Is speaking some evil really so bad?
We gave four scholars from different disciplines a chance to offer their opinions on this important question.
People reject science such as that about climate change and vaccines, but readily believe scientists about solar eclipses, like this one reflected on the sunglasses of a man dangerously watching in Nicosia, Cyprus, in a 2015 file photo.
(AP Photo/Petros Karadjias)
People universally believe scientists' solar eclipse calendars, but vaccine warnings or climate predictions are forms of science that strangely do not enjoy equivalent acceptance.
A statue of Henry David Thoreau in front of a replica of his cabin in Concord, Massachusetts.
Thoreau spent his life pursuing the 'hard bottom' of truth. But he confronted a sensationalist newspaper industry that, in many ways, mimicked today's media environment.
We cannot stand outside the fray, but instead must engage in the ‘post-truth’ debates about politics and knowledge.
Pundits have been keen to link post-truth to post-modernists, post-positivists or any other 'postie'. They should turn their energy to forming a real popular front against Trump's faux populism.
Public anxiety about the post-truth era inspired a New York Times advertising campaign.
Beneath simple labels like post-truth, alternative facts and fake news is a complex set of issues. Any debate about the problems needs to start from some common points of reference.
What you end up remembering isn’t always what you have witnessed.
Rwanda has come a long way since the dark days of 1994 genocide.
The road to reconciliation doesn't begin and end with truth commissions or trials. Change must occur at a systemic level, and communities must commit to rebuilding relationships.
Commemorating victims of enforced disappearances in the Philippines.
Establishing what happened to lost relatives and brutalised populations is a moral imperative.
How to define the public role of universities in the age of post-truth populism.
Does your nose grow if it’s a falsehood, not a lie?
Alternate realities don't just exist in politics – and not all falsehoods are lies. Distortions of the truth can range from a normal part of human nature to pathological.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer and senior advisor Kellyanne Conway chat.
How do we determine what is fact? An archaeologist explains how the answer has changed over time and why it matters so much now.
People who read false news items come to believe them – even if they know better. It doesn't help to know the source is unreliable or the report has been debunked.
Sharing election hashtags: Dots are Twitter accounts; lines show retweeting; larger dots are retweeted more. Red dots are likely bots; blue ones are likely humans.
If people can be conned into jeopardizing our children's lives, as they do when they opt out of immunizations, could they also be conned out of democracy?
Donald Trump has become the poster boy for ‘post-truth’ politics.
We now find ourselves in a 'post-truth' environment, trying to find meaning in dumbed-down democracy. How did we get here?
In politics, as in life in general, there are many things we value more than truth.
To decide between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, American voters will have to decide which narrative they prefer, leaving the truth to emerge later from the political rubble.
There is no spoon. At least, not the way you think there is.
The world around you might be an illusion and you're really a brain in a vat connected to a supercomputer. Sounds preposterous? But can you prove it's not true?
Do you ever feel like this? It’s not helping you get smarter…
We now have access to an Internet containing a vast store of information much bigger than any individual brain can carry - and that's not always a good thing.
King’s College Chapel: beauty, art, profundity – but truth?
My idea of bliss is a Sunday walk that takes in first some English countryside, and second a pleasant medieval church, with some glass or woodwork or monuments. I once even wrote a piece, published in…
You want the truth? You can’t handle the … wait: it’s actually quite simple.
Calling something a “scientific truth” is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it carries a kind of epistemic (how we know) credibility, a quality assurance that a truth has been arrived at in an understandable…