WongonWork: Knowledge - Truth, fact and fantasy (Part 1)

We live in an era where opinion or beliefs trump facts.

As someone who has honed my career collecting, assessing and analysing data, applying research methods for diagnostics, forecasting, scenario planning and explaining phenomena,?in order to determine the truths on investments, risks and other organisational decisions, the then UK Justice Secretary Michael Gove’s 2016 declaration that the people have “had enough of experts” while wading into the debates on Brexit, was a troubling moment. Another was the 2017 defence of U. S. Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s assertion that Trump had the largest inauguration crowds ever, by Kellyanne Conway’s comment that Spicer had "alternative facts". ?

Are we facing an epistemological crisis?

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature, origin, and limits of knowledge. The ‘theory of knowledge’ covers different types of knowledge: propositional knowledge about facts, practical knowledge in the form of skills, and knowledge acquired through experience. Concepts of belief, truth, and justification are interrogated to understand the nature of knowledge. To discover how knowledge arises, philosophers investigate sources of ?justification for a person’s beliefs in truths, such as through perception, introspection, memory, reason, and testimony; an inquiry that started in antiquity.

However, our interest lies in how knowledge is applied in the real world, and for this we can turn to how this word is defined in an international standard: “Human or organisational asset enabling effective decisions and action in context” (ISO30401 Knowledge management systems – Requirements, with the various caveats around the user, context, acquisition process and source).

Such a ‘confident’ and pragmatic definition belies how different social tribes are now interpreting and using ‘knowledge’ in quite different ways. Some tribes are questioning the fundamental assumptions underpinning the meaning of ‘knowledge’,?challenging not only this type of pragmatic definition, but the long held Western philosophers’ interpretation of the word as ‘justified true belief’. In doing so, they pose challenges to the institutions of (Western) civilisation with implications for democratic government, the rule of law and many of our most basic freedoms.

Much of the conflict centres around the meaning of truth, a property best described as the proposition “being in accord with fact or reality”. With this in mind, and the philosophers’ definition of knowledge, we can unpack what is in contention. For an individual to KNOW something, they must i) believe their assertion, ii) ?the statement made must accord with fact and or reality and ii) there must be? justification for their belief.

Justification cannot just be one person’s gut feeling, an unsubstantiated story propagated on a social network or an isolated observation. Centuries of practice have developed methodologies of rigorous observations, of analyses of these observations with reasoned debate between those offering competing interpretations and conclusions which account for all of the data. One of the prime examples of such rigour is the scientific method which uses the results of experiments to evaluate a hypothesis under as diverse conditions as possible.

Truth is a necessary condition for knowledge. Without truth, a belief cannot be considered knowledge, no matter how strongly it is held or how well it is justified. It is important to recognise that there can be truths which have not yet been discovered, and hence the knowledge dependent on them will be incomplete, and even subject to revision. This is the ‘uncomfortable truth’: as noted previously, knowledge asserted by individuals requires to be believed, true and justified, However, it is contingent on the best available evidence at the time, experts offering their knowledge on what is known at that time, and may need to be reappraised in the light of new inputs.

The 21st century presents unique challenges to epistemology.

It will not surprise any of my readers that there is a major challenge in the volume of information (Data stored has expanded from ?2 zettabytes in 2010 to 149 zettabytes in 2024). Eighty percent of digitised information is stored in English. Old English had 50000-60000 words. Today it is estimated that the English language, including scientific and technical terms, has over 800,000. The information explosion ?together with a cacophony of ‘expert’ opinions is making it difficult to discern the credible from the unreliable. Such an abundance can all too easily be applied to obfuscate and misinform.

?

Rapid advancements in technology, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, the curation and foregrounding of certain (dis)information selectively to targeted users raise questions about the nature of knowledge at our present time and the reliability of information presented as knowledge by machines. In a?2021 report , the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, found "Digital technology has enabled pathways for false or manipulated information to be created, disseminated and amplified by various actors for political, ideological or commercial motives at a scale, speed and reach never known before". In addition, developments in psychology have enabled more people to deploy myriad techniques of manipulation (e.g. ‘Nudge’) in a race to deceive, shape opinion and influence feelings and decisions, to the detriment of a common understanding of reality. This has resulted in an erosion of the public square for proper exchanges and rational debate on difficult issues, in favour of shrill polarised positions reflecting neither truth nor knowledge.

