STS, Post-truth, and the Rediscovery of Bullshit
Abstract
Post-truth politics has led to a number of prominent reflections on the extent to which the basic tenets of STS (social construction, the symmetry thesis, etc.) must be amended (Briggle 2016; Latour 2004; Sismondo 2017a). Alternatively, others have argued that the basic principles of STS should be maintained and the similarities of STS with post-truth should be embraced (Fuller 2016b; Woolgar 2017). After first critiquing other scholars read on post-truth politics, I argue that one of the central drawbacks of STS is the absence of epistemic grounds to identify people who are plainly bullshitters (Frankfurt 1986). I contend that the lesson that post-truth politics has to offer STS is that a minimal standard of an epistemological system is that it must have the intellectual resources to endorse the claim “Trump is full of shit.” Yet it is not clear how one could go about reconciling central STS tenets with the clear and present need to oppose dangerous trends in contemporary politics. Despite arguing that STS should change, I contend that it should not do so at the expense of what is distinctive and valuable about STS. After considering Steve Woolgar’s (2017) list of the strengths of STS scholarship I propose that with slight modification they can be preserved. As an example of an epistemology which does so, I introduce Helen Longino's critical contextual empiricism and then use it to analyze a case study of the recent FDA approval of flibanserin for hypoactive sexual desire disorder. I conclude by arguing that social epistemology, as developed in philosophy of science, is reconcilable with opposing post-truth politics and retains many of the primary virtues of STS.
References
d'Ancona, M. 2017. Post-truth: The New War on Truth and How to Fight Back. London: Ebury Press.
Ball, J. 2017. Post-truth: How Bullshit Conquered the World. London: Biteback Publishing.
Barnes, B., and D. Bloor. 1982 “Relativism, rationalism and the sociology of knowledge.” In Rationality and Relativism. edited by M. Hollis and S. Lukes, England Basil Blackwell, 21-47. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Benkler, Y., R. Faris, R., and H. Roberts, H. (2018). Network propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford University Press.
Beuter, A., and Jukola, S. (2020). Sex Drugs and How to deal with Criticism-The Case of Flibanserin. In B. Osimani and A. La Caze (Eds.) Uncertainty in Pharmacology: Epistemology, Methods and Decisions. Boston: Springer.
Briggle, A. 2016. “Post-Truth Blues?” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. Accessed 13 October 2017: https://social-epistemology.com/2016/12/22/post-truth-blues-adam briggle/
Burke, E. 1790/1834. The Works of the Right Hon. Edmund Burke: With a Biographical and Critical Introduction. London: Holdsworth and Ball.
Collins, Harry M. 1981. "Son of seven sexes: The social destruction of a physical phenomenon." Social Studies of Science 11: 33-62.
Davis, E. 2017. Post-truth: Why We Have Reached Peak Bullshit and What We Can Do About It. New York, NY: Little Brown Book Group.
Efron, E. (1971). The news twisters. Nash Publishers
FDA 2014. “Female Sexual Dysfunction Patient –Focused Drug Development Public Meeting.” US Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.
FDA 2015a. “Flibanserin for the Treatment of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder in Premenopausal Women.” NDA 022526 advisory committee briefing document. 4 June, 2015.
FDA 2015b. “Division Director Review NDA 022526.” Reference ID 3808082.
Fernandez Pinto, M. 2017. “To Know or Better Not To.” Science & Technology Studies 30: 53-72.
Fishman, J. 2004. “Manufacturing Desire: The Commodification of Female Sexual Dysfunction.” Social Studies of Science 34: 187-218.
Frankfurt, H. G. 1986. “On Bullshit.” Raritan 6: 81-100.
Frankfurt, H. G. 2016. “Donald Trump Is BS, Says Expert in BS.” Accessed 13 October 2017
http://time.com/4321036/donald-trump-bs/
Fuller, S. 2016a. “Science Has Always Been a Bit ‘Post-truth.” The Guardian, Accessed 13 October 2017: https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/dec/15/science has-always-been-a-bit-post-truth
Fuller, S. 2016b. “Embrace the Inner Fox: Post-truth as the STS Symmetry Principle Universalized.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, Accessed 13 October 2017: https://social-epistemology.com/2016/12/25/embrace-the-inner-fox-post-truth-as-the sts-symmetry-principle-universalized-steve-fuller/
Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hemmer, N. (2016). Messengers of the right: Conservative media and the transformation of American politics. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hoffman, S. G. (2018). The Responsibilities and Obligations of STS in a Moment of Post-Truth Demagoguery. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 4, 444-452.
Holman, B. (2019). Philosophers on Drugs. Synthese, 196, 4363-4390.
Holman, B. and Geislar, S. (2018). Sex Drugs and Corporate Ventriloquism: How to Evaluate Science Policies Intended to Manage Industry Bias, Philosophy of Science, 85, 869-881.
Jamieson, K. H., and Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford University Press.
Ladd, J. M. 2011. Why Americans hate the media and how it matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2004. “Why has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern.” Critical Inquiry 30: 225–248.
Latour, B., and S. Woolgar. 1979/1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Limbaugh, R. 2009. Accessed 6 February 2018: https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2009/11/24/climategate_hoax_the_universe_ _lies_versus_the_universe_of_reality/
Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Luntz, F. 2002. “Straight talk.” Accessed 2 February 2018:
https://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
Michaels, D. 2008. Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mirowski, P. 2013. Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. Brooklyn, NY: Verso Books.
Moynihan, R., and B. Mintzes. 2010. Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals. How Drug Companies Plan to Profit from Female Sexual Dysfunction. Vancouver, BC: Greystone.
Roberts, D. 2017. Donald Trump and the Rise of Tribal Epistemology. Accessed 6 February
: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/22/14762030/donald-trump-tribal-epistemology
Rusher, W. A. (1988). The coming battle for the media: Curbing the power of the media elite. William Morrow & Company.
Sarewitz, D. 2000. “Science and Environmental Policy: An Excess of Objectivity.” In Earth Matters: The Earth Sciences, Philosophy, and the Claims of Community. edited by R. Frodeman, 79-98. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Segal, J. Z. (2018). Sex, drugs, and rhetoric: The case of flibanserin for ‘female sexual dysfunction’. Social studies of science, 48(4), 459-482.
Sherman, G. (2014). The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News--and Divided a Country. Random House Incorporated.
Sismondo, S. 2017a. “Post-truth?” Social Studies of Science, 47: 3-6.
Sismondo, S. (2017). Casting a wider net: A reply to Collins, Evans and Weinel. Social studies of science, 47(4), 587-592.
Sokal, A., and J. Bricmont. 1999. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. New York, NY: Picador Press
Solomon, M. 2001. Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Woolgar, S. 2017. “It Could Be Otherwise in Times of Trouble.” Delivered at: On the Limits of Knowing: Political Economy of Technoscience, Boston, August.
Copyright (c) 2020 Bennett Holman
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors of all content published in ESTS retain the copyright to their work, and agree to license them under one of the following Creative Commons licenses CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, CC BY 4.0, CC BY-SA 4.0, and refer to the individual article footer for specific licensing data. Please read our open access policy for more information.
