Tag Archives: Theranos

red bar

The Dilemmas and Possibilities of Intersubjectivity

Models, Problem Practices, Rhetorical Mastery, , , , , , , , , ,

We look to our peers as much as the facts to confirm what we want to understand as settled issues.

We live in what is sometimes described as a “post-truth” age, where groups or individuals find supporters sharing questionable claims. Indeed, it’s not possible to study everyday human rhetoric without coming away with at least some respect for the idea of “post-truth” “intersubjectivity,” meaning that a cluster of people and media can agree on as “true,” “right,” or “just.” Even our naturally subjective selves can usually find others who share the same views.

It is the way of human groups to promote narratives that gain traction and acceptance, even if those looking in from the outside may see some clearly shaky reasoning. We look to our friends, influencers and family to confirm what we want to consider settled issues. Or a reference group may be climate deniers, religious groups, and any number of social media followers who have collected themselves in islands of intersubjective harmony. Acknowledging this process helps us see how the absurd can still be sustained within the culture.

It is hard to fathom how those living with the rhetorical knots that Donald Trump gleefully creates can see their beliefs as consistent or generous. But American myopia in the face of charlatans is baked into the culture. This is a country with a long history of witch-burners, fakers, impostors, con artists, land thieves, promoters of religious fairy tales, and ordinary larcenists. Finding ways to put a rhetorical covering on dubious acts or beliefs is relatively easy in a country this large.

This ease of believing in a fraudulent activity is seen in the documentary You Can See Everything (2026), which explores the ambiguities of belief expressed by convicted felon Elizabeth Holmes. Does she really believe that present technology can diagnose a host of medical conditions from a drop of blood? Will the laws of science or physics allow it? Does she think Theranos would have succeeded if she had more time to build out the fake blood analysis equipment? Holmes, her partner, and a collection of wealthy old men in her thrall were on their way to luring more investors and companies to sign up. Safeway alone spent $350 million gearing up its stores for what turned out to be bogus Theranos machines. Blood reports included false positives on what would be some serious medical conditions.

Here’s the dilemma. A consensus view of what’s possible still needs the affirmation of truth seekers; the more influential the better. It’s the same quandary for Republican operatives who show passive acceptance of the President’s constant misinformation more than any clear-eyed empiricism would allow.

 

When Intersubjectivity is as Good as it Gets

But there is another side to intersubjectivity. Consensus on a point of view about complex problems is another way to put some genuine value on intersubjective agreement. The idea has relevance because many important ideas involve claims of preference rather than claims of fact. For claims of preference or judgment, intersubjective agreement is as good as it gets. Should the U.S. reinstitute a compulsory draft? Would it be better to simplify the tax code with a straight income percentage rate? Is the constitutional stipulation of a non-proportional Senate still a good idea? Questions like these vie for supporters and critics, but there is no final truth to be discovered. Instead, we search for consensus on what might be “best” rather than what is “true.” Intersubjectivity is the only alternative when there is no absolute or fixed reference point. And so we vote, respond to questionnaires, seek out affinity groups where we feel at home, and learn to live with unbelievers who do not share our views.

The clear takeaway from this perspective is to resist the urge to reduce all differences to matters of fact. Using “is” in a sentence doesn’t make what follows a certifiable truth. That verb can be hopelessly misleading. In addition, humans are by nature storytellers, not computers. We are attracted to fantasies and faiths that allow us to sometimes live comfortably with our own shared delusions.

two color line

Regaining a Consciousness of Character

Problem Practices, , , , , , ,
                        My Dinner with Andre

Sometimes even a friend needs to hear that they need to have higher standards for judging the character of others.

Aristotle famously pointed out that who a person is can speak louder than what they say. He and other wide-ranging thinkers argued that one’s own personal credibility was precious: a character trait necessary to be a force for good in public discussion.  They used a phrase we barely hear today: the idea of the “virtuous person.”

We can’t say the impulse is dead. Novels, documentaries and films regularly put shallow and temporizing characters on display as negative models. Drama lets us see human frailty, keeping the idea of flawed, biased and unreliable sources visible. But the information overload that is now the norm often means that the character of a source is assessed last, if at all. To cite one instance, research shows that users of the internet for medical information are less likely to weigh the source than the “helpful” information, leaving many to bogus remedies promoted by companies whose interests are more marketing than medical.

The maw of fractured conversations we now witness across media platforms distracts us from considering the quality of sources. Narratives of dramatic events can easily draw us in to fascinating details before we have fully considered whether the core values of basic honesty and moral action have been met. Right now, for example, YouTube is full of stories about the Russian invasion of Ukraine that come from individual and private sources. These are usually hopeful but somewhat dubious assessments about Ukraine from individuals, rather than straight reporting from the field. We need to be alert to the likelihood that not every assertion is accurate, even if we want it to be.  People often get a free pass from us if their views and values align with our own.

In the Age of the Con, Who Can be Trusted?

As a culture, we seem increasingly slow to come to an awareness of another’s shortcuts around more rigorous investigation and fact-checking. Think of the claims that Elizabeth Theranos made for her rapid-result, all-in-one blood testing machines. We owe the initial awareness of her invention’s weaknesses to John Carreyrou of The Wall Street Journal. He was skeptical of the claims to investors made for the machine, and grew even more doubtful when some working at Theranos privately noted that the untested technology was capable of far less than advertised. Usually those working at a startup are as enthusiastic as the founders, hence, not very reliable if problems arise. Too much is at stake to communicate doubts. But the rare doubter within an organization who will talk may be more credible because they have placed truth higher than their own career. Like all of us, journalists must weigh the motives of a source when trying to sort out hopes from hard truths.

Personal credibility has recently received more attention in light of the leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion for overturning Roe vs. Wade, the landmark court decision guaranteeing Americans a choice in whether to proceed with a pregnancy.  An apparent majority now seems intent on overturning the landmark 1973 ruling. Politico released the draft copy indicating that Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett had voted with Samuel Alito to toss out the precedent. This was in spite of the fact that Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett had given public testimony at their confirmation hearings declaring Roe to be “settled law.” Critics were angry that these justices had not honored their earlier views to leave this key precedent in place.  Can future court nominees be trusted to act on their stated beliefs?

We need to consider the veracity of those whose who want to shape our attitudes and actions. Sometimes a friend needs to be reminded that they are putting their trust in the hands of someone unworthy of it. Several simple questions about sources are a good place to start:

  • Is the source in a position to know the truth or make a reasonable judgment?
  • Have other serious people supported the source’s reliability?
  • Is a person’s enthusiasm for an idea unreasonably coloring their judgment?
  • Can a source coherently explain their reasoning and evidence for an assertion?

And there’s one more question I find reassuring when answered in the affirmative.

  • Does a source have enough honesty to acknowledge not knowing enough to answer?