Globalisation: With advances in near instantaneous translation , the interconnectedness of data, finance, trade and information, and the explosion in global mobility for both work and leisure, diverse perspectives and epistemological frameworks are constantly in contact – and increasingly in conflict. Tensions are exacerbated by the questioning of the value of globalisation, especially by those who have been economically disadvantaged. What one takes to be true in one culture – its practices, norms, and assumptions, can for others be dismissed as merely a prejudice/ preference, with challenges made to orthodox (i.e. for many of us) Western-centric views of knowledge. We see examples of this in healthcare approaches (drug interventions vs holistic healing); learning (experiential vs rote); human rights (as a personal right or as that which maintains stability for communities) and so on.

Interdisciplinary approaches. The increasingly complex nature of scientific and academic research, which often requires interdisciplinary approaches, new vocabularies and methods challenges traditional epistemological boundaries and methods. We witnessed how during the public health crisis posed by Covid-19, epidemiologists had to work with psychologists, economists, statisticians, health and safety experts, risk managers, facilities and logistics managers, manufacturers of chemicals and Personal Protection Equipment (PPE), and diverse healthcare professionals to inform policy on protecting the population not only from the virus, but also from financial destitution, mental health effects of isolation and anti-social behaviour.? Under the considerable time pressures, it proved challenging for experts from disparate fields to work together to provide coherent advice to politicians, and for effective policies to be developed. ?

This was also the experience in the global interdisciplinary network of experts working on Climate Change. And more recently, the interdisciplinary approaches which are needed to research into Artificial Intelligence and its impact on the future of society, work and knowledge generation. Complex problems often have multiple interconnected aspects and need to be examined holistically, at multiple system levels of scale and granularity. By integrating knowledge from different disciplines and perspectives though the collaboration of experts, a more comprehensive understanding of complex, real world issues can be reached, hopefully leading to better solutions.

Challenge to Experts

The World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risk Report 2024 and 2025 [MR1]?identified the spread of Misinformation and Disinformation, and the consequential confusion, scepticism and erosion of institutional trust as one of the highest risks in both the short and long terms. Increasing political and ideological polarisation has contributed to growing distrust in experts, especially when expert opinions are perceived to align with particular political agendas. In Loner, Fattorini and Bucchi (2023)’s paper, The role of science in a crisis, the speeches of three political leaders (Boris Johnson, Sergio Mattarella, and Ursula von der Leyen), were analysed to see how ‘science’ was framed by them during the Covid-19 pandemic. The results illustrate how experts can be co-opted into a political narrative and the agendas of particular factions. In a similar way, we track the ebb and flow in the fortunes of climate change experts in the Conference Of the Parties (COP) over decades of negotiations.

However, experts have also been involved in past high-profile failures and scandals. Examples include the financial crisis, public health missteps including the poor preparedness for the Covid-19 pandemic, botched Covid-19 vaccine trials and environmental disasters. One of the key causes of the 2008 financial crisis was cognitive failure, the failure of experts who set up the expert risk systems, and manufactured financial products and services, to understand the consequences of what these were doing, while aided and abetted by a considerable level of ‘groupthink’.

When experts are seen to have made significant errors, or have their complex findings reduced to thirty second sound bites, it undermines their credibility. In academic and technical papers, findings are, for practical reasons, rarely accompanied by notes framing all of the limitations and cautions on generalisability and application of their conclusions; a practice in which I am also sometimes complicit. This is compounded by the users of such results reading the abstract and concluding paragraphs without searching for such limitations and cautions in the body of the paper.

Complexity of Issues: Many contemporary issues and many ‘wicked problems’, such as climate change and pandemics, are highly complex and involve multiple levels of uncertainties. This complexity and the cautions and expressions of confidence as to their conclusions in technical papers can make it difficult for the public (and politicians) to understand expert opinions, leading to scepticism and negative reactions.

In many disciplines, there are significant issues for which the limits of current methods and the paucity of data and models keep the state of knowledge uncertain. Climate scientists took several decades to build the datasets that overwhelmingly came to the consensus that human activity is the major factor affecting Climate Change. The certainty often expected of empirical methods by practitioners and users is at odds with the contingent nature of knowledge. Politicians sought scientific consensus to inform policy decisions during Covid-19 and seemed genuinely surprised that science cannot offer certainties, and requires continued sourcing of reliable data and robust debate between experts to reach (contingent) findings and to deliver usable knowledge at each iteration. Experts were often the victims of unrealistic expectations by politicians and the mass media, and subjected to intense pressure to provide definitive answers.

