'Post-truth' has become a buzzword for numerous current crises: the fragmentation of the media landscape, the ongoing debate about 'fake news', the loss of trust in science, etc. Although these crises take place in society, it is claimed that the roots of post-truth can be traced back to the history of philosophy. Occasionally, it is asserted that Karl Popper's critical rationalism gave rise to post-truth: His rejection of verificationism has limited truth claims in the realm of science. Given the absence of infallible evidence and certainty, critical rationalism calls for challenging scientific authority. I argue that post-truth is compatible with critical rationalism from an epistemological point of view, considering that both positions are critical of certainty. However, in critical rationalism, fallibilism, responsibility, and the idea of criticism are combined, and in this respect, it offers a possible way to overcome the problems that are associated with post-truth. This treatment of the problems of post-truth results from the recognition of moral responsibility to take action on the basis of a hypothesis that remains open to revision.

بنابر سنت رایج ناب گرایی معرفتی صرفا عوامل مودی به صدق در حصول معرفت دخیل اند. نظریه «تعدی عملی» در مخالفت با این سنت استدلال می کند که اگر قائل به خطاپذیری در معرفت باشیم، باید به تاثیر عوامل غیرمعرفتی نظیر شرایط عملی فاعلین در تحقق معرفت نیز اذعان کنیم. در این مقاله نشان خواهیم داد که تقابل تعدی عملی با ناب گرایی نه تنها غیر شهودی نیست که حاوی بینش ها و شهودهایی است که به راحتی نمی توان آن ها را نادیده گرفت. البته مقبولیت این رویکرد به چنین بینش هایی خلاصه نمی شود و به شکل ایجابی نیز بر نسبت این دیدگاه با مفاهیم بنیادین معرفت شناسی استدلال هایی اقامه شده است که مهمترین آن ها، استدلال بر اصلی به نام اصل معرفت-توجیه است که در صورت اذعان به خطاپذیری در تقابل با ناب گرایی خواهد بود. انتقادات متعددی به نظریه تعدی عملی وارد شده است. اغلب تقابل این نظریه با ناب گرایی را به چالش کشیده اند و در تلاش هستند تا نقش این نظریه را به حوزه هایی غیر از معرفت تقلیل دهند یا قرائت های ناب گرایانه از آن ارائه دهند. در پاسخ به این انتقادات طرفداران نظریه تعدی عملی عدم کفایت و تبعات مشکل ساز چنین تلاش هایی را نشان داده اند. با در نظر گرفتن ملاحظات فوق شاید بتوان ادعا کرد که نفی ناب-گرایی چندان هم که در بادی امر غیر شهودی به نظر می رسد در واقع چنین نیست.

After offering an overview of some of the main themes of Popper’s political thought, the paper argues that his account faces two problems relating to institutions. The first is that while Popper stresses the ‘rational unity of mankind’, and the potential for any of us to furnish criticisms of public policy, it is not clear what institutional means currently exist for this to enable this to take place. Second, Popper has stressed the conjectural character of even our best theories. However, at any point, some theories will have fared better in the face of criticism than others, and they may give us important information about constraints on our actions. At the same time, as ordinary citizens we may not be in a good position to understand the theories in question, let alone appraise the state of the specialised discussion of them. There is, it is suggested, a case for thinking of ways to institutionally entrench such fallible theories, especially in the current setting in which social media play an important role

Fostering critical thinking among senior high school students in Colombia has been an unfulfilled goal. This undesirable situation has multiple causes: “critical thinking” has become a mere slogan and its meaning and scope have not been clearly specified despite being widely used in the different levels of the education system. Furthermore, the strategies designed to teach critical thinking lack creativity, reinforce rote learning and the sheer repetition of logic rules besides misallocating the goal of reasoning and argumentation by focusing only on rhetorical persuasion. Textbooks and core literature in critical thinking suggest that a critical thinker is someone who always has plenty of arguments to defend her beliefs besides being ready to address even destructive criticism. By contrast, critical rationalism emphasizes the importance of a humble approach, acknowledges error, and portrays a critical thinker as someone who is ready to test her most beloved theories against experience and to reject them in the light of the facts that contradict her beliefs and certainties. We consider that a pedagogical approach enriched with fallibilism might be central for a better education and endorse these views with the results of a case study conducted in Manizales, Colombia, which shows that teaching the basics of logic and argumentation by using the central tenets of critical rationalism fosters critical thinking among senior high school students