Epistemic relativism—the view that "truth" and "justification" are always relative to culture, context, or perspective—has become the viral poison of our era. Disciples of "my truth, your truth" insist no claim is objectively better than any other, that reality itself bends to opinion or tribe. Make no mistake: this position is not just philosophically bankrupt; it is a direct threat to science, democracy, and the very possibility of justice.
① Self-Contradiction: Relativism claims "all truth is relative"—while demanding you accept THAT as absolute truth. It refutes itself the instant it's spoken: if it's right, it's wrong.
② Error Vanishes: If everyone's "truth" is valid, no one can ever be wrong—not Trump's lies, not anti-vaxxer fantasies, not climate denial. Argument becomes pure manipulation.
③ Reality Strikes Back: Causality, gravity, and disease give a damn about our opinions. Relativism can't explain why bridges don't collapse just because someone doesn't "believe" in gravity.
④ Progress Dies: Science, medicine, and technology advance by discovering what actually works. If every framework is equally valid, there's no rational grounds to prefer surgery over bloodletting, democracy over dictatorship, knowledge over myth. Progress becomes impossible.
⑤ Moral Collapse: If values are relative, "genocide is wrong" is just one opinion among others. No condemnation—of slavery, racism, oppression—carries any more weight than its denial.
⑥ Bullies Win: Without standards, the powerful define "truth." Propaganda, fake news, and authoritarian lies thrive—witness Trumpism and post-truth politics destroying reality itself.
⑦ Unlivable: Even zealous relativists cross streets on green, demand medicine that works, and rage when you break contracts. If truth were actually relative, civilization would collapse by Tuesday.
⑧ Science Works: When belief systems consistently produce accurate predictions, effective interventions, or working technologies, their success isn't "relative"—it reflects actual reality.
⑨ Reason is Universal: Cross-cultural understanding, translation, and cooperation work only because certain standards—logic, evidence, coherence—are not relative; they are universal tools of reason that operate across all systems.
⑩ Total Absurdity: If all standards are relative, so is relativism itself. Final destination: astrology equals astrophysics, QAnon equals epidemiology.
In short: Relativism is internally incoherent, epistemologically crippling, ethically catastrophic, and practically impossible. It cannot distinguish knowledge from belief, discovery from error, or justice from propaganda. It is the authoritarian's weapon: "There is no truth, only power." For anyone who values reason, freedom, or progress, relativism is not philosophy—it's intellectual surrender. Reject it with the contempt it deserves.
#Leadership
Selective Q&A
Q- I understand your point: the relativist shift from shared truth to “my truth, your truth” poses a real threat to science, democracy, and justice. I agree: if reality collapses into tribal opinion, then facts, reason, and rights all unravel. Your examples, climate denial, propaganda, and contract breaking, show the social cost when truth becomes negotiable. But here’s the distinction I think we both need to protect: Perspective isn’t the same as truth, but ignoring perspective makes our search for truth impossible. Perspective is how we encounter reality; truth is what’s there, whether we see it clearly or not. The Doppler effect isn’t a matter of opinion: the siren’s frequency is measurable and real. However, what each observer hears depends on their position. Acknowledging perspective doesn’t erode truth; it’s what lets us discover, correct, and defend it. It’s only when we confuse our vantage point with reality itself, when “my truth” becomes unchallengeable by evidence or logic, that we wander into the ruins of relativism. Objective truth is always the north star. But, in my opinion, perspective is the compass that gets us there, or reveals when we’re lost.
A- Well - I think in a nutshell you are saying: “People perceive differently; truth exists anyway.” Yes, perspectives are often biased, manipulated, self-serving, or structurally distorted - they are not neutral directional tools. Hence, they do not reliably point anywhere, let alone toward truth. That said, there is no such thing as objective truth as a north star - truth is not a static metaphysical object, but a product of epistemic labour, institutional design, shared standards of evidence, moral commitment to honesty etc. But my argument is about epistemic relativism, not perceptual variance. Relativism is not simple confusion—it is strategic. The problem is the normative authority it claims - the refusal to be corrected, the erosion of shared standards, the collapse of justificatory authority. And we should not confuse plural perspectives with "plural truths". Plural perspectives are not per se valid starting points, and "truth" is not a neutral endpoint we all approach together. Otherwise we just get relativism with better manners.
