I’m no philosopher but I find “how do we know the truth?” the more interesting political question of our day.

What practical epistemology can support a democracy? Scientific method, evidence, statistics, a sense of proportion, lived experience, investigative journalism, research, and independent expertise? Or tribalism, fake news, trolling, astroturfing, repetition, slogans, soundbites, stereotypes, edited footage, misquotes, conspiracy theories and crying victim?

That fight is as old as politics. The widening of income inequality and the rise of FOX and right wing radio both took off in the 90s, along with the “Clinton haters” and lurid fantasies about Vince Foster. It accelerated after Sep 11th and the financial crash. Now a good third of the voting public is angrily, petulantly divorced from reality itself. So the struggle will continue in every household, organisation, and forum. Democracy will develop antibodies to this disease (look how quick we’ve learned to laugh at the latest “emails scandal” Giuliani tried to concoct) or it will fail.

An advanced degree?

My epistemological stance is, if Tucker sez it, it's false. I'm a Carlson irrealist.

No, not advanced. I just have a Bachelor's.

I actually reject Contratuckerian Exyism. The precise opposite of a stupid perspective isn't intelligence but almost always just another flavour of stupid. Even Trump occasionally accidentally says some truths, like when he called Newark Airport a dump.