In a society that no longer believes in the existence of truth, it is asking for disaster to have an adversarial legal system.
Today for many people, 'truth' is what they hear on the 'box', especially the opinions of the 'great and good' as represented by the talk-show hosts and their guests.
What is 'true' changes daily and is no longer referred to the idea of an unchanging and absolute standard. This fact poses many problems, not least of which is whether one can define what a lie is or even whether such things as liars exist. Behind this daily experience are philosophies called by a whole host of 'isms'. I don't intend to deal with them one by one or even at all. I am going to comment only on how this one result of them affects this one area of the practice of law.
