Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg July 7, 2022

Does Post-truth Expand or Restrict Political Choice? Politics, Planning, and Expertise in a Post-truth Environment

William T. Lynch EMAIL logo
From the journal Analyse & Kritik

Abstract

Steve Fuller has replied to my critique of his endorsement of a post-truth epistemology. I trace the divergence in our approach to social epistemology by examining our distinct responses to the principle of symmetry in the sociology of scientific knowledge. Fuller has extended the concept of symmetry and challenged the field to embrace a post-truth condition that flattens the difference between experts and the public. By contrast, I have criticized the concept of symmetry for policing the field to rule ideology critique out of court. I argue that a focus on post-truth populism obscures the role of counter-elites and ideologies that restrict political choice. A better way to promote democracy would be to support minority positions within science that promise to open up suppressed political possibilities and to seek the coordinated use of different disciplines to address significant public problems.


Corresponding author: William T. Lynch, Department of History, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA, E-mail:

References

Baldas, T. 2022. “Whitmer Kidnap Trial Heats Up: Key FBI Informant Testifies about Bombs, Boats, Surveillance.” Detroit Free Press, Mar 19.Search in Google Scholar

Bernal, J. D. 1939. The Social Function of Science. New York: Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Berreby, D. 1994. “And Now, Overcoming All Binary Oppositions, It’s... That Damned Elusive Bruno Latour.” Lingua Franca 4 (6).Search in Google Scholar

Blyth, M. 2002. Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139087230Search in Google Scholar

Böhme, G., W. van den Daele, R. Hohlfeld, W. Krohn, and S. Wolf. 1983. Finalization in Science: The Social Orientation of Scientific Progress. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-7080-9Search in Google Scholar

Bradford, J. H. 2012. “Capital, the State, and the Monetary Mode of Power: A Review of Nitzan and Bichler’s Capital as Power.” Review of Political Economy 24 (4): 643–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2012.701932.Search in Google Scholar

Brewer, J. 1989. The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783. London: Unwin Hyman.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, P., S. McCormick, B. Mayer, S. Zavestoski, R. Morello-Frosch, R. G. Altman, and L. Senier. 2006. “‘A Lab of Our Own’: Environmental Causation of Breast Cancer and Challenges to the Dominant Epidemiological Paradigm.” Science, Technology & Human Values 31 (5): 499–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243906289610.Search in Google Scholar

Browning, G. K. 2000. “Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation: The Development of a Hegelian Thesis.” In The Hegel-Marx Connection, edited by T. Burns, and I. Fraser, 131–45. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230595934_6Search in Google Scholar

Cartwright, N., J. Cat, L. Fleck, and T. E. Uebel. 1996. Otto Neurath: Philosophy between Science and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511598241Search in Google Scholar

Chubin, D. E., and S. Restivo. 1983. “The ‘Mooting’ of Science Studies: Research Programmes and Science Policy.” In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Vol. 55–83, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina, and M. Mulkay, London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Cleaver, H. 1979. Reading Capital Politically. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, H. M., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226113623.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Collins, H. 2014. Are We All Scientific Experts Now? Cambridge, Eng.: Polity.Search in Google Scholar

Collins, R. 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Connors, L., and W. Mitchell. 2017. “Framing Modern Monetary Theory.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 40: 239–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/01603477.2016.1262746.Search in Google Scholar

Davis, M. 2020. “Trench Warfare: Notes on the 2020 Election.” New Left Review 126 (November-December).Search in Google Scholar

Epstein, S. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Pure Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Flam, F. 2022. “Censorship Isn’t the Best Way to Crack Down on Quack Science.” The Washington Post, February 1.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, S. 1988. Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, S. 1989. Philosophy of Science and its Discontents. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, S. 2018. “Why There is Less between Social Democracy and Neoliberalism than Meets the Eye.” EUROPP, August 10.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, S. 2020. A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition: The Name of the Game. London: Anthem.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, S. 2021. “Symmetry as a Guide to Post-truth Times: A Response to Lynch.” Analyse & Kritik 43 (2): 395–411. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2021-0023.Search in Google Scholar

Fuller, S., and J. H. Collier. 2004. Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: A New Beginning for Science and Technology Studies, 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410609625Search in Google Scholar

Gautney, H. 2018. “Dear Democratic Party: It’s Time to Stop Rigging the Primaries.” The Guardian, June 11.Search in Google Scholar

Ghosh, A. 2016. The Great Derangement: Climate Change and the Unthinkable. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226323176.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Graeber, D. 2011. Debt: The First 5,000 Years. New York: Melville House.Search in Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1992. “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences.” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by A. Pickering, 29–64. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Haidt, J., and T. Rose-Stockwell. 2019. “The Dark Psychology of Social Networks.” The Atlantic, December.Search in Google Scholar