Q- let me clarify what I mean, because I think it’s more interesting than “perspective distorts a single truth.” In the Doppler effect, we actually have multiple, scientifically valid truths at once: The siren emits a specific frequency. That’s true at the source. Each observer, depending on their motion relative to the ambulance, measures a different frequency. Those received frequencies are also real; they can be measured precisely from each position. All of these “truths” are legitimate within their context. The point isn’t that one is real and the rest are errors or distortions. It’s that the full picture emerges only by understanding how position and motion shape what each observer measures. That’s why discussion, research, and rigorous science matter: they help us synthesize these valid, partial truths into a comprehensive model. In leadership and decision-making, I see the same need. Robust debate and shared inquiry help account for the “Doppler shifts” of experience, bias, or position. That’s not relativism; it’s how we build a deeper, more accurate understanding of what’s truly happening.
A- No. The Doppler effect does not generate multiple truths. It generates multiple measurements of the same underlying physical truth. This is basic philosophy of physics: There is ONE underlying source frequency. Observers receive different frequencies because velocity affects wavefront spacing. These are not “multiple truths”—they are systematic transformations predicted by a single law, i.e. coordinate-dependent descriptions of one coordinate-independent physical reality. The comment is confusing phenomenology with ontology, which invites relativism through the back door. “All of these ‘truths’ are legitimate within their context.” No, they are not. The Doppler effect demonstrates objective structure, not “multiple truths.” We cannot substitute the word “context” for “truth,” while ignoring the necessity of a shared referent that makes these contexts comparable. Truth is about the world. Measurement is about a vantage point on the world. Discussion, research, and rigorous science help us only because there are shared standards, a single physical world, non-negotiable constraints, falsification, mathematical invariants - not perspective pluralism.
A- Fair point on the philosophy of physics, I take the distinction: there’s the actual event (the siren’s frequency), and then there are our measurements, which depend on where we are and how we’re moving. Science, as you say, reconciles those into one model of reality, not a patchwork of truths. My intention isn’t to deny the necessity for that shared referent, or to collapse truth into context. I’ve learned painstakingly that if we discount the vantage points of others, we miss crucial data. My job is to bring those measurements together, question both my own and others’ blind spots, and keep everyone honest until we converge on the best possible read of the facts. That’s not perspective pluralism; that’s disciplined synthesis. The “contradictions” in perception are not rival truths, but vital inputs for a closer approximation of what’s actually happening. I appreciate your push: clarity about the difference keeps both my reasoning and my coaching sharper.
A- I think the underlying conceptual structure is still confused. ;-) Once we agree that there is one reconciled model, then: there are not “multiple truths,” context does not generate truth, and perspective is not necessarily ontologically productive. We cannot treat “perspective” as epistemically privileged rather than epistemically constrained. “If we discount the vantage points of others, we miss crucial data” is a pleasant managerialism, but philosophically trivial. In epistemology, vantage points are sources of noise, distortion, and bias as often as “crucial data”. Listening to everyone” is not an epistemic virtue. Standards of justification, not perspectives, determine knowledge. Perspective only matters insofar as it is regulated by shared truth-tracking norms. Contradictions in perception are only useful when they are relevant and non-arbitrary. Otherwise we simply - as coaching often does - replace relativism with sentimental perspectivism and "disciplined synthesis” is rebranding perspective pluralism. It becomes Habermasian deliberative idealism, not epistemology. Truth is not product of averaging perspectives, but of tracking reality, often in defiance of common perspectives. Leadership is not physics.
