In an age where misinformation spreads faster than facts and trust in established institutions erodes daily, Francis Remedios’ latest work, Science in the Face of the Post-Truth Condition: The Challenge of Steve Fuller’s Social Epistemology, arrives as a timely and provocative contribution to understanding our contemporary epistemic crisis. Published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2026, this book represents the culmination of Remedios’ three-decade intellectual journey tracking the development of Steve Fuller’s social epistemology.
The book’s genesis during the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020-2021 gives it an immediate relevance that resonates with readers who experienced firsthand the confusion of navigating a “polluted epistemic environment.” Remedios masterfully contextualises the post-truth condition not as a singular phenomenon but as a complex interplay of multiple crises that demand nuanced understanding.
At the heart of Remedios’ analysis is a crucial insight: the post-truth condition cannot be reduced to a simple epistemic crisis where emotion has triumphed over fact. Instead, he identifies four distinct ways of understanding this condition. While many scholars focus solely on the first—an epistemic crisis where facts become irrelevant—Remedios argues that Steve Fuller’s social epistemology offers more comprehensive explanations through the other three frameworks: the legitimation crisis of scientific authority, the democratisation of knowledge through the internet and social media, and the impact of artificial intelligence on the boundaries of the knower.
The book’s greatest strength lies in its systematic exposition of Fuller’s controversial position that the post-truth condition represents a “triumph of democracy over elitism.” This perspective, which has scandalised many academics, challenges the conventional wisdom that post-truth is necessarily a threat to democratic governance. Fuller argues that with the democratisation of knowledge, ordinary citizens are reclaiming epistemic agency from self-appointed experts—a process he compares to the Protestant Reformation’s empowering of individual Bible reading.
Remedios’ analysis of the legitimation crisis is particularly insightful. Drawing on Fuller’s work, he shows how the authority of scientific institutions has been challenged not merely by ignorance or malevolence but by structural changes in the production and dissemination of knowledge. The Kuhn-Popper debate on scientific revolutions, which Fuller has reframed as a struggle between authoritarian and open approaches to science, offers a lens for understanding contemporary battles over climate change, vaccine efficacy, and other scientific controversies.
Perhaps most provocative is the book’s treatment of intelligent design theory and conspiracy theories. Remedios explains Fuller’s methodological commitment to studying all knowledge claims sympathetically, regardless of their deviation from mainstream scientific consensus. This is not an endorsement of these claims but an application of the symmetry principle—a foundational tenet of science and technology studies—that demands researchers examine how any knowledge claim becomes legitimised or delegitimised, whether from established authorities or alternative sources.
The book’s examination of expertise and epistemic trust addresses a pressing concern for Bangladeshi readers, as similar debates over expert authority play out in our own public discourse. Remedios explores how the internet and social media have created an “epistemic levelling” that challenges traditional hierarchies of knowledge. He contrasts the views of Lippmann, who argued for expert governance, with those of Hayek, who saw distributed market knowledge as superior to elite planning—a tension that remains unresolved in contemporary politics.
Remedios’s treatment of the university’s crisis of legitimacy will interest academics and policymakers alike. He documents how the neoliberal transformation of higher education has turned knowledge from a public good into a “club good,” accessible only to those with credentials. Fuller’s proposed solution—a return to the Humboldtian university that integrates research and teaching to democratize knowledge—offers a provocative vision for reform that challenges both conservative defenders of tradition and progressive advocates of vocational training.
The book’s discussion of epistemic democracy brings these themes together in examining how societies can make collective decisions in the absence of shared epistemic standards. Remedios presents Fuller’s agonistic vision of democracy, where disagreement is not a pathology but a fundamental feature of political life. This perspective challenges deliberative democratic theorists who assume consensus is achievable through rational discussion, and instead acknowledges the irreducible pluralism of modern societies.
Remedios writes with admirable clarity about complex philosophical ideas, making the book accessible to educated readers without sacrificing intellectual rigour. His treatment of modal power—the capacity to control the necessary and possible conditions under which knowledge claims are legitimised—provides a useful analytical tool for understanding political manipulation in the age of social media.
The book does have limitations. Critics will note that Remedios largely accepts Fuller’s framing of issues, offering criticism primarily within the terms of Fuller’s own project rather than mounting fundamental challenges to its premises. The book’s defence of intellectual neutrality in the study of knowledge claims may strike some as insufficiently concerned with the practical harms of misinformation. Furthermore, the dense engagement with analytic epistemology and science studies literature may pose challenges for readers unfamiliar with these traditions.
Nevertheless, Science in the Face of the Post-Truth Condition makes an important contribution to understanding our contemporary predicament. By refusing to reduce the post-truth condition to simple ignorance or political manipulation, Remedios opens space for a more thoughtful response—one that acknowledges the legitimate grievances behind challenges to established authority while maintaining commitment to rigorous inquiry.
For Bangladeshi readers, the book’s insights are particularly relevant as our society navigates rapid technological change, growing educational access, and the democratisation of information. The tensions between expert authority and popular sovereignty that Remedios explores are visible in our own public debates over development policy, public health, and political accountability.
Published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2026, this 152-page volume offers a concise yet thought-provoking examination of the post-truth condition. It features a foreword by sociologist and philosopher Steve Fuller, which frames the book’s central arguments within contemporary debates on knowledge and democracy.
This book deserves the attention of policymakers, educators, researchers, and all citizens concerned about the future of knowledge and democracy. Rather than lamenting the erosion of truth or surrendering to pessimism, it provides a thoughtful framework for understanding the complexities of the post-truth era. By combining intellectual rigour with a firm commitment to democratic values, the book equips readers to engage more critically and constructively with the challenges confronting contemporary societies.
Dr Matiur Rahman is a researcher and development professional.
[email protected]
