← Quick Find

When it comes to vaccines - why are people talking about 'Truth is relative' ?

Rejection of scientific epistemology and objectivity, claiming that knowledge is relative

Epistemic relativism, or “the subjectivity of how knowledge is determined”, is a philosophical view that social conventions determine scientific facts. In this viewpoint, facts are subjective and based on historical context, social and cultural norms, and individual standards. From this perspective, there is no objective knowledge. Several forms of epistemic relativism have been linked with vaccine opposition.

For some people, relativism implies that scientific evidence and subjective experiences are equally valuable in generating knowledge, or that personal experiences outweigh evidence. Common expressions of extreme relativism include:

  • Appeals to “maternal intuition”.
  • Invitations to “do your own research”.

This theme tends to claim that scientific knowledge, objective evidence, and expertise are all “relative”. The conclusion is typically that science and medicine are wrong or inferior (and, therefore, so are vaccines).

Arguments in this theme may dismiss scientific medicine as:

  • “Conventional”.
  • “Outdated”.
  • “Uncritical”.
  • Merely a “social construction”.
  • A political agenda.
  • A means of colonial oppression.

Is there any truth in it?

Concepts like “objectivity” and “truth” have many nuances. It is sometimes difficult to apply them to matters such as art or certain moral decisions. Even in science, there are situations in which different scientists can even come to different conclusions in light of the same evidence.

What could I say to someone fixed on this belief?

Dialogue between patients and healthcare professionals is most productive if it is guided by empathy, and an opportunity for the patient to affirm the reasons underlying their attitudes and to express understanding for that. That’s why it is important to understand the attitude roots behind people’s overt opinions. To affirm a person’s underlying attitude root does not mean we need to agree with the specifics of their argument. For example, we can acknowledge that:

Concepts like “objectivity” and “truth” have many nuances. It is sometimes difficult to apply them to matters such as art or certain moral decisions. Even in science, there are situations in which different scientists can even come to different conclusions in light of the same evidence.



Having set the stage through this (partial) affirmation, we can then proceed to correct the patient’s particular misconception.

In science, it is important to judge evidence based on verifiable criteria, such as how reliable, valid, and replicable the data are. Scientific research is constantly progressing to produce the most reliable knowledge we can obtain. Science has provided us with very accurate explanations and predictions about the world. There are many ways science has improved our lives, such as developing antibiotics, computers and airplanes.

Using the scientific process means we can more reliably judge whether vaccines prevent severe illness and death or not. For life-threatening matters, it is sensible to consider the advice of experts with the relevant skills and knowledge. We consult experts in other matters too, for example, when we fix a car or build a house. In the same way, scientists and medical professionals develop expertise that can help us with health-related matters.

en_GBEnglish