This commentary is by Bruce Stevenson of Middlesex, a recently retired biomedical researcher and teacher.
I was trained as a scientist. My career as a biomedical researcher was dedicated to the process of generating data — objective, verifiable measurements that reflect, as best as possible, reality. Or as Merriam-Webster defines science, the means of gaining “knowledge about the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.”
The essence of science — the pursuit of an accurate picture of how things work — seems fairly straightforward. But running through society is an alarming dismissal of science and the information it produces. The issues of Covid-19 and climate change, for example, have sparked controversy that puts facts, uninformed opinions, and politics into a blender, with an output of pureed mush. What’s that about?
Let’s start at the top. Our most recent former president had an obvious problem with science and facts. After being voted out of office, he has continued to argue that the election was rigged and stolen while providing no real evidence or facts to substantiate that claim. When faced with the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, he argued — instead of listening to infectious disease experts — that the virus was no worse than the seasonal flu and was going to just disappear. He then touted treatments advocated by a doctor who believes people get sick because they masturbate and vaccines are made from alien DNA. I’m not making this up.
To put it gently, these stances on the election and viral pandemic are at odds with a wide-ranging consensus of knowledge and scientific expertise that relies on verifiable data, as opposed to deceit or lies.
But the former president is not alone in dismissing science. Harris polls have shown that more Americans believe in the devil, hell, miracles, and life after death than in Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Why is science dismissed? When people who reject scientific evidence get sick, do they want the most up-to-date medical treatments — which, by the way, are based on science — or do they toss up their hands and just hope for the best?
In her book “Why Trust Science?” Naomi Oreskes, a professor of the history of science at Harvard University, points out that nearly everyone values the skills of experts. When we’re sick, we go to a doctor to provide health care, not a house painter. When our car doesn’t work, we take it to an auto mechanic, not a chef.
So, in matters like infectious disease or climate change, why believe nonexperts over professionals dedicated to gathering verifiable knowledge on the subjects? The answers are complex.
Oreskes points out that science sometimes tells us things we don’t want to hear. She speaks of “implicatory denial,” when people “reject scientific findings because [they] don’t like their implications,” whether those implications are financial, political, or personal.
And science can be inaccessible. Regardless of the field, science employs a specialized vocabulary; trying to understand current scientific findings without that vocabulary is challenging. Adding the cultural norm that scientists are “eccentric” only makes it easier to put it all in a box labeled “ignore.”
Unfortunately, the trend toward dismissing scientists and facts has grown. The internet is filled with inane theories hatched from the concept that dismissing science and real data makes your fabricated views just as valid as those of the “elites.” Isaac Asimov had a rather blunt view of this when he described a “cult of ignorance,” where people dismissing science are saying “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Obviously, ignoring science has consequences — distinguishing reality from fantasy is important in our everyday lives. Believing in Santa Claus is harmless, but not believing in vaccines has landed us in the midst of a public health crisis.
Some have forgotten that much of what we enjoy today in health care and technology derives from scientific progress. If you doubt this, try a root canal without anesthesia.
Allowing nonscientists to tell us what science to believe or not to believe, based on their biases or best interests, will only impede our ongoing growth of knowledge. Can we do something to reverse this trend?
Yes.
Scientists can do a better job of communicating to the public not only their findings but also how they generate those findings — the consensual and self-correcting scientific method that substantiates their validity.
Oreskes suggests we also consider our common values. We love our children. We wonder at nature’s beauty. Could we start with those shared values to approach contentious issues like climate change? Rather than argue over the validity of each other’s work, perhaps we should respect the experts and collaborate to find solutions that address the most needs.
Call me Pollyanna, but count me among those who believe using reason and science instead of lying and ignorance is how we move forward to improve our lives.
