Really, post-truth is the rejection of logic. However, you can't use deductive logic if the input data hasn't been verified. For this, you need experts who know. This creates a feedback loop, which is best avoided.
Not being a non-expert, I'm unsure, what it's like to be somebody who enters a field without either specialising in it, or working like hell at it, to fast become adept in its core knowledge.
In college life, I'm encountering more people from the school of blagging, who seem to approach their "careers" from the perspective of many of the "students" they "teach".
Rather than engaging with the body of knowledge, which it used to be incumbent upon genuine professionals to obtain and attain to, they get the quick study from a skilled colleague.
I don't fancy to use the label "fellow", as this provides oft-erroneous notions of "peer", which also appears to be based on opinion.
My guess is, that they'll be a grassroots rebellion against this nonsense, and a shaking out, and calling out of the miscreants concerned.
However, my fear is that the real role of true academic will continue to be swallowed up by the needs of a slick marketing image, at the expense of true understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment