When ‘All Perspectives’ Go Too Far: The Postmodern Rabbit Hole

Why “All Perspectives Are Equal” Is an Annoying but Important Debate—and Why Governments Shouldn’t Play Referee

There’s a persistent meme in the humanities and social sciences that goes something like this: All perspectives are equally valid, all opinions are equally true. If you’ve ever taken a theory-heavy liberal arts seminar, you’ve probably encountered the notion that objectivity is a myth. Some branches of postmodern philosophy give us that old chestnut: “Truth” is a social construct. And in many respects, that postmodern critique helped shake up a lot of outdated assumptions in fields like anthropology, literature, and even certain corners of sociology. When done well, it reminds us that we’re not all floating in some purely objective vacuum—our knowledge is impacted by culture, biases, personal experiences, and plenty of illusions.

But here’s where it gets wacky: Over time, “all perspectives might be colored by subjectivity” got simplified (or “dumbed down”) to “all perspectives are equally good, no matter how wacky.” You can see how that might cause problems. If every idea is perfectly valid, suddenly you’re stuck defending flat Earth theories and UFO conspiracies on the same footing as established scientific consensus.

The Problem with the “Everything Is Equal” Crowd

The main trouble is that in the real world, some opinions are demonstrably more accurate than others. A guy who spent twenty years measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels has a more reliable perspective on climate change than someone who read a clickbait headline last week and decided the planet is definitely fine. In other words, even though it’s true there’s no perfect vantage point—none of us are demigods who can see the entire truth from on high—it’s still possible to generate better approximations of reality over time.

Think about it like this: A theory that says diseases are caused by viruses and bacteria is better—as in, more useful, more predictive—than a theory that says diseases are caused by evil spirits or curses. You don’t need an advanced degree to see how one of those models consistently outperforms the other in saving human lives. It’s not that the truth is etched on a stone tablet somewhere—we’re dealing with scientific theories, which are always subject to revision—but some theories pretty reliably get stuff right, and others don’t.

Progress Happens (Whether We Like It or Not)

Yes, even if postmodernism is correct that everything is contextual, knowledge can and does progress. People used to believe the sun orbited the Earth—now we know it’s the other way around. (Cue the medieval historian who wants to note that a few folks did know the truth a very long time ago, but work with me here.) This doesn’t mean we suddenly discovered a universal vantage point, free of all bias; it just means we found a better model, based on more evidence, better observations, and a willingness to throw out old, broken ideas.

When Governments (Try to) Declare “Truth”

Now, a more contemporary question: Should governments step in and decide which of these ideas are “true”? Color me skeptical. Governments are run by humans, complete with their own partisan affiliations, interests, and agendas. Handing them the ultimate power to label certain perspectives as “officially correct” is a recipe for disaster. Not only can it solidify ideological biases into law, but it opens the door to censorship and oppression. We’ve seen how badly that goes—think of dictatorships that ban inconvenient research findings or punish scientists who contradict the party line.

It’s an obvious danger: once you let government anoint the “real truth,” any divergent opinion can be dismissed as fake, dangerous, or a threat to stability. In some cases, you really do need official statements of fact from governments—like, say, for health guidelines or environmental policy—but it’s one thing to say, “Based on our best understanding, here’s the scientific consensus right now,” and quite another to say, “All other views are hereby declared invalid, and we’ll punish you for them.”

The tension here is undeniable. Democratic governments have a responsibility to protect citizens from harmful misinformation, but how do we do that without sliding into an Orwellian ministry of truth? The best solution I see is not to break out a big official stamp of real truth, but to keep investing in robust checks and balances: free press, open debate, and scientific institutions that are as independent as possible. Tolerate disagreement, but give people every incentive to engage with credible evidence, peer review, and real expertise.

Final Thoughts

So let’s set aside the notion that any perspective is as good as any other, even if our vantage points are always a bit limited. We will never achieve a perfect, universal vantage, but we can still get progressively better at describing, predicting, and shaping the world around us. Of course, the minute we invite the government to officially decide for all of us what’s “true,” we create the conditions for serious abuses of power.

Better to keep the discussion messy, open-ended, and yes, occasionally contentious, than to give some minister or agency the final word on reality. Postmodern philosophy can be a useful reminder that knowledge is never entirely free of bias—but it doesn’t mean the kid with a random hot take on Twitter is on equal footing with someone who’s dedicated their life to serious study. We can still strive for better theories, better observations, and better understanding; we just have to make sure we don’t place that progress at the feet of a government official who thinks they’ve won the cosmic truth-lottery.

(That said, if you think we live inside a giant simulation run by hyper-intelligent octopi, who am I to say you’re wrong? Just don’t expect the government to back you up—at least, not yet.)