Cows to the rescue, truthfulness vs. truth, are pescatarians more ethical than those who eat beef?
Should Facebook be in the business of "debunking" news and scientific data when events are rapidly changing? What's true today may be declared false tomorrow, only to be declared true again a week later. Furthermore, does Facebook have the expertise to do so?
The question "What is truth?" is perhaps the hardest one ever posed. Science is based on the correspondence theory of truth, namely, that truth corresponds to reality. But others say that truth is based on consensus, while others say that truth is entirely relative. So, what's the truth about truth?
Dr. Pinker is an excellent writer and thinker. Perhaps his greatest contribution to our national dialogue is his insistence, backed up by considerable research, that life keeps getting better and better. However, he seems to miss the mark in a recent essay titled "Why We Are Not Living in a Post‑Truth Era."
One would think that in a world where facts can be easily verified, it shouldn't become so polarized. But a new paper in the European Journal for Philosophy of Science argues that polarization is the natural outcome when groups of people disagree. In fact, the authors document a major example of polarization within the scientific community itself.
It's been said that truth is the first casualty in war. It could also be said that truth is the first casualty in a decadent and declining society ... and journalists are leading the way.
In our postmodern society – where truth is relative, "fake news" is prevalent, and scientific facts are just an opinion – it shouldn't come as a surprise that modern medicine is facing a backlash.
These days having a conversation about politics and the state of our nation often devolves into an ideological pitched battle of wills. That's why this year my Christmas wish is for 24-hours of argument-free discourse.