We once thought the facts speak for themselves, and we could use them to make fair and accurate judgements about people or the world. But, in our post-truth age, neither facts nor judgements are seen as neutral. Facts, as Thomas Kuhn argued, are theory-dependent. So facts don't decide the matter, and judgements involve deciding which perspective and which facts to adopt. Landmark rulings illustrate the point. The abolition of slavery and marriage equality came about not by the appeal of new facts but by a shift of perspective, which changed how the facts were seen. The same applies in science. Competing theories, and how to judge between them, are now often hotly contested.
Should we see judgement as a central skill or faculty, weighing alternative facts and perspectives, and defining the truth? In our post-truth world, should we develop and teach judgement skills, and are these to be based on practical outcomes, reason, or emotional appeal? Or is all judgement inevitably political and an exercise of power?
Should we see judgement as a central skill or faculty, weighing alternative facts and perspectives, and defining the truth? In our post-truth world, should we develop and teach judgement skills, and are these to be based on practical outcomes, reason, or emotional appeal? Or is all judgement inevitably political and an exercise of power?
