Wait, what?

A social truth epistemology¹ is the application of human social truths to an understanding or analysis of what is actually true.²

It is the “social truth first” epistemology in which the actual truth is subordinated to a preferred social truth³ narrative, which is absolutely antithetical to the scientific method.

It allows champions of the preferred narrative to dismiss opponents as somehow unworthy, essentially moving the Overton window⁴ in one direction and making reasonable and honest discussion impossible. Reasonable challenges of the preferred social truth are prohibited.

This is a problem for effective wildlife management because when an influential group is able to subordinate objective truth to a social truth science is sidelined and resources are misallocated. An example is animal rights activists opposing trophy hunting because they adhere to the social truth that killing animals for fun and prestige is immoral. If they are able to move the Overton window enough they can suppress all trophy hunting, even regulated trophy hunting that is informed by science and which provides objective benefits to the targeted wildlife species. In the case of the image below the anti-trophy hunters make a very absolute assertion that ecotourism is more beneficial to wildlife conservation and communities than trophy hunting is by invoking a simplistic financial comparison. The comparison aligns with their social truth, but like many simplifications it does not align with reality. If the simplistic social truth is able to subordinate the objective truth with wildlife and communities suffer.

1. Epistomology is the philosophical study of knowledge. In layman’s usage epistomology is short hand for a knowledge system used by a specific group of people – that is, the rules, values or assumptions that they accept as reasonable.
2. Hat tip to Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying on the Dark Horse Podcast #82 (https://youtu.be/LoaKtBMk53Y) from about 7:38 to around 17:00 (or however long you want to go down the rabbit hole).
3. “Social truth” is a combination of normative and subjective truth.

   Normative truth is what all or most of us agree to be true. What is normatively true may not be objectively true, but it is widely agreed to be true. History provides a good example – at one time the idea that the sun orbited the earth was widely believed to be true, even though objectively this idea is false. Normative truths need not be objectively false. Most people today agree that the earth orbits the sun – in this car the normative truth and the objective truth are in harmony. Another way to think about normative truth is to recognize that we often agree that completely subjective concepts are real, and the belief that these things are real make them so. Any particular fiat currency is real and valuable….until we stop accepting the normative truth that the particular currency in question is real and valuable. Despite the effects of inflation on the US dollar since it was taken off the gold standard we still believe that US dollars are valuable. The Venezuelan bolivar, of the Zimbabwean dollar? Not so much.

   A subjective truth is a more personal, individual truth. It’s how an individual sees the world. Like a normative truth, a subjective truth can comport with or be in conflict with objective truth. A subjective truth is based on how we experience the world. Some philosophers will argue that all truths are subjective (Philip K. Dick would disagree; more on that below.)

   A social truth is what a distinct group perceives to be so. The distinct group is bigger than an individual but smaller than all or most of us. The potential for conflict between competing social truths is obvious, but the recent Trump experience provides an excellent example or multiple conflicting social truths (if you think there is only one objective interpretation of Donald Trump as president you are a victim of social truth).

   Objective or empirical truth reconciles all sorts of subjective truths with reality by removing (as much as possible) the subjectivity that comes bundled with individuals. We know that it’s objectively true that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level at standard air pressure because any human can replicate the event. We know that all living things die, whether we like it or not, because every human, no matter how subjective, will witness the process multiple times (provided they live long enough to be the observer rather than the subject).

   Objective truth is the concept humans have that most closely describes reality. It is hard to establish and can be inconvenient. However, objective truth among humans has achieved a special significance precisely because it reconciles many conflicting perceptions and renders a usable system of understanding for humans with vastly different cultural and social values.

   Jordan Petersen has described this reconciliation as “reality is best constituted as a consequence of the truth”. This appears to make reality subject to truth, which in turn appears to be backwards, but in fact it takes into account the idea that all truths are subjective (because they’re determined by individual humans, and humans are fallible) while going further and allowing that honest mistakes about reality are good if they are spoken truthfully. The reasoning seems clear: a truthful mistake about reality can be corrected by the rigorous and good faith challenges of others (which is what makes science function) *and* a truthful mistake about reality, while not perfect, is vastly preferable to multiple subjective views of reality that are not subjected to good faith challenges.

   Perhaps the best description of objective truth and reality comes from Philip K. Dick “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”

4. The Overton window is a concept that describes what ideas are acceptable for public discussion. It describes a range from unthinkable through radical, sensible, acceptable and popular before moving back from acceptable through sensible and radical to unthinkable. The value of the Overton window is that a group of people can consciously move the window either direction. If your idea is perceived by the general public to be unthinkable you can move the Overton window until the general public considers your idea acceptable. Many of us remember when the idea of gay marriage was simply unthinkable, but today it is completely acceptable; the Overton window moved. Moving the Overton window can be a positive or a negative, depending on who is doing the moving.