The Responsibilities and Obligations of STS in a Moment of Post-Truth Demagoguery

Abstract

Scientific expertise and the free press have come under sustained partisan attack with the political ascendance of right-wing nationalism. This has put some science and technology studies (STS) scholars in the difficult position of defending the legitimacy of science while maintaining a characteristic agnosticism toward “the facts.” In this essay, inspired by a reading of Noortje Marres’s (2018) critique of fact-checking services, I seek to relieve some of the background anxiety I sense that perhaps STS research paved a path for the rise of right wing authoritarianism and “post-truth” politics. We are not dealing with a process of fact making in this environment, at least not of the scientific variety. Instead, we are dealing with political demagoguery. As scholars, we should therefore equip ourselves with the appropriate analytic and technological tools, and as many as possible, for engaging this political moment.

Deregulatory science: Chemical risk analysis in Trump’s EPA

“…In recent years, there has been some concern that these ideas contribute to the ‘anti-science’ ethos that seems to have gained the upper hand in the Trump era. However, as others also argue, accepting these strong claims need not be a path to ‘post-truth’ relativism and the death of evidence (Barnett and Wiber, 2019; Dillon et al, 2019; Hoffman, 2018; Jasanoff and Simmet, 2017; Sismondo, 2017). Rather, understanding (and contesting) how knowledge is mobilized against environmental protections requires attending to the values, judgements, and politics that underpin regulatory science and its high-stakes decision-making – not to dismiss them for having politics (this is inevitable) but to understand what those politics are and how they matter.…”

Universalização do princípio da simetria? Debates em torno da democratização epistêmica e da emergência de uma “era da pósverdade”

“…Este movimento trata a verdade de forma assimétrica, como se estivesse fora da dinâmica confusa da sociedade, enquanto localizando apenas desafios à verdade no mundo social; 4) Por último, "sugerindo que havia um passado preliminar no qual a verdade legitimamente precedia e guiava a política, o termo pós-verdade nega as conexões historicamente íntimas entre a construção de fatos e a ascensão da democracia moderna" (JASANOFF; SIMMET, 2017, p.752-753, grifos da autora), Democracia essa, que, segundo Hoffman (2018), tem tudo a ver com o advento da pós-verdade num momento de enérgica "demagogia". A "bagunça" atual aliada às notícias falsas, aos fatos alternativos e à dedicação da opinião pública em se distanciar de fatos objetivos em suas crenças e ações é a "culminação de mais de trinta décadas de uma campanha conservadora longa, muito bem financiada e altamente organizada", cujo objetivo é "promover um universo de fatos alternativos construídos por gabinetes estratégicos conservadores, lobistas, mídia e profissionais da ciência céticos, cujo objetivo tem sido o de criar desconfiança generalizada nas principais instituições" (HOFFMAN, 2018, p.448).…”

Post-truth and the Search for Objectivity: Political Polarization and the Remaking of Knowledge Production

“…In response, Steve Hoffman (2018) argues that Marres is misreading post-truth as a crisis of fact-making and that it is instead a consequence of "political demagoguery," "the culmination of an over three-decades long, very well-funded, and highly organized conservative campaign to foster an alternative fact-making universe constructed by conservative think tanks, lobbyists, media outlets, and professional science deniers whose goal has long been to create generalized distrust in mainstream institutions, free press journalism, professional scientists, and higher education" (448). Even if asserting the primacy of facts goes against the DNA of STS-thinking, Hoffman thinks, it is still necessary given the political moment.…”