Q- this seems to converge on the distinction between Phenomena and Noumena: our inherent limitations in accessing objective truth(?)
Q2- I think you’ve absolutely captured the heart of the matter. The distinction between phenomena and noumena is precisely what we’re navigating; our perceptions and measurements are always shaped by where we stand, how we frame the problem, and the tools we use. We never get unfiltered access to the objective truth, but that’s exactly why robust discussion is so critical. Healthy leadership, sound science, and resilient organisations depend on honest engagement with those limitations. When we exchange perspectives, challenge assumptions, and map out our different contexts, we’re not multiplying truths; we’re collectively getting closer to the underlying reality, even if we can never grasp it fully. For me, this isn’t just philosophy, it’s leadership practice. Productive debate and self-awareness about our vantage points are what keep teams, decisions, and strategies honest and adaptive. It’s not relativism; it’s rigorous inquiry, knowing that every view is a clue but not the whole picture. Thanks for sharpening the frame; these conversations are where understanding happens.
A- No. Kant’s phenomenon/noumenon distinction is not about “perspectives.” Phenomena are appearances structured by the transcendental categories of understanding, not subjective viewpoints. Noumena are not simply “the objective truth we can’t access”; they are the logical limit concept - "das Ding an sich" - that grounds the possibility of appearances. Yes - “we never get unfiltered access to the objective truth.” No - “therefore, we need robust discussion and exchange of perspectives.” Limitations of cognition do NOT logically imply: perspectival equality, that all viewpoints are epistemically valuable, that truth is an emergent product of “team conversation,” or that dialogue is a substitute for justification. The simplistic liberal idea that “every view is a clue but not the whole picture” is simply false. In real epistemology most views are noise, not clues. Many perspectives offer distortions, not insights. Power, ideology, trauma, and interest shape perspectives. Expertise matters. Not all vantage points are epistemically equivalent. Truth is not the sum of subjective inputs. We do not simply “collectively get closer to reality” - and we cannot substitute philosophy with simplistic HR doctrine and “better conversations”.
Q- I appreciate your push for philosophical precision. You’re right: epistemic standards, not mere perspectives, must guide our search, and leadership isn’t physics. But I want to underline what I think is a crucial convergence between our views: in practice, especially in turbulent environments, avoiding the trap of perspectivism doesn’t mean ignoring the diversity of input. It means subjecting perspectives to disciplined testing, robust challenge, and shared standards. I agree: not every vantage point is epistemically productive, and bias is everywhere. But missing or dismissing potentially crucial context can be just as damaging as indulging in relativism. My point is that strong standards and open inquiry are not opposed but interdependent.
A-I hope you realise that the core structure of your argument - and the epistemological "consultant framework" - is remaining unchanged. My critique is about substance, not vocabulary. Your comment continues to flatten a deep epistemological problem into a managerial truism: “use multiple inputs, test them, be open.” Again: epistemic agency is NOT aggregating perspectives, but tracking truth. Perspectives are not epistemic starting points; the truth standards are. It is not: perspectives → standards, but epistemology → standards → filtration of perspectives. “Open inquiry” ≠ epistemic legitimacy. “Diversity of input” ≠ evidence. The crisis of relativism is NOT a balance problem: “Too much relativism = bad; too little openness = bad.” My argument is not “include some perspectives, not too many.” It is: truth cannot be derived from perspectives at all. Relativism is not about how many perspectives, but about the collapse of standards. “Don’t be relativist, but be inclusive” misses the point. Relativism is not excessive inclusivity; it is the destruction of evaluative criteria. Standards constrain inquiry - inquiry does not constrain standards. Leadership is NOT a process of synthesis, but diakrisis.
Q- Thank you for laying that out so sharply. If “truth cannot be derived from perspectives at all,” could you say more about how you see the best process for “tracking” truth, especially in environments where standards themselves are contested, or expertise is politicised? What do you see as the most reliable way to ground or renew those epistemic standards in practice, especially for leaders outside the academy?
