It might help if you could give an example of what you think anti-science would actually look like.
I’m not exactly sure where that label would be applied in some cases. For example, we are currently seeing the careers of scientists being seriously threatened by cuts to their funding because someone doesn’t like the policies at the private university they work at. Is that anti-science? What of people who claim 5G is causing viral infections, and then denies most of what we understand in the field of infectious disease?
I’m trying to skirt the biggest hot button topics so we don’t veer off track, but hopefully you see where I am going.
I’m not remotely familiar with this claim, but I would say, yes, that sounds like someone who is legitimately “anti-science” to me.
This, on the other hand, doesn’t sound remotely “anti-science” to me. Any more than how the careers of English professors may similarly be threatened by cuts of funding because of controversial policies of their universities. Would that be “anti-English”?
In general, I would call it anti-intellectual to some degree. The larger question is why are scientists being attacked like this. Why are they being used as unwilling pawns in a culture war they are not a part of?
So then maybe they are more “collateral damage”? Though I tend to agree that in a general “anti-intellectual” war, science is definitely hurt by that, even if the combatants would claim to be pro-‘science’ in some way or form. But the general popular political mood right now is to be “anti-elitist” and anything that makes use of extensive education gets caught in that net - which definitely includes science.
I’m not sure why finding “bad apples” in any field would suddenly make that field of study bad. There is no logic in that beyond the “logic” of deciding ahead of time that one doesn’t like the conclusions that education or science often lead to, and therefore weaponizing anything against those things that one can. A majority (or power-wielding minority) of people in the U.S. in love with themselves seem to be doing this right now, and the entire nation is already paying the price in the loss of brain power and investment from abroad that no longer has any incentive to come our way - and much disincentive.
In the same way, I would never point to “bad apples” in the global Christian community as a reason Christianity is false, nor that all Christians are bad.
I am more than willing to be wrong about this, but I get the distinct feeling that some science is being shutdown because the conclusions are inconvenient. I don’t think it is a coincidence that fields of study that made one particular politician look foolish are now being specifically attacked (e.g. CDC), not to mention fields of study that have been attacked by larger political movements (e.g. climate change). The head of the HHS is a life long anti-vaxxer, for crying out loud. It’s like putting a Flat Earther in charge of NASA. And for what? Because he endorsed a political candidate? Somebody wants to troll the scientists?
I vaguely recall a Pentecostal preacher giving a sermon about when democracy becomes monarchy, referring to the kingship of Christ and our wills running in sync with His.
Another way to look at all this is to ask the question “Is truth good?” It may seem like a nonsense question to ask initially - the flippant answer is to just declare, “of course it is”. But that doesn’t mean it is always welcomed. Most of us here, though, are pretty committed to the proposition that knowing truth about reality is better than not knowing it in most cases. So to the extent, then, that we see science as a very (maybe the most) effective tool for uncovering physical truths about creation, we are then agreeing that science is generally a good thing. Which isn’t the same as saying it has never been abused or applied toward injustice. We are still sinners with or without the knowledge gained from science. An intelligent devil is still a devil. But the presence of evil does not undo the existence of the good. In fact it should draw our attention toward the good even more as we then should desire it - or Him who is the source of it, rather. In His hands, all tools, including science, have their redemptive purpose, and knowledge of truth would always be good in that context. Not only is Love not blind - it is the opposite of blind.
Exactly. Indoctrination is the standard for most subjects in high school. Higher criticism and theory are saved for undergrad and post-graduate work. In my own experience, there was a pretty big difference between my undergrad physical chemistry class and my high school chemistry class. The two weren’t even comparable on most levels. However, at least I had a good idea of the technical aspects of chemistry before I took college level chem classes.
Incorrect. Science is defined by a methodology. So if it is not following this methodology then it is not science. And if it calls itself science anyway then that is pseudoscience.
Most of life operates on the methodology of rhetoric, and that is certainly true of lawyers, pastors, politicians, and used car salesmen. It is a rather important part of how human civilization operates. But it is not how science works. So when we see you using rhetoric to support conclusions and calling this science then it is pseudo science.
And one of the most important differences is how lawyers and pastors start with their conclusion and hunt up facts and arguments to support their conclusions – all good use of the tool of rhetoric. But in science we come up with an hypothesis in order to test it and see if the results agree with the hypothesis. That is only sufficient for the conclusions of one investigation, but others hoping to establish themselves in science will come up with their own tests. After repeated tests confirm the hypothesis yet again then we call it a theory. Eventually we no longer expect the tests to disagree and the theory becomes a reliable tool in further scientific investigation – that is when it is accepted as fact (even though it is still called a theory because it provides a theoretical framework for the subject).
The best that can be said about this “initiative" is, “Well, it’s not wrong." Science is a method, a good gift in a generic sense as given by God. "Nuclear energy is good” also… but it can be harnessed for good or for evil.
