JurnalPost.com - In the midst of an information flood, humanity's greatest challenge is no longer merely finding answers, but determining which answers are worthy of trust. Every day, social media, news portals, and search engines present a wealth of information accessible in mere seconds. The presence of artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence or AI) even allows individuals to obtain seemingly comprehensive answers without having to read multiple sources. However, this convenience is not always accompanied by certainty regarding the truth of the information received.
Imagine when health-related information circulates on social media. Some people believe it because they consider it based on experience, while others reject it by citing scientific research findings. Amidst this debate, various opinions emerge, each claimed to be the truth. This situation highlights a critical issue in modern life. Is truth determined by the number of people who believe in a piece of information? Does everyone have the right to their own truth? Or is there actually a way to distinguish reasonable opinions from baseless claims?
This issue can be examined through a philosophical concept known as relativism.
Relativism and Differences in Perspective
Relativism is a philosophical view that, in its various forms, emphasizes that judgments regarding truth, knowledge, or values can depend on a specific frame of reference. Such frames can include culture, language, experience, history, or the system of knowledge employed. Consequently, humans do not always understand an issue from the same viewpoint. How one interprets information can be influenced by their environment, prior knowledge, and existing assumptions.
For example, a report on industrial development might be understood differently by an economist and an environmentalist. The economist might highlight investment growth and job creation, while the environmentalist questions its impact on water quality, air, and resource sustainability. Both are discussing the same object but using different evaluative frameworks. This difference does not automatically mean one party is wrong. However, each conclusion still needs to be examined based on relevant data.
This is where relativism is often misunderstood. Acknowledging the existence of different perspectives does not mean stating that all opinions are necessarily true. Two people can have different interpretations of an event, but the factual claims they use can still be verified. Differences in interpretation should not be used as an excuse to ignore evidence.
The problem is that in digital life, the line between personal perspective and factual truth sometimes becomes blurred. Information that aligns with one's beliefs tends to feel more convincing, especially when similar information is repeatedly found within one's social circle or online community. This state is related to confirmation bias, which is the tendency to pay more attention to information that supports pre-existing beliefs.
Social media can reinforce this state when users interact more frequently with views that align with their own thinking. Discussion spaces that should open up the exchange of ideas instead risk becoming places for the repetition of the same beliefs. This phenomenon is often called echo chamber or an echo chamber. As a result, repeated information can feel true simply because it has become so familiar.
Research by Vosoughi, Roy, and Aral published in the journal Science in 2018 provides an interesting overview of this issue. Through an analysis of the spread of true and false news on Twitter, now known as X, the researchers found that false information tends to spread further and faster than true information within the data they studied. This finding does not mean that all social media always operates with the same pattern, but it shows how easily false information gains public attention.
Thus, the number of people sharing a piece of information cannot be used as a measure of truth. Popularity shows how widely a message is received or shared, not how strong the evidence supporting it is.
Artificial Intelligence and New Challenges to Truth
The development of AI presents another equally important issue. If previously society had to open multiple sources to obtain information, now a question can be answered in seconds through generative AI systems. The answers are often structured with coherent language, detailed explanations, and sometimes even accompanied by references that appear scientific. This capability is certainly beneficial for learning and work, but it can also create the impression that the answers provided are always correct.
In fact, generative AI can still produce incorrect information. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its report on 2024 discusses the phenomenon of confabulation, which is when an AI system produces false or inaccurate information with a seemingly convincing delivery. Such errors can also take the form of citations or references that do not match the actual sources.
In academic activities, for example, someone might ask AI to find scientific articles to support an argument. The system might provide a title, author name, and DOI number that look complete. However, after being checked through a publisher's database, some of those references might not be found or might not match the information provided. This example shows that neat presentation does not always reflect the accuracy of the content.
This issue reminds us that technology cannot replace the entire human judgment process. AI can help find ideas, structure explanations, and speed up work, but the results still need to be verified. The ability to provide an answer is different from the ability to guarantee the truth of that answer.
When Science Itself Undergoes Change
Interestingly, the issue of truth does not only arise in social media and artificial intelligence. The history of science also shows that theories widely accepted at one time can undergo changes when new evidence and explanations are discovered.
Thomas S. Kuhn, through his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), explains that the development of science does not always proceed as a gradual accumulation of knowledge. Under certain conditions, science undergoes a paradigm shift, which is a fundamental change in the framework used by the scientific community to understand and explain phenomena.
