GUEST COLUMNIST: Is science denial intellectually honest in our modern world?
A hundred years ago, most people might have reasonably assumed that science played little or no role in their lives. If they lived on a farm, they might have lived and worked essentially as their ancestors had a hundred or two hundred years before, and so lived lives unchanged by the burgeoning science of their time. Today, few people can even imagine escaping science’s grasp; indeed the modern world—with both its wonders and its terrors — is built on scientific knowledge.
Yet, there are some who for ideological reasons want to deny science its due. They instead want to pick and choose what scientific discoveries they are willing to believe. I’m not talking about the speculative or cutting-edge of scientific work that we all might be advised to wait until the ink dries on our newspaper to believe — how many bought shares in cold fusion back in the 1990s? What I’m talking about are scientific discoveries that have withstood more than a few rigorous tests over years, decades, or in one case, a century. Some people want to deny on ideological grounds a part of our scientific understanding, even while accepting the fruits of that understanding in other realms of their lives. They deny science, even while that same science gives them things they desire.
Sean Carroll, in his book “The Making of the Fittest,” argues that denying science—whether evolution, or the effectiveness of vaccination, or, I would add, global climate change — takes certain predictable tracks.
First, doubt the science. Even when there is a preponderance of evidence to support a particular scientific understanding, simply doubt its veracity without considering the evidence that refutes the validity of your own position. Those opposed to vaccination point to the cyclical patterns of disease as an explanation for the decline of certain diseases, but completely ignore hundreds of clinical trials of vaccines’ effectiveness.
Second, question the motives of scientists. Claim that the data has been falsified, or if that doesn’t work, claim that those scientists who warn us about greenhouse gasses have investments in alternative energy.
Third, magnify disagreements among scientists. In most expanding fields of knowledge, there is always room for disagreement. In evolutionary biology for example, disagreements revolve around the technicalities of natural selection, not differences about whether evolution has occurred. A debate about whether birds form a direct lineage with dinosaurs does not strike at the heart of evolution.
Fourth, cite gadflies as authorities. Many people have Ph.D. after their name, and some are willing to say almost anything to be in the public eye. It is a lot harder to become a productive scientist.
Fifth, exaggerate potential harm. Vaccines carry potential risks; magnify them, even if those risks are outweighed by the possibility of getting sick. Claim that evolution leads to fascism, or alternatively, communism, or that responding to climate change will destroy the economy.
Sixth, claim that the acceptance of a scientific discovery repudiates our core ideology. “We must reject evolution because it denies the Bible.” Even though, many major denominations — such as the Catholic, Jewish and a number of Protestant faiths—find no inherent conflict with evolution.
Lastly, make appeals to personal freedom. Shouldn’t we be allowed to choose what kind of light bulb we want? Shouldn’t we be allowed to believe what we want to believe?
At any point in time, science is a tapestry made of our current knowledge; cut out one part and you lose not only its beauty, but its promise. Thus, there are only two intellectually honest routes for those who disbelieve a particular finding. Neither of them involves denial. Either become a scientist and test that knowledge for yourself, or give up all the benefits you’ve accrued from humanity’s ever-expanding scientific knowledge. If you aren’t going to believe in the knowledge that science has given us, then give up all those things that science has made possible. Give up your computer, your cell phone, your Internet, your microwave, your antibiotics, your cancer treatments, your Lipitor, your Viagra, your GPS, your telephone, your airplanes, your digital camera, your television, your cable, your ....
—
Horner is a psychology professor at Colorado College.