Harding, S. 1991. “Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?” In Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501712951Search in Google Scholar

Heath, J. 2021. “Post-deliberative Democracy.” Analyse & Kritik 43 (2): 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2021-0019.Search in Google Scholar

Henrich, N., and J. Henrich. 2007. Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hollander, S. 2011. Friedrich Engels and Marxian Political Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511977466Search in Google Scholar

Houseman, S. N. 2018. “Understanding the Decline of U.S. Manufacturing Employment.” In Upjohn Institute Working Paper 18-287. Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/wp18-287.Search in Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1995. “Two Letters of Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kühn on a Draft of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 26 (3): 353–87.10.1016/0039-3681(95)00005-8Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, M. 2018. ... And Forgive Them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year. Dresden: ISLET.Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, M. 2020. The Use and Abuse of MMT. April 10.Search in Google Scholar

James, C. L. R., R. Dunayevskaya, and G. Lee Boggs. 1947. Trotskyism in the United States, 1940-1947: Balance Sheet. Marxist Internet Archive.Search in Google Scholar

Jameson, F. 1983. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as Socially Symbolic Act. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203983942Search in Google Scholar

Jones, D. S. 2012. Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of Neoliberal Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. 1985. Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0195145836.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Kitcher, P. 2002. “Reply to Helen Longino.” Philosophy of Science 69 (4): 569–72. https://doi.org/10.1086/344619.Search in Google Scholar

LaCapra, D. 1998. History and Memory after Auschwitz. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.10.7591/9781501727450Search in Google Scholar

Lakatos, I., and P. Feyerabend. 1999. For and Against Method: Including Lakatos’ Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, edited by M. Motterlini, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226467030.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1983. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” In Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, edited by K. Knorr-Cetina, and M. Mulkay. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1988. “The Politics of Explanation: An Alternative.” In Knowledge and Reflexivity, edited by S. Woolgar, 155–76. Newbury Park: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B. 1996. Aramis, or the Love of Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400820412Search in Google Scholar

Lau, T. 2019. “Citizens United Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, December 12.Search in Google Scholar

Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Laudan, L., A. Donovan, R. Laudan, P. Barker, H. Brown, J. Leplin, T. Paul, and S. Wykstra. 1986. “Scientific Change: Philosophical Models and Historical Research.” Synthese 69 (2): 141–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00413981.Search in Google Scholar

Leonhardt, D. 2021. “Red Covid.” New York Times, September 27.Search in Google Scholar

Lerer, L., and R. J. Epstein. 2020. “Democratic Leaders Willing to Risk Party Damage to Stop Bernie Sanders.” The New York Times, February 27.Search in Google Scholar

Livergood, N. D. 1967. Activity in Marx’s Philosophy. The Hague: Martnis Nijhoff.10.1007/978-94-017-5059-2Search in Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691209753Search in Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. 2002. “Science and the Common Good: Thoughts on Philip Kitcher’s Science, Truth, and Democracy.” Philosophy of Science 69 (4): 560. https://doi.org/10.1086/344618.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T. 1994. “Ideology and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Social Studies of Science 24 (2): 197–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631279402400202.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T. 2003. “Beyond Cold War Paradigms for Science and Democracy.” Minerva 41: 365–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:mine.0000005159.50541.9b.10.1023/B:MINE.0000005159.50541.9bSearch in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T. 2017. “Cultural Evolution and Social Epistemology: A Darwinian Alternative to Steve Fuller’s Theodicy of Science.” Social Epistemology 31 (2): 224–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2016.1227397.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T. 2019. “Between Kin Selection and Cultural Relativism: Cultural Evolution and the Origin of Inequality.” Perspectives on Science 27 (2): 278–315. https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00308.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T. 2020. “Science and Socialism in the Time of Coronavirus.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 9 (10): 16–25.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T. 2021. Minority Report: Dissent and Diversity in Science. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Lynch, W. T., and E. R. Fuhrman. 1991. “Recovering and Expanding the Normative: Marx and the New Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Science, Technology & Human Values 16: 233–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600206.Search in Google Scholar

Mah, H. 1987. The End of Philosophy, the Origin of ‘Ideology’: Karl Marx and the Crisis of the Young Hegelians. Berkeley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Malter, J. 2019. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 Economic Advisor Stephanie Kelton on Modern Monetary Theory and the 2020 Race. CNBC.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, B. 1993. “The Critique of Science becomes Academic.” Science, Technology & Human Values 18 (2): 247–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399301800208.Search in Google Scholar

Marx, K. 2001. The German Ideology. London: Electric Book Company.Search in Google Scholar

