Currently, the rate of scientific studies has increased as most institutional and governments are interested in new discoveries. Despite the advancement in the research field, there is an increase of resistance faced by scientists producing knowledge for public consumption. Generally, there have been movements like ‘Post-Truth’ that have been attacking scientific information. According to the authors, there are various forces that influence research activities in different countries. This essay will summarize the article by Fujimura and Holmes ‘Staying the Course: On the Value of Social Studies of Science in Resistance to the “Post-Truth” Movement’ (2019) and the work of Hess ‘The Sociology of Ignorance and Post-Truth Politics’ (2020).
According to the article by Fujimura and Holmes (2019), science, technology, and society (STS), the primary focus is to ensure scientific practices provide reliable and accurate knowledge that can be used to pinpoint science in the social, material, and institutional context. The authors suggest that they should not give attention to the post-truth movements but instead continue with the scientific studies. The writers acknowledged the achievement of the US in terms of technological development and increased funding to support scientists.
In their work, Fujimura and Holmes state that “Post-truthers” have been arguing and contradicting the existing knowledge about climatic change using the idea of uncertainty. According to the authors, the resistance of STS scientists comes from two main sources; firstly, the people competing researchers for epistemic authority like politicians, lawyers, media groups, and religion. This class of individuals promotes ideas that are in line with their perspective, experience, and interest; therefore, any research evidence against their worldview is rejected. The other form of opposition is from the individuals who do not rely on the findings and conclusions of scientists but instead depend on the viewpoint of people they trust.
Furthermore, Fujimura and Holmes claim that Trump’s government changed laws and governance to fit his interest and those of people supporting the government. The article suggests that most ‘Post-Truthers’ are distracting the scientist by criticizing, dismantling, or even misusing science to replace it with their own opinion. The writers propose that STS should continue analyzing and producing scientific knowledge for the public to make a reliable decision. Furthermore, they state that science should not be rigid and based only on certainty and control.
When replying to the work of Fujimura and Holmes, Hess (2020), in his article “The Sociology of Ignorance and Post-Truth Politics,” introduced the concept of ‘undone science’ where he discussed how some state or authorities generally benefits from the lack of research activities that would create public claims. The actors interfere with the funding that would facilitate scientific studies therefore, they maintain the absence of knowledge. According to the study, the author outlined that when funds are released, the scientists have to align their research findings with the priorities of the sponsor.
Based on the study by Hess (2020), another type of scientific ignorance is “second-order undone science.” According to the writer, powerful institutions control scientific studies. They define problems worth researching and those that cannot be analyzed by scientists. It is clear that interest and epistemic authority plays a significant role in facilitating resistance to science. What can the public do to secure their safety from the scientific conflict? What role can society play in producing scientific knowledge?
References
Fujimura, J. H., & Holmes, C. J. (2019). Staying the course: On the value of social studies of science in resistance to the “Post‐Truth” Movement. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 34, pp. 1251-1263). Web.
Hess, D. J. (2020). The Sociology of Ignorance and Post‐Truth Politics. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 241-249). Web.