He is told that he offers too much evidence, hypothesis, and argument, and too few emotive descriptions. A priori, his ideas are dismissed. A few weeks later an a Midwestern anarchist editorial advises activists to henceforth doubt the writings of a heretofore highly respected commentator. He accepts too many of technologies offerings and by this allegiance, his utterances are made suspect. It is better to discuss competing interpretations, possibilities, or stories than truth.
Truth is too final, too closed, too imperial.
There is no one truth, no one angle for knowing, and therefore no single right answers. Finally, we have the recent national arguments about JFK and Vietnam. I could go on, not only with specific instances such as these, but also with broader trends including aspects of the rise of conspiracy theorizing, especially on the West Coast, and, of course, the miasma of post modernist theory throughout academia. The point isn't that all these phenomena are identical. Nor is the point that they all embody disagreements or a diminution of good sense.