Culture, science, objectivity, and truth.

Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando lanzer

In an alarming article in the New York Times of  Sept. 11, 2024, Thomas.B.Edsall analyzed a loss of trust in science in the US, especially from the side of conservatives.

In the article, MAGA vs. Science Is No Contest, Mr. Edsall stated that this was because of the growth in the importance of “regulatory science”.  This relatively new role thrust research around diseases and climate into the center of political debates; it is considered adversarial to corporate interests. Therefore, regulatory science directly connects to policy management and has become entangled in unavoidably ideological policy debates.”

Culture, science, facts and truth

In a perfect world, facts are objective truths that remain constant, independent of the observer. Objectivity implies that interpretations and conclusions are drawn without bias or influence from personal emotions, preferences, or social context. However, the cultural framework in which an individual operates heavily influences how they perceive and interpret facts.

 Hofstede’s dimensions highlight how different cultures prioritize various values, which in turn can lead to differing perceptions of what constitutes an “objective fact.”

Power Distance and Authority of Facts

The Power Distance Index (PDI), one of Hofstede’s dimensions, measures the extent to which less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. In cultures with a high PDI, hierarchical structures are strong, and authority figures, such as teachers, leaders, and government officials, are seen as gatekeepers of knowledge and facts. In these societies, facts are often viewed through the lens of authority. If an authoritative figure asserts something, it may be accepted as fact without much scrutiny.

This can compromise objectivity, as individuals in high-PDI cultures might be less likely to challenge or question established “truths,” even when evidence to the contrary exists. On the other hand, cultures with low PDI encourage questioning of authority and more equal distribution of knowledge, fostering a culture of critical thinking where facts are more likely to be scrutinized and verified independently.

Individualism vs. Collectivism and Subjectivity of Facts

The Individualism vs. Collectivism dimension reflects how individuals are integrated into groups. In individualistic cultures, the focus is on personal autonomy and individual interpretation of facts. People in such societies may prioritize their personal beliefs and experiences when interpreting information, leading to multiple competing versions of “truth” or facts. This emphasis on individual perspective may blur objectivity because facts are often contextualized based on personal understanding or interest.

Conversely, in collectivist cultures, where group harmony and consensus are valued, facts are often interpreted and accepted through a communal lens. The group’s belief or consensus may override conflicting evidence in these societies. While this can create a shared understanding of reality, it may also suppress dissenting views or new interpretations that challenge the status quo, affecting objectivity.

Uncertainty Avoidance and Resistance to New Facts

Hofstede’s Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI) measures how comfortable a culture is with uncertainty and ambiguity. Cultures with high uncertainty avoidance have a low tolerance for ambiguity and tend to rely heavily on rules, regulations, and established facts. In such societies, there may be a strong resistance to new information that challenges established facts, as it introduces uncertainty into the social order.

This can lead to a rigid adherence to traditional knowledge and a reluctance to accept new, evidence-based facts that may disrupt the existing order. Objectivity in high-UAI cultures can be compromised because the discomfort with uncertainty encourages individuals to accept familiar “facts” rather than critically engage with new information. In contrast, cultures with low uncertainty avoidance are more open to new ideas and ambiguity, making them more likely to embrace new facts and change their understanding based on evidence, thus promoting objectivity.

The Masculinity vs. Femininity dimension describes the degree to which a society values masculine traits such as competitiveness, achievement, and success versus more feminine traits like cooperation, care for the weak, and quality of life. In masculine cultures, facts are often treated as tools in competitive debates. Pursuing facts may be driven by a desire to win an argument, gain prestige, or dominate an intellectual discourse. This can skew the objectivity of facts, as they may be selected or interpreted to support one’s competitive goals rather than to seek the truth.

On the other hand, in feminine cultures, where cooperation and consensus are valued, facts may be interpreted in ways that foster social harmony. While this can lead to a more empathetic approach to facts, it may also suppress uncomfortable truths that could disrupt the social fabric, thereby affecting the objectivity of how facts are presented and discussed.

The Long-Term vs. Short-Term Orientation dimension assesses how cultures prioritize the future versus the present. In long-term-oriented cultures, there is a focus on perseverance, adaptability, and practical problem-solving. This forward-thinking approach can encourage the objective analysis of facts, as they are more likely to evolve over time and require constant re-evaluation. Facts are not seen as static, and objectivity is maintained by continuously adapting to new information and long-term trends.

In short-term-oriented cultures, the focus is on tradition and immediate results. This can lead to an adherence to established facts and a resistance to change, as the emphasis is on maintaining the status quo. Objectivity may suffer in such cultures, as new facts or evolving information may be dismissed in favor of traditional or immediate interpretations.

