"We turn to evidence to settle the matter. Although its origins go back to the ancient Greeks, it was the Enlightenment that embedded the idea that facts and evidence confirm a claim or a scientific theory. But in a world of competing perspectives, the notion of neutral evidence is no longer straightforward. From Ukraine to Greenland, one person's territorial ambition is another's defensive strategy. Some argue all so-called 'facts' are dependent on perspective. And whether we accept evidence becomes a judgment rather than a truth - an outcome embedded in the English courts with opposing narratives each employing their own 'evidence'. Equally, physicists sometimes operate with different models of reality, recognising the possibility of alternative frameworks.
Is the future one where we conclude evidence never settles the matter, and accept that our views are dependent on judgment rather than the impartial facts of the matter? Will this be a world that leaves us victim to the views and desires of the strong and powerful? Or is the coherence required to find evidence within a given perspective sufficient to arrive at good and effective accounts of the world?"
