Sophistry is once again in force in an age in which relativism has returned with more force and social influence than in the time of Protagoras of Abderas and Gorgias.

The meaning of 'sophist' has evolved throughout history. It begins in Ancient Greece, with experts in rhetoric, considered highly educated people and guides in the use of words. Most of the sophists of the classical era were guilty of relativism. According to this doctrine, the human knowledge is incapable of arriving at absolute and universal truths; truth is relative and its foundation would be in each subject that judges (subjectivism). For example, what one considers beautiful may be ugly for another.

As a reaction, the 'lovers of knowledge' emerged, at civil service examination to those who defined themselves as 'wise'. From the Philosophy of Socrates and Plato onwards, the term 'sophist' came to be considered pejoratively. Plato opposes the relativism of the sophists and affirms that truth is unique and susceptible of unequivocal definition. It is arrived at through the knowledge of ideas, whereas for the sophists it is a matter of mere skill. From this point on, the Sophists are accused of using rhetoric to their convenience, presenting arguments or ideas that were false, but which, through plausible premises, convinced many to be true.

But who are the sophists of today, in large part, some 'experts' or internet gurus. We are living a new splendor of sophistry based on the easy access to all class of information. In our society, the knowledge, which emanates from the scientific and philosophical research , has been separated from the commonly accepted popular knowledge.

Sophistry is once again in force at a time when relativism has returned with greater force and social influence than in the time of Protagoras of Abderas and Gorgias. This is attested to, for example, by the words of Cardinal Ratzinger a few days before he was elected Pope as Benedict XVI: "A dictatorship of relativism is being established which does not recognize anything as definitive and which leaves only the self and its desires as the ultimate measure. Relativism makes dialogue impossible in order to reach a common truth on which to build human coexistence, the development as persons and as society, and introduces a dictatorship, that of the self and its desires".

In many current debates we do not usually speak of truth, but of 'my truth' and 'your truth'. Some verses by Antonio Machado are very eloquent: "Your truth? No, the Truth; and come with me to look for it". I agree with Marta Luquero that we live in the society of sophists: today there is an abundance of sophists and a lack of philosophers; sophisms abound and axioms are scarce. In the face of principles of unquestionable truths, false arguments that are passed off as true predominate.

The art of persuasion today is not usually at the service of truth, but of the interests of the speaker. Little has changed, only the means to deliver sophistry to the people. Television and the Internet have replaced the agora. The sophists of today, like those of ancient Greece, pretend to know everything; they do not seek the truth, but the appearance of knowing, since the important thing is that the fallacy seems true.

"In the face of principles of unquestionable truths, false arguments that pretend to pass themselves off as true predominate."

Today the "I just know that I know nothing" has been annulled. It is believed that we know everything. Television programs are sometimes filled with pseudo-scientists and omniscient commentators. I think it is right to invite a talk show host who is an expert in a given subject topic; but what makes no sense or usefulness is to invite one who speaks on all subjects with 'authority'. Do most Spanish listeners or viewers know how to distinguish between the expert and the sophist? I believe that in many cases they do not.