Smells do tell us some epistemic truth

In the article Aroma of Righteousness the author, Deborah Green prefaces her argument that smell by nature is fleeting and elusive. So two things stand true that we then have a yearning for pleasant and enjoyable smells and a repulsion towards those that are not. So given that smells are always coming and going we have a tendency to gravitate that which is pleasant. i then question what exactly is a good or pleasant smell and what evolutionary and religious purpose does it serve us to have it.

I speculate that at a foundation level our sense of smell help us determine to some degree or another what is pleasant in the tangible world. for example, the smell of roses and flowers blooming often are pleasant smells. objectively, people often find similar things to be a pleasant smell, however, the different social associations made vary from cultures. However, some argue that a given culture or society can collectively change their perspective on a particularly smell. That is to say, smell itself is socially constructed. I tend to disagree with the skeptics because i think that certain things smell good and others bad. While it is true that through social coordination some might associate a particular smell with a positive memory or event and is then pleased. However, i deny that the physical act itself is a pleasant smell. For example, human and animal feces or dung is, i think, universally an unpleasant smell. One may understand the need of it and through familiarity and association come to not be displease by feces itself. Nonetheless, the smell of feces will remain unpleasant to anyone who smells it. Otherwise why is it possible to pass out from smelling something, like a dead body, for too long. The body must then be innately wired to respond to the actual happenings of the physical world and not simply our perception.