I am a huge fan of the BBC show The Traitors – for me, it is a fascinating real-world demonstration of epistemology in action. Watching contestants navigate suspicion, deception, and trust offers a unique window into how people gather evidence, form beliefs, and justify decisions under uncertainty. The show brilliantly illustrates the challenges of distinguishing truth from falsehood, making it a compelling study of how we come to know what we know.
Understanding how we determine what is true is a central concern of epistemology, the philosophical study of knowledge. Five major sources – empiricism, rationalism, intuition, testimony, and memory – have long been recognised as the foundations upon which we build and justify our beliefs. These sources are not just theoretical constructs; they are vividly illustrated in real-world contexts, such as the social dynamics of The Traitors and the complex environment of health information on social media. By examining how these sources function in both settings, we can better appreciate their strengths, limitations, and the challenges they present in the pursuit of truth.
The five sources of knowledge: Definitions, strengths, and limitations
Empiricism refers to knowledge gained through direct sensory experience (i.e., perception) – seeing, hearing, or otherwise observing the world. It is the bedrock of the scientific method, providing concrete and testable evidence. However, empiricism is not infallible; our senses can deceive us, and not all truths are accessible through observation alone.
Rationalism, by contrast, is knowledge derived from logical reasoning, deduction, and the application of general principles, sometimes independent of direct experience. Rationalism excels in domains such as mathematics and logic, where certainty is possible, but it may falter when applied to the unpredictable realities of social life, where premises are often uncertain or incomplete.
Intuition is immediate, non-inferential knowledge – a gut feeling or snap judgement that does not arise from conscious reasoning. Intuition can be remarkably fast and, in the hands of experts, sometimes reliable. Yet it is also highly subjective, prone to bias, and difficult to justify to others.
Testimony involves acquiring knowledge from the reports, statements, or assertions of others. It is indispensable for social and collaborative knowledge, allowing us to learn from those with different experiences or expertise. Nevertheless, the reliability of testimony depends on the credibility and honesty of the source, making it vulnerable to manipulation and misinformation.
Memory is the retention and recall of information previously acquired through other sources. It enables learning from past experiences and provides continuity in reasoning and strategy. However, memory is fallible, subject to forgetting, distortion, and confabulation, and its reliability depends on the accuracy of the original experience. confabulation refers to the unintentional creation of false or distorted memories to fill in gaps in our memory.
Epistemology in action: “The Traitors” as a living laboratory
The gameplay of “The Traitors” offers a compelling demonstration of how these epistemological sources operate in practice. Contestants must constantly balance observation, reasoning, intuition, testimony, and memory to navigate a high-stakes environment of trust, deception, and uncertainty.
Empiricism is evident as players scrutinise each other’s body language, tone, and facial expressions during roundtable discussions. For example, a contestant sitting in stunned silence after an accusation may be interpreted as guilty or deceptive. Voting patterns are also observed; if two players consistently vote against each other, others may infer a rivalry or alliance based on these empirical observations.
Rationalism comes into play when contestants analyse the sequence of eliminations or question the motives behind certain actions. They may deduce who is likely to be a traitor by considering who remains in the game and the logic of the structure, or by reasoning about why a traitor would recruit a particular player at a specific stage.
Intuition is frequently invoked when players make decisions under uncertainty. A contestant might declare, “I must go with my gut,” relying on an immediate feeling rather than concrete evidence. Sometimes, a player suddenly feels certain about another’s loyalty or guilt, shifting suspicion based on a gut feeling rather than new facts.
Testimony is central to the social dynamics of the game. Public accusations and defences at the roundtable can sway group opinion, especially when a respected player makes a claim. Contestants plead their innocence or attempt to persuade others, and these testimonies are weighed in the decision-making process.
Memory is vital for tracking who voted for whom in previous rounds, spotting patterns or inconsistencies, and recalling past betrayals or alliances. Remembering that a player previously “betrayed” another can influence current trust and suspicion.
No single source of knowledge is sufficient on its own in “The Traitors.” Contestants must constantly balance and critically evaluate multiple sources, each with its own strengths and vulnerabilities, to navigate the game’s social complexity and uncertainty.
Epistemological sources and health information on social media
The same five sources of knowledge are at play when individuals evaluate health information or advertisements on social media, but the stakes and challenges are different. The digital environment introduces new complexities, amplifying the potential for error and manipulation.