A- I will suggest the short answer is: truth is tracked by disciplining them through standards that are logically prior. In environments where standards are contested or expertise politicised, the only reliable process is to re-anchor justification in 3 irreducible pillars: 1. Truth is grounded in the mind-independent structure of the world—causal, material, institutional, social. This is non-negotiable. We don’t start with views; we start with constraints, because constraints correct us. 2. Standards are renewed not by consensus but by virtues of inquiry: honesty, non-self-deception, falsifiability, methodological discipline, public justification. These are not “perspectives”; they are normative commitments that enable correction. 3. Where expertise is politicised, the safeguard is not more voices but structured challenge: adversarial testing, transparent protocols, reproducibility, clear standards of evidence, independent oversight. This is how science works, how courts work, how good intelligence agencies work. It is not deliberative democracy—it is institutionalised contestation under shared rules. The task is not to synthesise perspectives but to protect the conditions under which truth can correct us.
Q- Your point about “disciplining truth through standards that are logically prior” raises a core difficulty for me: whose logic and whose standards count as “logically prior”? Throughout history, what has been considered self-evident logic, or non-negotiable epistemic standards, has often shifted or been shaped by power, culture, or institutional interests. In practice, standards themselves must be open to scrutiny and, sometimes, revision. Even what counts as “logic”, for example, the rise of new paradigms or methods in science (from Euclidean geometry to quantum mechanics), has evolved in response to the world’s resistance or new insights. I’m with you on the importance of constraint and justification. But claims to “logical priority” always sit within a larger debate about who sets the rules for inquiry, and how those rules adapt when reality or reasoning exposes their limits. For leaders outside the academy, this matters: we need transparent processes for setting standards, establishing the bar for reasoning, and explaining how we justify adapting or challenging them as we learn.
A- Yes, but careful - the issue isn’t WHOSE standards, but what kind of standards can function as truth-tracking. Logical priority does not mean “what a culture prefers” or “what institutions happen to endorse.” It refers to the minimal, non-contingent conditions that any practice of justification presupposes—conditions without which inquiry collapses into rhetoric or power. Euclidean geometry, classical mechanics, quantum theory—these are theories, not standards of reasoning. Paradigms shift, but meta-standards that allow us to judge a shift (non-contradiction, evidence, reproducibility, causal adequacy) do not. If those dissolved, we could not say a paradigm “improved”—only that it changed. That standards can be abused by power does not make them products of power. Authority can distort evidence, but it cant turn a contradiction into a truth or causal impossibility into a fact. The point of epistemic standards is to limit power precisely by making justification non-arbitrary. Standards can be scrutinised, but scrutiny presupposes standards that enable scrutiny. You cant revise logic without using logic. This is what “logically prior” means: the rules you must already be using in order to argue about the rules
Q- Certainly you not entitled to your own facts, but we must allow for differences in perception and reason. I would have thought “there is no nuance, only absolute truth” was the authoritarian’s weapon. We liberated ourselves from a monotheistic dogma with reason. Has it now gone out of favor?
A- That's a misinterpretation: It is correct that perception and reasoning vary across persons, and that ethical and political pluralism requires space for disagreement. But disagreement in interpretation does not imply that facts themselves are relative. Conversely, asserting that some propositions are objectively true does not entail political authoritarianism. The comment collapses epistemic realism into dogmatism, which is a non sequitur. Objective truth commitments is not “monotheistic dogma”, but the grounding of truth in the world’s structure, and in verifiable norms for epistemology, not in ecclesial authority. The idea that “we liberated ourselves from monotheistic dogma with reason” oversimplifies intellectual history. Our modern epistemic framework—science, rights, rational inquiry—rests precisely on a belief in stable causal structures and truth-tracking reasoning. The deeper point here is this: pluralism in perception requires not epistemic relativism but judgment - our capacity to evaluate competing claims against standards that transcend subjective viewpoint.