subtle, concerns what philosophers call “rhetoric.” “While a liar knows the truth and conceals it, a rhetorician produces discourse to seduce, frighten, or convince, regardless of whether it is true. ” Thus, when Donald Trump claims that one should drink bleach to treat COVID, the most important thing may not be the content of the statement. “Saying that positions him against the elites and gets people talking about him. Is it true? He doesn’t even ask himself that question.”

While “post-truth” is not a legal category in and of itself, Alejandra Michel, a researcher at CRIDS (Center for Research on Information, Law, and Society) within the NaDI Institute (Namur Digital Institute), approaches the phenomenon through what are known as “information disorders.” A key distinction sheds light on the mechanisms at work: “misinformation” refers to incorrect information disseminated without the intent to deceive; “disinformation,” by contrast, implies an intent to manipulate; and “malinformation” is based on true information that has been taken out of context or used to cause harm. In practice, however, these categories remain difficult to distinguish. Intentionally produced false information can be shared in good faith by thousands of people who believe it to be authentic, and its status then changes as it circulates.

From a legal perspective, the issue is all the more delicate because freedom of expression protects both the speaker and the recipient of the information. Should the authors of false information be punished? It’s not that simple: criminalization could backfire on journalists, whistleblowers, or those who disseminate information that is inconvenient for those in power. 

The fight against disinformation cannot, therefore, be solely a legal one. It also requires media literacy, support for quality journalism, and the protection of pluralism. One question remains that the law cannot resolve: when no one seems to regard the truth as a common reference point anymore, what still underpins a person’s credibility?

Part of the answer lies in humor, which has become a dominant form of communication on the web. According to Fanny Barnabé, a lecturer at CRIDS/NaDI, memes, parodies, trolling, and shitposting play such a significant role in digital cultures that they, too, blur our relationship with the truth. 

In classical irony, the speaker says the opposite of what they mean while leaving their listener enough clues to grasp the message’s true meaning. Irony has now lost its transgressive nature because it has become ubiquitous. To continue to surprise, internet users have therefore developed new levels of ambiguity. Today, the lines are blurred: “We no longer know whether a statement is ironic, sincere, or partly both.” This is what is known as post-irony.

A content creator’s credibility therefore no longer rests on their relationship to the truth, but on their authenticity. Fanny Barnabé observes this shift on the streaming platform Twitch, where the relationship between streamers and their community hinges on a sense of direct and sincere connection: awkward moments, spontaneous reactions, and an unfiltered personality are valued more highly than accuracy.

We see exactly this same mechanism at work in politics. Figures like Donald Trump and Elon Musk now use memes, provocation, trolling, and references to gaming culture to speak directly to their audience. Post-irony offers them powerful rhetorical protection. Serious statements can be made in a joking manner, and if the reaction is negative, all one has to do is say, “I was just kidding.” 

Authenticity doesn’t promise virtue; it promises closeness. It means standing with ordinary people, with all their flaws, their anger, and sometimes even their transgressions. Facing off against Hillary Clinton, Trump essentially declared: Yes, the Wall Street system is corrupt—since I make use of it myself. He didn’t promise to put an end to it; he promised to be authentic. 

The political scientist goes further. He questions the very idea that politics is a matter of truth. “Political discourse is not a discourse of truth. That is not its aim.” Its strength lies rather in its internal coherence and its ability to give meaning to lived experience. Trumpism, for example, links economic decline, unemployment, immigration, and a sense of American decline into a single narrative. “Do immigrants eat pets? It doesn’t matter whether that statement is true or false. What matters is that it fits with the other elements in this coherent narrative,” summarizes the political scientist.

For Olivier Sartenaer, the consequences of this new relationship with the truth are not merely rhetorical. “If, for example, one claims that the recommendations of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are merely the ‘religion’ of bourgeois-bohemian environmentalists and that one prefers the popular common sense that favors coal-fired power plants, one creates a climate that becomes uninhabitable. ” The problem here isn’t just being mistaken about a scientific phenomenon; it’s choosing to ignore available knowledge even when the consequences are predictable.

The same mechanism is at work in debates about vaccination. When scientific knowledge gives way to “common sense” or political convictions, collective decisions can have dramatic consequences. “The resurgence of measles in the United States is directly linked to the spread of doubts about vaccines. Today, children are dying from a disease that had been eradicated long ago,” laments the philosopher. 