Empiricism, in the context of social media, involves looking for observable evidence such as scientific studies, before-and-after photos, or videos showing results. However, unlike in-person observation, online content can be easily manipulated. Visual “evidence” is often staged, selectively edited, or taken out of context, making it unreliable.
Rationalism is employed when users critically analyse claims, questioning whether the information makes logical sense or fits with established scientific understanding. For instance, a post claiming that a detox tea “flushes toxins” from the body can be scrutinised by considering the actual functions of the liver and kidneys. However, without sufficient background knowledge, it is easy to be misled by pseudoscientific jargon or logical fallacies.
Intuition plays a significant role, as people often accept information that “feels right” or aligns with their beliefs. Health advertisements frequently use emotionally charged stories or images to create a sense of trustworthiness or necessity. Yet, intuition is shaped by biases, prior beliefs, and emotional manipulation, making it an unreliable guide in the digital age.
Testimony is perhaps the most prominent source on social media, where users rely on influencers, friends, or self-proclaimed experts for health advice. A celebrity endorsement or a viral post may be trusted because of the source’s popularity or perceived authority. However, social media blurs the lines between experts and non-experts, and popularity does not equate to credibility. Many users judge credibility through “bandwagon heuristics,” trusting posts with many likes or shares, which can be misleading.
A vivid example of misplaced authority in the fitness world is the tendency to trust advice from a shirtless, muscular man or a scantily clad woman over that of an overweight or conventionally unattractive presenter. The visual cues of a sculpted physique or revealing attire often make these influencers seem more credible, even when their expertise is questionable. But why do we instinctively believe them more? Imagine the reaction if a university lecturer delivered a lecture half-naked in a skimpy outfit – such a display would likely undermine their perceived authority and provoke public outcry. Why, then, is this presentation style accepted, even expected, from fitness influencers but not from academic professionals?
This contrast highlights how our perceptions of authority and credibility are shaped by context and societal expectations. In the realm of fitness, physical appearance is often conflated with expertise, leading audiences to accept advice based on looks rather than qualifications. In academic settings, however, authority is grounded in knowledge and professionalism, and deviations from these norms are seen as diminishing credibility. This double standard reveals the powerful influence of visual presentation and social context on whom we choose to trust.
Memory influences how people judge new claims, as they recall previous information, advertisements, news, or personal experiences. For example, remembering that a similar claim was previously debunked, or recalling a friend’s negative experience with a product, can inform current judgements. However, memory is fallible and can be influenced by repeated exposure to misinformation, making false claims seem familiar and thus more believable.
Social epistemology and the digital environment
Social media platforms constitute complex epistemic environments where information, misinformation, and disinformation intermingle freely. Users must judge not only the content but also the credibility of sources and the social context in which information spreads. The “herd mentality” or bandwagon effect can lead individuals to trust widely shared or liked posts, regardless of their truth. In such environments, epistemic virtues – such as critical thinking, open-mindedness, and intellectual humility – are essential for navigating the flood of information and avoiding epistemic pitfalls.
The digital context amplifies the challenges associated with each source of knowledge. Visual evidence is easily manipulated, logical analysis is undermined by a lack of background knowledge, intuition is shaped by emotional appeals, testimony is complicated by blurred lines between expertise and popularity, and memory is distorted by the repetition of misinformation. Epistemically naïve individuals, those with less robust critical thinking skills, are more likely to share and believe health rumours. Abstract rules are insufficient; understanding the social and informational context is key to judging credibility.
Conclusion: Navigating knowledge in a complex world
Both “The Traitors” and the world of social media health information demonstrate that the pursuit of truth is a dynamic and challenging process. In both contexts, individuals must weigh observation, logic, intuition, the statements of others, and memory in order to reach justified beliefs. However, the digital environment introduces new risks, as each source of knowledge can be more easily manipulated and the social context can amplify mistakes. Developing strong epistemic habits—such as questioning evidence, checking sources, and remaining aware of personal biases—is essential for making sound decisions, whether one is navigating a game of deception or assessing health information online. Ultimately, it is through the careful and critical use of empiricism, rationalism, intuition, testimony, and memory that we can improve our chances of distinguishing truth from falsehood in an increasingly complex world.
