This essay addresses the so-called "post-truth" era in which scientific evidence of, for example, climate change, is given little weight compared to more immediate appeals to emotion and belief, and examines the relationship of alleged anti-science and populist irrationality to left- and right-wing political alignments. It also addresses charges of anti-science that were once leveled at Science and Technology Studies (STS) itself, and particularly in relation to the “symmetrical” posture taken toward scientific controversies. Recently, "symmetry" in STS has been linked to the media conventions and argumentative strategies that have sustained controversies over climate change and other health and safety concerns. This essay argues that "symmetry" was originally set up in a circumscribed way to encourage research on controversies, but that it does not amount to a general conclusion to the effect that science is no different from any other system of belief. Instead, an effort to pursue "symmetrical" research on scientific controversies can document how, far from being displaced from all relevance, scientific authority and its institutional supports are being duplicated along parallel tracks which sustain disputes and delay concerted action.

中文翻译：

---

我们从来都不是反科学的：对科学战争和后真理的反思

本文针对所谓的“后真相”时代，在该时代中，与更直接地诉诸于情感和信仰相比，气候变化等科学证据的权重很小，并研究了所谓的反科学与民粹主义之间的关系。对左翼和右翼政治联盟的不理性。它也解决了曾经在科学技术研究（STS）本身提出的反科学指控，特别是关于科学争议的“对称”态势。最近，STS中的“对称性”已与媒体惯例和辩论性策略联系在一起，这些惯例性和辩论性策略在气候变化和其他健康与安全问题上一直存在争议。本文认为“对称性” 最初是以限制方式设立的，以鼓励对争议的研究，但它并不等于对科学与其他任何信仰体系都没有区别的结论的一般性结论。取而代之的是，对科学争议进行“对称”研究的努力可以证明，科学权威及其机构支持并没有偏离所有相关性，而是沿着维持争议和延缓协调行动的平行轨道复制的。