Science is currently facing a major crisis of public confidence. Doubts about the validity of science have even crept into the White House, leading President Trump to declare on October 18 2020, at a rally in Carson City, Nevada, that the country would have been in a “massive depression” if he had actually listened to “the scientists”. In a follow-up conference call on October 19 he then said that “people are tired of hearing Fauci and all those idiots” . Mr Trump’s unhappiness is easy to understand, being the direct result of his continued public disagreements with government scientists and academics over such matters as the origins, mode of spread, public health measures, and methods of treatment for Covid-19.
It is ironic that America, an undisputed global leader in science, has also in recent years become a world leader when it comes to anti-science and pseudoscience, all with the help of a profusion of cultists, followers of organised religion, unbelievers, and conspiracy theorists, alongside influential and well-educated people who you might expect to be more discerning when it comes to the choice between truth and untruth. But whatever way you look at it, the science-denial movement has become big in America and many Americans now distrust established science, for a variety of reasons.
The whole issue of science and science denial is, however, much more complex than it might seem at first glance. To begin with, science itself is a somewhat ill-defined entity, although most people agree that it involves a systematic study of the natural and social world through observation, description, and experimentation. There is no universally recognised scientific method, or process of acquiring scientific knowledge, that is applicable across the different domains of science. Then comes the question of how you actually differentiate, or demarcate, genuine science from pseudoscience. For example, do you accept a scientific hypothesis or theory as the truth by attempting to verify (or prove) it by observation, as in the inductive approach to science, or do you attempt to falsify (or disprove it), as in the hypothetico-deductive approach of Karl Popper? This is a question the answer to which is yet to be finalised. Maybe, the way to make matters clearer is to work backwards, by trying to make sense of the conflicting claims of anti-science and pseudoscience.
Anti-science has probably been around since the very beginnings of science, coming to the fore under the medieval Catholic Church, for example when Galileo was tried and convicted for heresy in 1633 for his observation that the Earth rotated around the Sun. The 19th century saw a surge in anti-science, as demonstrated by the start of a battle between creationists and the supporters of natural selection and human evolution, one that continues to be fought out in many states of America even today. These anti-science movements were driven by religious convictions or ideological beliefs that rejected a simplified or reductionist rendition of an overwhelmingly complex universe in purely scientific terms that dispensed with ideas of divine intervention.
Pseudoscience, or fake science, is a more recent and more dangerous problem, as it can occasionally masquerade as genuine science, especially when it makes its way into mainstream scientific publications. Under the guise of real science, even trained scientists can be tempted to peddle erroneous or fraudulent research, or make wild predictions, all in the pursuit of personal fame and fortune. Scientists can even be seduced by well-heeled paymasters to support discredited positions, as seen in the example of the distinguished scientists who advised the Tobacco Industry Research Committee in America during the 1960s and 1970s. And then you have those pseudoscientists with limited or no scientific credentials who feel confident enough to make their theories freely available for general public consumption. Faith in untested and untried theories can unfortunately prove to be dangerous, as seen in the case of people who die prematurely and unnecessarily after resorting to belief-driven fake cancer cures.
Pseudoscience and anti-science have come together in the overlapping ideological positions and economic policies that are being fostered by various religious groups (such as some evangelical Christian churches), commercial interests (such as the fossil fuel extraction industry), advocacy groups, and libertarian think tanks. There seems to be no shortage of deeply polarising issues to choose from. Denials of the tobacco-cancer link, the HIV/ AIDS link, and of the depletion of stratospheric ozone have been superseded by the more recent denial of anthropogenic global warming, acceptance of a link between childhood autism and the MMR vaccine, the description of the risks of genetically modified food, and so on.
Science is by its nature incomplete and uncertain, and scientific knowledge is built up over time, making adjustments as required in response to new discoveries. Science is a collective activity, whereby scientists across the world share information by communicating through a common language. The results of scientific research are never accepted as final, are always open to challenge, and in any case require peer review before being published in mainstream journals. Even scientists can, however, make mistakes. Independent peer view is thus intended to detect any unintended, but overlooked, errors and inconsistencies in the design of scientific studies and in the interpretation of study results . As scientists tend to be sceptical, competitive, and frequently critical of one other, a scientific consensus, when reached, represents the most valid available conclusion in the light of available knowledge. While scientists tend to be conservative as whole , resisting changes to the status quo, even a widely accepted consensus is by no means sacrosanct. A consensus can indeed be overturned as evidence to the contrary builds up, through a process known as a paradigm shift. All of this testifies to the dynamic nature of science, which is constantly receptive to new ideas and discoveries.
On the other hand, pseudoscience frequently claims to be complete, final and all-encompassing. It proponents share a passionate and unswerving belief in their position, often refusing to change their views in the light of new evidence. Their results cannot be challenged, yet are not verifiable by independent researchers. Pseudoscience is frequently published and distributed without any form of scrutiny, in both mainstream media outlets and social media platforms. Confirmation bias is common, whereby supportive evidence is sought out and accepted, while evidence to the contrary is denied, dismissed, or distorted. Logical fallacies abound, such as mistaking correlation between events that are purely coincidental as proof of a causative link between them. Scientific references are usually not provided or chosen selectively, but instead anecdotal evidence, in the form of positive testimonials and claims of miraculous cures, deceive the gullible. At the same time, conspiracy theories abound, all based around allegations of unfair suppression of valid ideas by mainstream science. Pseudoscience is often framed in terms of a David and Goliath struggle, with the lovers of freedom and seekers of truth pitted against a mafia-like scientific establishment, big corporations, big pharma and big government. It can be easy to fall for such fake science, at a time of overwhelming information overload and widespread manufactured fear, which lead people to actively seek out solutions that sit comfortably with their personal beliefs and value systems.
We live in interesting times. Never before has so much information been so freely and readily available, and to so many people right across the world. It is difficult, even for experts, to keep abreast of new developments. In addition, there is a widespread lack of trust in the government, academia and “elites” in general. As a result, any individual scientific beliefs are often decided by social class, educational level, cultural affinities, ethnic background, and political affiliations. The leaders of science face a challenge when it comes to communicating their messages to a distrustful and much less receptive audience, one that does not readily defer to authority. It doesn’t help that scientific and mathematical literacy is falling, as part of a wider decline in educational attainment. Nonetheless, when it comes to making important personal choices, it is essential, whenever possible, to shop around for solutions that are backed up by the most reliable and up-to-date evidence-based knowledge, rather than relying upon freely available gossip on social media. But the way things are, there is little reason for optimism.
Ashis Banerjee