I read an article recently which spoke to epistemological injustices that I have already blogged about. I am also reading about the philosophy of social science at the moment and I want to consider the notion of truth.
The authors of the paper took three examples of ‘post truth’ (I will leave aside what I think they mean by ‘post truth’) namely: creationist ideas about the origins of the earth and specifically the Creation Museum; the Flat Earth Society; and the wellness industry, specifically Goop and its followers.
The first two examples take on established truths in the natural sciences. They strike me as offering ends of arguments with no possibility of revision, i.e. God created the world and the earth is flat. Science develops through revision, not accepting the first answer as immutable, and a commitment to truth – scientists are probably more interested in the argument than the result. I wondered if creationism and the flat earth advocates have just refused to revise and resorted to dogma. Is there a worry about being ‘wrong’ ? Most scientists are pleased to discover their mistakes so that they can discard ideas that might hold them back in their pursuit of truth. What do we lose if we accept all ideas as equally true? Without being able to test assertions because everything or nothing is true, what would be the point of experiments? Does a post truth society endanger science itself? Can you test the notion of the divine creation of the world?
Would the authors become members of the society or donate to the museum? Without such a personal commitment, surely we are just patting these people on the head and allowing them a seat at the table of epistemology but essentially still not listening.
The last example is of a different nature – firstly, it is an industry, making money out of people with a chronic unexplained illness or a suspected one – is there a danger of the exploitation of our suffering? I sometimes think of it as a branch of the beauty industry. Secondly, it aims to tackle uncertainties in medicine which are considerable – unlike the established truths of the previous examples. I agree that the lived experience of illness is often ignored and not considered as a ‘truth’- despite the best efforts of patient groups. As an example, the recent UK inquiry into Endometriosis lambasted doctors’ refusal to take the pain suffered by women seriously.
But what is ‘wellness’? Carel suggests you can be well whilst being ill.
In considering my own experience, I am grateful for the cancer drugs and treatments and I have confidence in them because they are the outcomes of experiments by scientists in search of truth. But, at the same time, they have fallen short in explaining to me my chronic condition, perhaps caused by these same treatments. Scientists are not miracle workers, but their search for truth may give me and others some respite yet, if they are willing to listen.
Walking whilst ill 