1/n As lawyers, we learn some very important principles of rational thinking from the laws of evidence. The sifting of relevant facts from irrelevant ones. The relative weight to be given to different sources of knowledge (how credible is a witness, etc). We learn discernment.+

2/n - We also learn the idea that one can draw distinctions between superficially similar incidents, but also that many distinctions are not useful In analysis. We call these “distinctions without difference”. +

3/n The more I see the nature of public debate with its fake news, rumours and it’s whataboutery, I realize that all of this plays out only because a large part of our population, even those who have been formally educated, have not been taught how to think clearly.+

4/n - If well educated lawyers have the benefit of such education, we would do well to share our learning about thinking with the general population. We need to do this simply, accessibly and clearly. We needn’t teach the law. We could teach critical thinking instead. +

5/5 As the saying goes, it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him fish. I suspect this would go a long way in restoring our faith in democracy and public debate. We can have a debate only when we agree on the basic facts that make debate possible. End.