Is there any basis for talking about post-truth regime?

The paper deals with the (im)possibilities of justifying discourse ?post-truth?. Its first part is dedicated to detection and understanding what (at all) one talk about when they use newly coined term ?post-truth?, as well efforts locate where that talking comes from: social state it intends describe change diagnoses or advocates for. In central paper, references works Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze Jayson Harsin, conception according which we moved from ?truth regime? ?post-truth regime?, thus ?disciplinary society? ?society control?, presented problematized. final emphasizes dimension status truth science. Having them in mind, author believes cannot speak an epochal novelty allegedly occurs their withdrawal at expense post-truth alternative science, but raising awareness relatively stable historical constant. On other hand, points out changes production placement information, professionalization public communication based on service sciences, a crucial way testify its contemporary variant.