Marx, K., and F. Engels. 1971. The Cologne Communist Trial. New York: International Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

McNeill, W. H. 1982. The Pursuit of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226160191.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Miller, S. A., and S. McLaughlin. 2020. “Why Bernie Bros Believe the Democratic Primary is Rigged against Sanders.” Washington Times, March 5.Search in Google Scholar

Mins, H. F. 1948. “Marx’s Doctoral Dissertation.” Science & Society 12 (1): 157–69.Search in Google Scholar

Mirowski, P. 2011. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674061132Search in Google Scholar

Mirowski, P. 2014. Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso.Search in Google Scholar

Mirowski, P., and D. Plehwe. 2015. The Road From Mont Pèlerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought Collective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674495111Search in Google Scholar

Mudge, S. L. 2008. “What is Neo-Liberalism?” Socio-Economic Review 6 (4): 703–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwn016.Search in Google Scholar

Noëlle, McAfee. 2008. Democracy and the Political Unconscious. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/mcaf13880Search in Google Scholar

Nye, M. J. 2011. Michael Polanyi and His Generation: Origins of the Social Construction of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226610658.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Oreskes, N. 2021. “Naomi Oreskes: Dichron Interview.” Disinformation Chronicle, Paul D. Thacker, interviewer. Feb. 10.Search in Google Scholar

Oreskes, N., and E. Conway. 2014. The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/columbia/9780231169547.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Reisch, G. A. 1994. “Planning Science: Otto Neurath and the ‘International Encyclopedia of Unified Science’.” The British Journal for the History of Science 27 (93): 153–75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007087400031873.Search in Google Scholar

Rider, S. 2019. “Modal Power, Self-Conscious Science, and the Critique of Epistemic Paternalism, or How to Change Your Mind: An Interview with Steve Fuller.” Disputatio 8 (11): 597–615.Search in Google Scholar

Rommetveit, K. 2021. “Post-truth - Another Fork in Modernity’s Path.” In Post-truth Imaginations: New Starting Points for Critique of Politics and Technoscience, edited by K. Rommetveit, 1–30. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429053061-1.Search in Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, S. 2021. “Are We Really Past Truth? A Historian’s Perspective.” Analyse & Kritik 43 (2): 265–83.10.1515/auk-2021-0022Search in Google Scholar

San Juan, D. M. 2020. Responding to COVID-19 Through Socialist(ic) Measures: A Preliminary Review. March 23.10.2139/ssrn.3559398Search in Google Scholar

Snyder, T. 2021. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Canada: Ten Speed Press.Search in Google Scholar

Söderberg, J. 2018. “A Response to Steve Fuller: The Differences between Social Democracy and Neoliberalism.” In EUROPP. August 21.Search in Google Scholar

Söderberg, J. 2022. “The Moment of Post-Truth for Science and Technology Studies.” In Post-truth Imaginations: New Starting Points for Critique of Politics and Technoscience, edited by K. Rommetveit, 86–110. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429053061-5Search in Google Scholar

Soler, L., S. Zwart, M. Lynch, and V. Israel-Jost. 2014. Science After the Practice Turn in the Philosophy, History, and Social Studies of Science. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315857985Search in Google Scholar

Spellman, W. M. 2020. A Concise History of the World since 1945. London: Red Grove Press.Search in Google Scholar

van der Kolk, B. A. 2014. The Body Keeps Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Vinsel, L., and A. L. Russell. 2020. The Innovation Delusion: How Our Obsession with the New Has Disrupted the Work That Matters Most. New York: Currency.Search in Google Scholar

Vishmidt, M. 2013. “Permanent Reproductive Crisis: An Interview with Silvia Federici.” Mute, March 7.Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, D. S., S. C. Hayes, B. Anthony, and D. D. Embry. 2014. “Evolving the Future: Toward a Science of Intentional Change.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 37 (4): 395–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x13001593.Search in Google Scholar

Woolgar, S. 1981. “Interests and Explanation in the Social Study of Science.” Social Studies of Science 11 (3): 365–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631278101100304.Search in Google Scholar

Wright, S. 2002. Storming Heaven: Class Composition and Struggle in Italian Autonomist Marxism. London: University of Michigan Press.Search in Google Scholar

Zhao, Y., J. Du, and Y. Wu. 2020. “The Impact of J. D. Bernal’s Thoughts in the Science of Science upon China: Implications for Today’s Quantitative Studies of Science.” Quantitative Science Studies 1 (3): 959–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00064.Search in Google Scholar

Ziman, J. 2000. Real Science: What it Is, What it Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511541391Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-07-07
Published in Print: 2022-05-27

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 9.12.2022 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/auk-2022-2026/html
Scroll Up Arrow