The 2Truth Paradox:
Why Science Is Fallible and Alternative Facts Feel Real
We live in an age where the battle for truth feels more intense than ever. But here’s the paradox: while science constantly seeks truth, it is inherently fallible. At the same time, alternative facts—though often false—shape the reality people live by. To untangle this, we need to ask:
What do we even mean by Truth/truth?
Is ‘Truth’ an ultimate, unchanging reality? Or is ‘truth’ just what we can currently know through science, subject to revision and error? This distinction is more than philosophical—it’s essential for understanding why numbers alone often fail to persuade, and why principled pragmatism offers a more grounded path forward in decision-making.
The Two Faces of Truth: ‘TRUTH’ and ‘truth'
‘Truth’ (with a capital T) represents the ultimate reality—the kind that transcends human understanding. This is the domain of philosophy, religion, and metaphysics, where concepts like the meaning of life, the nature of the universe, or moral absolutes are debated. It’s what might be called the reality that exists, whether or not we can fully comprehend it.
‘truth’ (lowercase t) is what we can know and verify through scientific methods—observations, experiments, and evidence. It is tentative and changeable as new evidence emerges. In science, 'truth' isn’t about certainty; it’s about the best explanation of what we observe at the moment.
The problem arises when we confuse the two. People often expect science to deliver Truth, when in reality, it’s designed to deliver 'truth'—knowledge that is always subject to revision.
Science Is Fallible (And That’s Its Strength)
Science doesn’t claim to have ultimate answers. Its power lies in its ability to be wrong—and then correct itself. This process of trial, error, and revision is how scientific knowledge grows.
Eggs and Cholesterol: For decades, dietary cholesterol (from eggs) was believed to be a major contributor to heart disease. However, newer research shows that for most people, cholesterol in food has little impact on blood cholesterol levels. Guidelines changed, but many still avoid eggs based on outdated advice.
The Pluto Debate: Pluto was classified as the ninth planet for over 70 years. Then, in 2006, astronomers redefined what a planet is, and Pluto was "demoted" to a dwarf planet. This wasn’t random—it was based on new knowledge. But it frustrated many who had grown up learning otherwise.
Ulcers and Stress: It was once widely believed that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food. In 1982, two scientists discovered that most ulcers were actually caused by H. pylori bacteria. The medical community resisted at first, but eventually, antibiotics replaced stress management as the primary treatment.
Science doesn’t claim to deliver Truth—it offers provisional truths, always subject to revision.
Alternative Facts Feel Real (Not Because They’re True, But Because They Feel Good)
While science grapples with uncertainty, alternative facts thrive on certainty—even if they’re not scientifically defensible. They don’t need evidence; they just need to feel true to enough people.
The Detox Industry: Many people believe that detox teas, juice cleanses, or foot pads "remove toxins" from the body. Scientifically, the liver and kidneys already do this job. However, the idea of a "quick fix" for health feels more satisfying than gradual lifestyle changes.
The Vaccines Cause Autism: Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines do not cause autism, many still believe this false claim. This myth gained traction because it taps into parental fears and distrust of pharmaceutical companies, making it emotionally compelling.
The 5G and COVID-19 Connection: During the pandemic, some believed that 5G technology caused COVID-19. Despite zero scientific basis, the fear of new technology and health concerns made the conspiracy spread rapidly online.
Scientific Facts vs. Social Facts
To understand why facts alone often fail, we must distinguish between scientific facts and social facts:
Scientific Facts are based on observation, experimentation, and empirical data. Examples include the boiling point of water, the laws of gravity, or the structure of DNA.
Social Facts, a concept introduced by sociologist Émile Durkheim, exist because people collectively believe in them. These include money, laws, religious beliefs, and even national borders. They’re powerful not because they’re scientifically true, but because society agrees they are real.
A $100 bill is just paper and ink (scientific fact). But because we all agree it holds value; it can buy goods and services (social fact). If everyone stopped believing in its worth, it would become meaningless overnight.
The tension arises when scientific facts clash with social facts.
Three Case Studies at Different Levels
To navigate the complexities of truth, we must balance scientific evidence with social realities at various scales (individual, community, and transnational).
The Myth of Cold Weather and Catching a Cold: Many people bundle up in winter because they believe cold weather causes colds. Scientifically, colds are caused by viruses, not temperature. However, the social belief persists because colds do seem more common in winter, likely due to people staying indoors in close contact. The misunderstanding influences how people dress and behave despite scientific evidence to the contrary
The Salem Witch Trials: In 1692 Puritan Massachusetts, a wave of paranoia swept through the community as fear of the devil’s influence and deep-seated anxieties about disease, political instability, and social tensions led to mass hysteria. People were accused of witchcraft based not on evidence but on social beliefs, personal grudges, and collective fear. Many "witches" were executed despite no observed and verifiable evidence. Dreams and visions were accepted as legitimate testimony. This case shows how alternative facts, fueled by fear and uncertainty, can take hold in communities, leading to devastating real-world consequences.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Justification for the Iraq War: The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq was justified by claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Despite no credible evidence, the belief in WMDs shaped international policy and led to war. This is a stark example of how alternative facts can drive global conflict.
Rethinking 2Truth in a Complex World
The biggest mistake we make is confusing ‘Truth’ (ultimate reality, unverifiable through known means) with ‘truth’ (observed reality, verifiable through scientific methods). While alternative facts need not be true, they feel real and are powerful in shaping the world.
This is where Engineering Diplomacy offers a way forward. Instead of treating science as an absolute authority or dismissing it as unreliable, we must Think Again—not to reject knowledge, but to make it more actionable, inclusive, and adaptive.
Acknowledge fallibility without abandoning facts – Science’s ability to self-correct is its strength, not its weakness. The challenge is communicating evolving knowledge in a way that builds trust rather than fuels skepticism.
Understand that beliefs shape realities – Social facts, even when scientifically incorrect, influence decisions and policies. Effective engagement requires recognizing what people believe and why, rather than just presenting more data. To bridge this gap, we must frame scientific insights in ways that connect with people's values, lived experiences, and existing narratives—making truth not just known, but felt and understood.
Bridge knowledge and action through principled pragmatism – The most impactful solutions are those that are scientifically credible, socially acceptable, and politically feasible. Engineering Diplomacy emphasizes this balance, turning knowledge into solutions that work in real-world contexts.
In an age where ‘truth’ is contested and ‘Truth’ remains elusive, navigating uncertainty is not about choosing between facts and beliefs. It’s about shaping a world where science and society inform each other, where adaptability is a strength, and where knowledge is used not just to inform, but to act wisely for desirable outcomes. Because the future isn’t just shaped by what’s true. It’s shaped by what people believe is true—and what we choose to do about it.