The presentation of science and expertise in the media can also influence public trust. Journalists by reporting only research conclusions and findings, omitting the nuances, can often do a disservice to scientists, communicating a certainty that belies the very nature of the empirical approach to knowledge creation. During the Covid-19 pandemic, in pursuit of their ‘truth’, many ‘experts’ from diverse disciplines, and none, claimed to offer knowledgeable views on epidemiology, for example leading to conflicting messaging on whether lockdowns would deliver a ‘circuit-breaker’ of transmission of the virus.

It also does not help when experts are sometimes viewed as being out of touch with the everyday experiences and concerns of the general public. This perception of elitism encouraged by politicians like Michael Gove helps foster resentment and distrust, while offering - as an alternative - the promise of seductively simple truths, so attractive in a disconcertingly uncertain and rapidly changing world.

Such politicians tap into an understandable disenchantment with all of the elites, in particular experts who struggle to communicate and explain complex arguments. The widening of the audience for simple messaging and apparent certainties makes it easy for those with agendas to distort the oftentimes complex explanations relying on centuries of development of the scientific method, and decades of rapidly advancing knowledge based on research and application of technology. Technology, which paradoxically amplifies the spread of disinformation between those who don’t (or choose not to) understand.

The threat is that experts are marginalised, expertise and science set aside, and the “wisdom” of a new crowd in its illiberal echo chamber prevails.

Next month, in Part 2, I plan to explore how professionals, and even the individual citizen, can build on these perspectives and begin to respond to these rapid changes in the knowledge landscape.

A few updates:

01.It’s been a year since I left the CIPD, a sabbatical year to re-charge body, mind, and spirit. A year to renew relationships with people, with institutions and ideas. I hope you’ve found the monthly blogs of interest and I have enjoyed the discussions with you on each month’s topics. The blogs will be a LinkedIn NEWSLETTER from March and I’ll be inviting all my contacts to sign up for this monthly thought piece and updates. If you’re not yet a contact or would like the newsletter popping into your box, do ask to be included in our community. And if any of the issues raised in my blogs touch you or your organisation, feel free to drop me a note at [email protected]. I may be able to help.

02.February is also LGBT+ History Month in the UK. It’s important to recognise how hard-won equality rights have been. One powerful way is not to forget those who fought, resisted, and realised the dream of equality. However, the widespread support to ‘cancel’ Diversity, Equity and Inclusion jobs and initiatives by the simple signing of a Presidential Executive Order is alarming for all minorities. The corporate programmes following George Floyd’s murder in 2020 are not just facing diversity fatigue but an active backlash. There is also recognition of a mismatch between rhetoric and reality, and corporations are drawing breath to reframe and restart, with smaller budgets, more realism on what is possible, and with greater scrutiny of the return on investment. There is a move to align DEI with corporate objectives and to collect sensible data on the efficacy of DEI interventions. A newly published EY report (2025) recommends better measurement with systematic data collection, analysis, and target-setting. Much will depend on education through community action keeping alive the memories of those for whom equality was not just a word.

03.Lunar New Year

The Lunar New Year is celebrated by Chinese, Southeast Asians, and Koreans in both Asia and the wider diasporas. The Chinese New Year celebrations last for15 days, ending on the first full moon. This year it falls on February 12th. Families will mark it in different ways depending on local traditions. I’m fortunate enough this year to be in Asia on this day and will make the most of the time with friends and family and traditional food! Happy Chap Goh Mei!?

04.Valentine’s Day 14th February

Let’s not forget all those who are looking forward to celebrating Valentines’ Day, and those who dread it; it’s worth remembering that love isn’t just a four-letter word to be brought out on one day and put aside for the rest of the year.

#knowledge #epistemology #truth #integrity #profession #knowledgemanagement #data #information #data_analytics #research #science #empirical #criticalthinking #evidence #decision_making #management #strategy #psychology #power #manipulation #risk #HRM #peoplemanagement #curiosity #disinformation #misinformation #financial_crisis #health #Covid-19 #public_health #politics #philosophy #ethics #standards #technology #AI #nudge #behavior #Brexit #economics #behavioral_economics #insight #learning #complexity #media #socialmedia @EY @JudyPaine #ISO