Beyond poor decision-making, it is the very possibility of living together as a society that is at stake. “To discuss and reach agreement, we need a shared world. If we polarize to the extreme, we lose that shared world. We can no longer understand one another or act together.”

Beyond fake news and conspiracy theories, the “post-truth” and “post-irony” eras thus reveal a profound transformation in our relationship with the shared world. Authenticity versus expert opinion, humor that obscures intentions: the issue is becoming less one of truth and more one of trust. Hence the importance, for researchers, of rebuilding shared spaces through quality information, media literacy, a vibrant civil society, forums for debate, and collective narratives. For without a shared world, it becomes difficult not only to agree on the facts, but also to form a society. One final, distinctly political question remains: can we even combat this obfuscation with “truth” alone? Arthur Borriello believes not, and explains why in the sidebar.

The Truth in Crisis: Disinformation, Critical Thinking, and the Right to Information

A collective work to be published in the fall of 2026 by Larcier Intersentia. This book brings together several contributions, including texts by Alejandra Michel and Fanny Barnabé.

Arthur Borriello, Populism: The Misnamed

University of Brussels Press, “Débats” series.

In this essay, the political scientist examines contemporary uses of the notion of populism and offers a critical analysis of a concept that has become ubiquitous in public debate.

Denis Saint-Amand, Countering Fascist Laughter: Trolling and Resistance

Éditions Rue de l’Échiquier, “Les Incisives” series.

An analysis of the political uses of humor, trolling, and digital cultures, as well as the forms of resistance they can inspire.

Denis Saint-Amand is a qualified researcher at the FNRS at UNamur and president of the Namur Institute of Language, Text, and Transmediality (NALTT)

“The measles vaccine causes autism”: The topic of fake news in the field of health—and specifically regarding vaccination—was one of the subjects discussed during UNamur’s official 2026 academic year opening ceremony. Watch the video of this presentation.

Until the end of the 20th century, heredity was seen by scientists as a matter of genes and DNA transmission. But in recent decades, research has revealed non-genetic transmissions, helping to explain why children on average resemble their parents more than other individuals in a population. These include epigenetic (changes in gene activity without changing the DNA sequence), microbial, hormonal and behavioral transmissions. Some biologists and philosophers now speak of "extended heredity".

"The challenge is to redraw the concept of heredity, going beyond the strictly genetic vision that has prevailed until now", explains Gaëlle Pontarotti. "The aim of my book and my research is to articulate different forms of transmission and to rethink the compatibility between heredity and transgenerational freedom."

For since Greek antiquity, everything suggests that we are locked into a family destiny. But if heredity goes beyond genes, what room for manoeuvre do we have? "The challenge is to find a happy medium between hereditary fatalism and the illusion of omnipotence in the face of our heritage", sums up the researcher.

This new concept overturns our vision of filiation and the status of the individual. We are no longer simply objects determined by causes beyond our control: we are once again actors in what we receive and transmit. It also invites us to reconsider the place of genes in filiation: is the parent fundamentally the one who transmits his or her genetic heritage?

And what if, ultimately, our heritage was also what we chose to make of it?

Cover credit: Éditions Gallimard, book visual Par-delà les gènes.

Olivier Sartenaer's team: Doan Vu Duc, Maxime Hilbert, Charly Mobers, Olivier Sartenaer, Louis Halflants, Andrea Roselli, Gauvain Leconte-Chevillard, Eve-Aline Dubois.

"Several contingent factors enabled the creation of SPiN: the absence of a research structure specifically dedicated to these themes and the almost simultaneous arrival of four young philosophers of science. It's a bit like an alignment of the planets", explains Olivier Sartenaer.

At his side are Juliette Ferry-Danini (Faculty of Computer Science), Thibaut De Meyer (Faculty of Philosophy and Letters) and Gaëlle Pontarotti (Faculty of Science), who form the core of SPiN.

SPiN is part of a research dynamic committed to the heart of contemporary debates.

SPiN researchers explore a wide range of themes, against a backdrop of questioning our relationship to scientific knowledge. These include:

• the relationship between science and pseudoscience;
• reductionism in science;
• genetic determinism and heredity;
• medical ethics and public health (vaccinations, pandemics);
• ethology,
• perspectivism.