Worldviews, policies and science.

Scientific data, political interests, and cultural perspectives are constantly intertwined in the ongoing global climate change and energy transition debate. The challenge of building consensus on climate policies is often not due to the absence of facts but because of the subjective ways these facts are perceived.

Huib Wursten’s framework of Worldviews offers an expanded understanding of cultural differences, building on Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. While Hofstede’s dimensions provided a structured framework for categorizing cultural traits, the concept of Worldviews explains how these dimensions shape how people in different cultures perceive the world. The Worldviews reflect deep-seated cultural archetypes and collective consciousness that influence societal values, behaviors, and beliefs. They offer insight into how individuals within a culture view themselves, others, and reality.

Worldviews and truth

The concept of truth is again affected by the worldviews.

In the Contest, truth is reflected by the dominant thinking system: pragmatism. William James, sometimes called the father of pragmatism, defined truth as Truth is when it works.

The policy implications are interesting, especially because of the interpretation of Canadian politician and scholar Michael Ignatieff. He stated: “What is true might not work. What works might not be true,” 

This draws our attention to the complex relationship between truth and practicality. This assertion reflects the tension between idealism and pragmatism, particularly in fields such as politics, ethics, and science. 

The implications of this idea are vast. It challenges how we understand truth, its role in guiding human action, and the consequences of prioritizing “what works” over “what is true.”

Ignatieff’s statement holds profound implications for governance, decision-making, and leadership. Politicians often face situations where an ideal solution—what might be considered “true” in terms of justice or morality—cannot be implemented because it is impractical, unpopular, or politically impossible. In such cases, what “works” in the short term might be adopted instead, even if it contradicts deeper truths or ethical principles..

This trade-off between truth and practicality raises questions about the integrity of governance: Are leaders justified in choosing practical solutions that deviate from truth or justice? Does focusing on “what works” lead to cynicism, manipulation, and the erosion of democratic principles? Ignatieff’s statement suggests that the compromises inherent in politics may distort the relationship between truth and action, leading to pragmatic decisions that may have long-term ethical consequences.

Network cultures value equality, cooperation, and consensus-building. In such cultures, truth is often framed around achieving a shared understanding of truth. However, this emphasis on consensus can lead to groupthink, where dissenting opinions or inconvenient facts are suppressed to maintain social harmony.

In Pyramid cultures, there is a strong reliance on authority figures and a rigid hierarchical structure. Truth is often tied to the authority of those in power, and facts may be accepted or dismissed based on who presents them rather than the evidence itself. In these cultures, questioning authority is discouraged, and objectivity may be compromised as facts are filtered through the perspectives of those in power.

As a result, truth is often shaped by authority rather than evidence, and individuals may accept facts without critically analyzing them. This can lead to a skewed perception of reality, where objectivity is sacrificed to preserve the established order.

In Solar System cultures, there is a combination of hierarchy and rule-based systems. While authority figures still play a significant role, there is also a strong emphasis on intellectualism. Truth in these cultures is often tied to adherence to established philosophies. 

Machine cultures prioritize efficiency, structure, and rule-based decision-making. In these cultures, objectivity is often tied to measurable outcomes and efficiency. While this focus on rationality and rules can enhance objectivity in some areas, it can also lead to a mechanistic view of truth where only quantifiable facts are valued.

In Machine cultures, there may be a tendency to dismiss subjective or qualitative data as irrelevant, leading to a narrow view of objectivity that overlooks the complexity of human experience. Objectivity may become overly rigid, as the focus is on efficiency and quantifiable results rather than a holistic understanding of truth.

In Family cultures, loyalty to the in-group and paternalistic leadership dominate. Truth is often framed around maintaining group harmony and fulfilling social roles. Facts may be interpreted through the lens of familial or communal loyalty, and objectivity may be compromised when it conflicts with the group’s interests.

In such cultures, facts that challenge the group’s values or the authority of its leaders may be dismissed or downplayed. Objectivity is often secondary to maintaining social cohesion, and inconvenient truths may be suppressed to avoid disrupting the group’s harmony. This can lead to a selective interpretation of reality, where facts are filtered through the lens of loyalty and tradition.

In Japan, truth is often associated with collectivism and harmonious decision-making. In scientific research, objectivity is highly valued, with strong emphasis on empirical methods and neutrality. In the media and legal system, there may be a subtle balancing act between objectivity and maintaining social harmony. Public discourse tends to avoid overt conflict, so objectivity can sometimes include a focus on consensus and not just neutral facts.

The influence of Confucianism. In Japan and some of the Pyramid and  Family countries, Confucianism adds a special element to the perception of truth. In these cultures, truth depends on time, context, and situation.