The Hierarchy of Truth

We live in a time when nearly every claim is presented as truth. Politicians, preachers, journalists, and neighbors all compete for authority. But not all truths are equal, and not all systems for establishing them deserve the same trust. If we are going to make sense of the world, and make decisions that preserve both life and progress, we need to think in terms of a hierarchy of truth.

At the top sits science. Science demands the strongest standard of evidence: empirical, testable, replicable. Its conclusions are never final, but always provisional in the best sense. They are humble, self-correcting, and adaptive to new data. That adaptability is not a weakness but its greatest strength. Where other systems cling to conclusions, science dismantles and rebuilds them when better explanations arise. Every advance in medicine, technology, and our understanding of the natural world rests on this quality. Vaccines, antibiotics, flight, electricity, the very device you are holding, none of them exist without science’s refusal to settle for certainty.

Beneath it is history. History is evidence-based but incomplete, built from documents, artifacts, and testimony. Its truths are durable yet partial, always open to revision as new records surface or old interpretations give way. Unlike science, it cannot rerun experiments, but it still depends on evidence to reconstruct what most likely happened.

Law follows. It works with evidence, but through thresholds that are procedural rather than absolute. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of the evidence” are practical standards. Legal truths are binding for society, even when they diverge from objective reality. Stability depends on precedent, which makes law less responsive than science or history.

Journalism holds the next rung. It aspires to verification but must operate under pressure, often publishing before the full picture is known. Journalism provides working truths, stronger than rumor and weaker than law, that require later correction and context.

Philosophy occupies a different place. It does not verify truths empirically but tests them against reason, coherence, and logical clarity. It sharpens the questions we ask and often clears the ground for scientific inquiry by exposing contradictions and refining concepts.

Outside this evidentiary hierarchy lie religion, myth, and art. They may give comfort, identity, and meaning. They transmit values, shape culture, and reveal emotional or existential truths. But they do not establish factual truth, because they require no verifiable evidence. They are powerful in their own domains, but dangerous when imported into the sphere of evidence.

And yet, in modern society, that is exactly what happens.

When Florida considers removing vaccine mandates, it is not science guiding the decision. Science shows us clearly why a certain proportion of the population must be vaccinated: herd immunity. To ignore that evidence in favor of ideology or religious objection is to substitute the bottom of the hierarchy for the top, and the cost is measured in lives.

The same dynamic plays out elsewhere. Climate change denial rejects overwhelming data in favor of partisan talking points or theological claims about divine control of the earth. School boards attempt to replace evolution with “intelligent design” or suppress evidence-based teaching about systemic racism. Anti-LGBTQ laws are justified through doctrine or panic, even as medical and psychological research shows otherwise. Gun violence is explained away as a matter of “evil” rather than access to firearms, suppressing decades of public health data. Abortion restrictions are justified by theology rather than medical science about viability and maternal health.

In each case, society substitutes its lowest standards of truth, faith, ideology, political expedience, for its highest. And in each case, the consequences are real: worsened health outcomes, distorted education, discrimination, and delayed responses to global crises.

This is why the hierarchy of truth matters. Evidence is not the only thing humans need. We also need meaning, community, and identity. But when it comes to shaping public life, evidence must come first. A society that allows religion or ideology to dictate policy in place of science courts disaster.

Science is not infallible. That is its strength. It does not pretend to have the final word. It asks us to keep testing, keep refining, keep improving. Its humility, the refusal to confuse certainty with truth, is what makes it our most trustworthy guide.

The question that remains is this: when the truths of science and the claims of belief contradict one another, which do we want guiding the laws, the policies, and the health of our children?

Thank you for reading. If you would like to explore more in-depth content, I invite you to check out my book, "Wander Light: Notes on Carrying Less and Seeing More." It helps support this web page and enables me to continue providing you with more content. Get your copy here.