The cartographer has never been to the edge of the world, but that is the focus of her life. Maps keep emerging from her studio. They are sharper, clearer, and more useful. Still, she knows the land she’s mapping shifts beneath her pen. Some future cartographer will likely erase her coastlines to fit new data, making them more precise than she ever intended. Despite this, she continues to draw. She has never confused the map with the territory it represents.
This is similar to the trouble we face with "Absolute Truth." Most scientists assume there exists some independent, objective reality that we can better understand. Many people share this belief. Yet, another question arises, one the assumption of an objective reality doesn’t answer. Raising a "higher bar" merely restates the same challenge.
We can easily imagine significant shifts in scientific understanding. Our confirmations are just our shared views of a collective fantasy of coherence. "Truth" may always lie just beyond our grasp, only partially revealed, or it might simply be a reflection of current public opinion. Much like the light from stars that have long since died, this clarity may be an illusion, and we should at least consider that possibility.
Gad finds credibility only by appealing to a supposed absolute Truth in his criticism of non-binary genders, which he calls "parasitic ideas" because they disrupt preferred social orders. He disguises this rhetoric about "Truth" in what he claims is a scientific discourse. But it isn’t science; it’s more a plea for power. His take on Truth reflects modern findings in his field; his position resembles social policing more than genuine inquiry.
In science, truth is simply a goal we can never fully reach but strive toward. The truths we encounter are always open to discussion. But what value does something have if we can never fully access it? Consider observing a shoreline; we don’t need to declare we've arrived when it keeps receding. We can still observe and predict the tide.
Today, social discourse is shaped by people’s wants and feelings. Perception and emotion have become facts rather than subjects of study. The first belongs to the relativist, while the second belongs to the truth-teller. A significant divide exists between these two areas, each claiming to navigate them, yet lacking agreement on their true boundaries.
My argument isn’t against science but rather its overreach. I aim to distinguish the practice from its belief system, separating science from scientism. Science involves a specific process built on skepticism: observation, hypothesis generation, testing, replication, and revision—a humble approach to the unknown. Problems arise when a scientist says, "this model fits the data," rather than "this model does a good job of explaining the data." A model doesn’t have to be true; it can fit many hypotheses. I believe this misunderstanding of models as truth, rather than as working hypotheses, contributes to many issues.
You’ve probably encountered these ideas before, whether labeled "counting turtles," "paradigm shift," or questioning "if successful theories are true." Laudan, van Fraassen, and Rorty suggest that successful theories may not bring us closer to truth, but rather provide better ways of engaging with reality than previous theories did. They all highlight the folly of trying to create the perfect map.
Dangers exist on both sides: fully objective truth disappears when intersubjectivity is mistaken for reality, while mediated reality shouldn’t lead to completely unrestricted subjective interpretation. Reality is present but resistant; our models will fail us in unexpected ways. Currently, much focus is on the reliability of research, indicating that even science’s self-image needs regular reassessment.
Moreover, we often confuse description with prescription. Biology can describe, and sociology can describe. However, that’s where knowledge production ends. Ethics, rights, policy, and identity must be defined separately. This distinction has been overlooked by those with agendas: all descriptive discourse produced through scientific methods cannot provide the answers we seek.
What value does untouchable truth have? It may be beneficial to find a middle ground between relativism and realism: an objective truth as a "constraint horizon"—something we can approach but never completely reach. This could guide our inquiry, much like gravity shapes the science of flight, and the consequences become clear when we ignore it.
In that sense, we’ve always viewed science not as digging down to absolute truth but as constructing strong scaffolding on uncertain foundations. The gain isn’t ultimate knowledge but relative certainty. The world shrinks not because we know it better, but because we know it with a bit more honesty and rigor, generation after generation, as we ask the questions we can with the tools available. If we live on a spinning turtle, the most intellectually honest approach is not to assume we’ve reached the bottom, but to explore which turtles support the most weight and how strong they truly are.
What the cartographer does—continuing to draw without having seen the world’s edge—mirrors what any of us can do with reality. This pursuit, done with sincere honesty and awareness of the shifting landscape, might be the closest we can get to engaging with the world itself. And for now, that must be enough.
References
Theano Kokkinaki, Delafield‐Butt, J., Nagy, E., & Trevarthen, C. (2023). Editorial: Intersubjectivity: recent advances in theory, research, and practice. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1220161
Szuba, M., & Wolfreys, J. (2022). Literary Invention and the Cartographic Imagination. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004520288
Alfano, M., Lynch, M. P., & Tanesini, A. (2020). The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Humility (M. Alfano, M. P. Lynch, & A. Tanesini, Eds.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351107532
Poostforush, M., & Taqavi, M. (2025). Scientific Realism/Anti-Realism Debate: Roy Bhaskar’s Position. Organon F, 32(3), 300–322. https://doi.org/10.31577/orgf.2025.32302
Felt, U., & Frantz, F. (2025). The Shifting “Self” of Science’s Self-Governing Capacity: Four Decades of Research Integrity Discussions in Science and Nature. Social Studies of Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127251392603
Thank you for reading!