The cartographer never reached the end of the world, but it has always been her goal. Maps fill her studio. The lines are bolder, sharper, and more useful. She knows that whatever lies beneath her pen is always shifting and changing. One day, another cartographer will take her map and, using better information, erase her coastlines to create a version that is more accurate than she ever imagined. In the meantime, she continues to draw. She never confuses the map with the territory.
This is the issue we face with Absolute Truth. Scientists generally agree that there is an objective, real world we can better understand. The general public shares this belief. However, we must ask what new truths the objective world offers that we don't already have. Raising the stakes is simply asking the same question again.
There is a significant chance that our model will change dramatically in the future. Our confirmations are just our collectively accepted beliefs about a phantom coherence we think we see. This might always be true. There will always be something incomplete about our model, something based solely on popular agreement. Regardless, we can say that like light from distant stars, the clarity we get from our scientific model may just be an illusion, and we can accept that fact.
According to Gad Saad in "The Revival of the Social Sciences: Inoculation Against Parasitic Ideas and Suicidal Empathy, and the Quest for Consilience via the Evolutionary Lens," social science has failed to explain things because it has replaced the scientific method and the search for knowledge with ideology, moral claims, politics, and emotions. Gad refers to many of these ideas as parasitic thoughts that have infected our institutions, making us less honest. He created the term suicidal empathy to describe a misguided compassion for humanity and the world that is not grounded in reality and ultimately leads to our downfall. For social science to become a serious field of inquiry again, it must embrace an evolutionary approach.
Truth in science is a concept we have never fully reached but always strive for. Any truth we possess should be questioned, and there seems to be no benefit to claiming something we can never completely have. For instance, observing the shoreline doesn’t mean we have to record the exact moment we reach it, since it doesn’t have a consistent point of existence. Still, we can study the tides and predict their movements.
In modern society, our personal relationships are largely shaped by emotions and desires. These are not just objects of study; they reflect how we perceive and feel. This relates to the truth-teller and the relativist. A clear divide exists between the two, though it is still unclear where one ends and the other begins.
I am not saying science is flawed, but I believe there are limits to what science should tackle. We need to differentiate between practice and dogma, the difference between science and scientism. Science seeks objective knowledge through careful testing of hypotheses. This approach, based on doubt and skepticism, has helped humans to make observations and form new ideas clearly and consistently. While it is correct to say "this model fits the data," it is wrong to claim "this model is the truth." A model may not be true but could fit multiple hypotheses. Thinking of the model as the ultimate truth leads to many problems.
As Neil Gershenfeld states in "Truth is a Model," science isn't about discovering a truth as a revelation but about gaining a better understanding over time. In scientific history, we see this with Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, who each created more refined models than their predecessors to explain various phenomena. There are two types of truth: ideological or political, which demands absolute truth, and scientific truth, which unfolds through the scientific method. The latter questions and refines existing models for deeper understanding of reality.
You may recognize many of these ideas from discussions around paradigm shifts or debates on whether successful theories are true. Laudan, van Fraassen, and Rorty argue that success in science doesn't necessarily equate to truth; however, it improves our grasp of the reality we try to understand. They also suggest that trying to create the perfect map is pointless.
One clear risk is that if we equate objective truth with subjectivism, we easily dismiss objective reality in favor of a completely arbitrary subjective worldview. Reality is firm and present, yet can fail us in unexpected ways. In 2011, numerous research findings are under scrutiny, suggesting even science is starting to doubt itself.
Another common mistake is confusing description with prescription. We can describe things using biology and sociology, but that just generates knowledge. The creation of ethics, law, policy, and identity must come from a separate domain that has been neglected; descriptions alone do not provide the answers we seek.
What is the purpose of establishing an Absolute Truth, something we can never fully attain? There is middle ground between relative realism and relative truth. This position acknowledges an objective truth as an 'approach horizon,' something to strive toward rather than fully achieve. It resembles how we cannot fly without understanding gravity; ignoring its implications causes problems.
In essence, when we talk about "science," we often mean trying to build a sturdy framework on shaky ground rather than digging for an inherent truth below. We don't gain absolute truth through science; we gain a greater degree of relative certainty. It may seem we don't "know more" about the world, but as we refine our scientific approach, we clarify our perceptions of reality and reduce wishful thinking. If our understanding rests on a stack of turtles, we should be aware of the bottom turtle and how much weight it can support.
What the cartographer does, without ever visiting the end of the world, is what each of us can achieve regarding reality. If we do this honestly and recognize the ever-shifting boundaries, that seems to be the best way to engage with the world.
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
Saad, G. (2026). The revival of the social sciences – inoculation against parasitic ideas and suicidal empathy, and the quest for consilience via the evolutionary lens. Theory and Society, 55(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-025-09674-8
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
Edge.org. (2026). Edge.org. https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10395
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!