This research is carried out by an interdisciplinary team of teacher-researchers, doctoral students and post-docs from the various faculties of UNamur.

SPiN organizes weekly seminars devoted to current research in philosophy of science, as well as seminars linked to more specific themes: health, life sciences, cosmology and theories of emergence and reductionism in the natural sciences.

But SPiN is not limited to the academic sphere: the center intends to take these issues outside the university walls, through events and activities accessible to all. An inaugural event is already planned for next spring on a topical theme: mistrust in science. More info to come!

Democracy is by no means a fixed concept. It is the subject of debate, especially today. Louis Carré, Director of the Department of Philosophy and member of the Espace philosophique de Namur (Institut ESPHIN), proposes a three-dimensional definition: a political regime, a state of law and a way of forming society.

"Etymologically, democracy is a political regime that consists in giving power to the people," he reminds us. "Our Western democracies today are based on the idea that the people are sovereign, without governing directly. From this arises a tension between ideal democracy and real democracy."Vincent Jacquet, professor in the Department of Social, Political and Communication Sciences and president of the Transitions Institute supports the point: "Democracy is an ideal of citizen self-government, but it is in tension with more centralizing, authoritarian logics. [...] Our political systems are crisscrossed by these different tensions, with both authoritarian logics increasingly present, including in our own country, and logics of participation that are sometimes accompanied by a great deal of hope and disappointment too."

The second pillar according to Louis Carré: the rule of law. Democracy guarantees the fundamental rights of all citizens through the constitution. But here again, beware of paradoxes: "One could indeed imagine laws passed by a majority of representatives or by a referendum, but which contravene fundamental rights" the philosopher stresses. Democracy cannot therefore be summed up by the majority principle alone.

Finally, democracy is also a way of forming society. It is based on real pluralism: diversity of opinions, beliefs and values. "This presupposes the existence of a relatively autonomous public space in the face of the power in place, which at times challenges the decisions taken by the governments that have been elected,"insists Louis Carré.

In this context, what is the university's responsibility? Louis Carré begins by reminding us of a simple fact: a large proportion of our elected representatives have passed through university benches. But its teaching mission doesn't stop there. "It's about training enlightened citizens, not just rulers. Universities must offer quality higher education, open to as many people as possible", he asserts.

"Democracy does indeed presuppose citizens capable of debating, reflecting, problematizing issues", adds Sephora Boucenna, Dean of the Faculty of Education and Training Sciences and member of UNamur's Institut de Recherches en Didactiques et Éducation (IRDENA). It's all about training reflective minds, capable of questioning their times.

Universities also train those who, tomorrow, will educate future generations: teachers. And here again, democracy is at stake.

In addition to teaching, universities also have a research and social service mission. It produces knowledge that can enlighten public policy, but also question it. This critical function presupposes real independence from politics. "To analyze democratic mechanisms with lucidity, including those that governments put in place, the university must retain its freedom of research and speech," insists Vincent Jacquet.

This critical function of the university presupposes strong independence. In Belgium, however, university funding is largely a matter for the political authorities. "Celane must not mean being placed under tutelage", warns Louis Carré. "Conducting critical research that doesn't satisfy short-term sponsors requires independence, including in terms of resources. We need a large number of researchers who can analyze different types of dynamics. The more we cut research funding, as is the case today, the fewer researchers we'll have and therefore the less capacity for independent analysis and diversity of perspectives, insists Vincent Jacquet.

The "Université en colère" movement, recently launched within the universities of the Wallonia-Brussels Federation, intends to denounce the effects of definancement. Its representatives are calling for "guarantee the conditions for the development of an open, independent, quality university accessible to the greatest number. Faced with the social, economic and political challenges of our time, and because other choices for society, and therefore budgets, are possible, it is more essential than ever to strengthen the institutions and players at the heart of knowledge production."

Democracy is therefore not limited to elections or institutions. It is based on collective vigilance, carried by citizens, knowledge... and the places where this knowledge is built. In this respect, universities are an essential link in the chain of democratic vitality. Provided it remains independent, accessible and open to society.

"Democracy is not just a matter of institutions. It's about citizens who bring it to life and organize themselves to assert their perspectives at different times", insists Vincent Jacquet. A clear invitation not to remain a spectator, but to participate, with lucidity and exigency, in the construction of a common democratic future.