The development of physics from Newtonian mechanics to Einstein's theory of relativity can be used as an example. Newtonian mechanics provided a very useful explanation of the motion of objects and is still used today in many engineering problems. However, Einstein's theory of relativity expanded the understanding of space, time, and gravity, especially under conditions that could not be adequately explained by the Newtonian approach.
Does this change mean Newton was completely wrong? Certainly not. His theory still has the ability to explain and predict various phenomena within the limits of its application. This development actually shows that scientific knowledge can have limitations without losing all of its utility.
Kuhn's thinking invites us to realize that scientific theories are not independent of the paradigms used. However, awareness of this context does not have to lead us to the conclusion that all theories are equally true. In scientific practice, theories can still be evaluated based on accuracy, consistency, explanatory power, and their ability to solve problems.
In other words, a change in theory is not a reason to lose faith in science. On the contrary, the ability to correct and improve knowledge is one of the strengths of science itself.
Critical Thinking Amidst Information Diversity
If information can be influenced by perspective, technology can produce errors, and scientific theories can change, how should society determine which information is worthy of trust?
The answer is not to assume all information is false or to stop trusting science. A more appropriate attitude is to build critical thinking skills. When receiving information, we need to question who is conveying it, where the source comes from, what evidence is used, and whether the conclusion truly aligns with the available data.
This ability becomes increasingly important when information is wrapped in scientific terms, delivered by famous figures, or repeatedly appears on social media. Academic titles, popularity, and technological advancement can help build trust, but they cannot replace the examination of the information's content.
UNESCO, through its Media and Information Literacy framework, emphasizes the importance of the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and use information critically. Information literacy is not only related to the ability to read news, but also to understanding how information is produced, disseminated, and can influence public judgment.
In this context, relativism provides a lesson on the importance of realizing the limitations of one's own perspective. One needs to be open to different views, but that openness must be accompanied by a willingness to evaluate arguments and evidence. Respecting others' opinions does not mean being obligated to accept all the claims they make.
Critical thinking also does not mean always opposing the majority opinion or doubting all research results. Rather, a critical attitude demands the ability to distinguish between knowledge supported by strong evidence, conclusions that still have limitations, and opinions that have not yet been verified.
Ultimately, amidst the deluge of information, the search for truth remains possible even if it does not always yield absolute certainty. Relativism reminds us that humans understand the world through specific perspectives and knowledge frameworks. Meanwhile, careful reasoning, empirical evidence, and openness to correction help us determine which claims are more worthy of trust.
We do not have to know everything perfectly to be able to distinguish good information from misleading information. What is needed is a willingness to keep learning, question our own beliefs, and improve our understanding when we find stronger evidence.
Because in the midst of an information flood, seeking truth is not just about choosing the most convincing answer, but having the courage to test what we have long considered true.
References
Baghramian, M., & Carter, J. A. (2025). Relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. Additional discussion: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.600-1
UNESCO. (2022). Media and Information Literate Citizens: Think Critically, Click Wisely!. https://iite.unesco.org/publications/media-and-information-literate-citizens-think-critically-click-wisely/
Author Profile
Hamzah Fansuri is a civil servant (ASN) lecturer in the Department of S1 Agricultural Industrial Technology, University of Trunojoyo Madura, East Java, since February 2021. Currently, he is also pursuing doctoral studies through a double degree program in Chemical Engineering at the Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS), Surabaya, Indonesia, and Hiroshima University, Japan.
He completed his Bachelor of Applied Technology in Nuclear Chemical Technology at the Yogyakarta College of Nuclear Technology in 2010, then obtained a Master of Engineering degree in Chemical Engineering from ITS Surabaya in 2014.
Before his career as an academic, Hamzah had professional experience in several industrial and engineering companies, including TOTAL E&P Indonesié, Synergy Engineering, and Indonesian Aerospace (PT Dirgantara Indonesia). His experience covers process engineering, quality control, nondestructive testing, radiation protection, and aircraft component manufacturing project leadership.
In his academic and research activities, Hamzah focuses on the utilization of biomass and agricultural waste for bioethanol production and the development of sustainable technology. Outside of chemical engineering, he also has an interest in the philosophy of science, information literacy, and the relationship between the development of science, technology, and society.
Through popular scientific writing and opinion pieces, he strives to present knowledge-based perspectives that are easy to understand while encouraging the public to develop critical thinking skills in facing the development of information and technology.
Comments 0
Write a Comment Share your response