THE THREE WISE PERSONS

An Epistemic Accountability Hearing

Convened by:

The Committee for Knowledge Legitimacy & Narrative Power

Venue:

Seminar Room C (U-shaped seating, no head of table)

Chair:

Dr Prudence Contextualis (they/them), Critical Epistemology

---

OPENING STATEMENT

The Chair begins:

“We are not here to deny your experience.

We are here to interrogate the conditions under which it came to matter.”

The Three Wise Persons exchange glances.

They have not prepared slides.

This is noted.

---

ISSUE 1: CLAIMED EXPERTISE

Chair:

“You are described as wise. Could you clarify the basis of this designation?”

Wise Person 1:

“We have studied the stars.”

A murmur in the room.

Chair:

“Stars as in… lived celestial experience?

Or stars as in abstract objects interpreted through an elite knowledge system?”

A subcommittee is immediately formed.

---

ISSUE 2: ASTROLOGY AS EVIDENCE

An external reviewer asks:

“What epistemic safeguards were in place to prevent confirmation bias?”

Wise Person 2:

“The star moved.”

Gasps.

A statistician raises a hand:

“Moved how?”

Wise Person 2:

“Meaningfully.”

This is recorded as “insufficiently operationalised.”

---

ISSUE 3: ACCESS AND PRIVILEGE

Chair:

“Who else had access to the stars?”

Wise Person 3:

“Technically… everyone.”

Chair:

“And yet only you arrived with conclusions.”

Silence.

A student observer whispers:

“Classic gatekeeping.”

---

ISSUE 4: KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

Chair:

“Why did you not submit your findings to the local community for validation?”

Wise Person 1:

“We brought gifts.”

The Chair closes their eyes.

“Material offerings do not substitute for methodological transparency.”

Gold is flagged as extractive.

Frankincense as unethically traded.

Myrrh as “oddly presumptive.”

---

ISSUE 5: THE STAR ITSELF

A critical astronomer asks:

“Did you consult the star about being used as evidence?”

The Wise Persons do not answer.

A note is made:

Possible celestial appropriation.

---

ISSUE 6: THE CHILD

Chair (gently):

“On what basis did you identify this infant as epistemically significant?”

Wise Person 3:

“It felt… obvious.”

The room stiffens.

Chair:

“Feeling is valid.

Universality is not.”

---

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

The Committee concludes:

• Wisdom appears self-ascribed and insufficiently contextualised

• Knowledge production relied on:

  • elite literacy

  • symbolic capital

  • and unaudited celestial indicators

• No evidence of peer review, community consultation, or reflexive positionality statements

---

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The title “Wise” to be suspended pending review

2. Future journeys to include:

   • community representatives

   • ethics approval

   • and a clear research question

3. Gifts to be replaced with:

   • open-access explanations

   • reflective listening

   • and an apology to the shepherds

---

WISE PERSONS’ RESPONSE

After consultation, they issue a statement:

“We acknowledge that our knowing emerged from a particular cosmology.

We commit to learning differently.

We will continue following stars,

but more humbly.”

They are reclassified as:

The Three Contextually Situated Knowledge Seekers

---

CLOSING LINE

The Chair concludes:

“Wisdom is not cancelled.

It is… under review.”