The first paragraph, "symptoms of a deeper crisis. As Christians, we cannot be silent about this” should be followed by “Some scientists have failed profoundly in their responsibilities to us.” That’s where your campaign needs to focus! That’s the deeper crisis. It’s not “science” people distrust. It’s scientists!
Why not address the real problem? As a Christian organization interested in good science, focus on the evil of humans when money, power, and prestige are at stake! Yell publicly at scientists who have screwed up so badly and so intentionally that we are at the current level of distrust. You will not gain the trust of “fellow Christ-followers” by coddling the scoundrels.
By isolating the term “science” to the method and the good that has been done, Biologos absolves or memory holes all the evil that has been done in its name. This “initiative" is a mistake because it ignores the root problem! Don’t treat an infection with a band-aid.
Daniel Fisher, thank you for writing such a thoughtful commentary filled with the many concerns that I have as well. The missive styled as an “Open Letter” is filled with nuanced implications of conclusions that are (or should be) anathema to science. It seems to ask for us to blame those who disagree, rather than embrace alternatives is the pursuit of science. At its core, Science is a method of inquiry, not a belief system. It thrives on questioning and revising ideas, and explicitly requires rejection of dogma while considering alternatives. Science is a process, not a position. The power of Science then becomes manifest as a self-correcting pursuit, and is nurtured by intellectual honesty. We can only arrive at provisional truths, never a final certainty. We arrive at our best current explanations based on available evidence, but as new data appears, we adapt rather than suppress. Often we entertain competing theories in parallel and we should always reject confirmation bias that prevents us from finding better ideas. Lacking that, we enter the echo-chamber of collapse into false dogma that is antithetical to Science. There are reasons that this happens when we close our minds. We become resistant to contradictory evidence, we shut down debate and we even ignore the value of truth. The rejection of this pursuit results often in the arrival of a consensus by authority, rather than by evidence. Examples abound…“fat is bad, carbs are good” has been dogma when the reverse is more likely. Ulcers are caused by stress and acid was medical certainty until 1982 when it wasn’t. The brain is fixed, hardwired, and cannot change as neuroplasticity has been supported. Similarly, the attempt at ridiculing scientists who disagree, such as the public shaming in Oct 2020 of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration (Dr. Martin Kuldorff of Harvard, Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford) is a blight on this pursuit. In our Christian context, it is just as important. Doubt is not the enemy of faith, but rather a crucial companion on our journey toward a deeper spiritual understanding. It should refine, deepen and strengthen our faith, rather than threaten them. The Bible is filled with examples of others wrestling with God. Even Christ on the cross asked “God why hast thou forsaken me?”. I have found the result to be a deepening of my faith, as it becomes stronger and more resilient. Our trust in God is despite uncertainties, and not to be confused with proof. Science is tentative, we should learn from failures, we benefit from inquiry and we should stay open to dissent. The Open Letter seems to imply the opposite, at least to my reading.
I can appreciate the exhortation that groups should ideally “police their own” (as opposed to ‘coddling’ them) - that is indeed a higher route for a group to earn trust from others.
I am also remembering some quote or thought to the effect - that we shouldn’t attribute to malice or bad intentions what can be explained by error, lack of complete information at the time, or even just incompetence (either chronic or momentary). So the notion of purifying a field by finding the ‘scoundrels’ and excommunicating them is the age old heresy (well-entrenched and on display today) that the line between good and evil does not in fact run through every human heart, but instead runs between “us” and “them”. I.e. If we could just eradicate or marginalize “that other tribe”, then nearly all our presently urgent problems are solved! This isn’t to say that entire political groupings can’t be substantially culpable for much evil - we can see that they are. But when I imagine ‘my own’ tribe as completely (or nearly so) free of all such evil, then I fall to the anti-biblical heresy of effectively thinking all evil is outside myself and my tribe, and joining the smug Pharisee at the front of the temple. Both sides in the U.S. do this - one a lot more than the other at the moment, but both in need of self-reflection about their role in bringing things to their current state.
So my question to you, @Marty, is haven’t you seen this happening already in science? Where has bad science been coddled by the ‘establishment’? Sure, there are populaizers or even policy makers who have to make decisions based on what they know at the time, and that hasn’t always turned out to be right. But I don’t see those people or their conclusions being coddled. I do see them being viciously attacked.
Or another question for both you and @Bucky_Wood (thanks that that add post now here too) is: "at what point(s) is it okay to begin to express some confidence in provisional truths? You wrote excellently how we should hold all conclusions provisionally and not as dogma. Agreed. Are you provisional and tentative about a round earth or about germ theory? I suspect not. Or at least not much so. Even in those high confidence areas, we can still speak of provisionality, still holding that we’ll be willing to evaluate any new evidence or theories that could explain something differently. But those are so highly settled, and explain so much so successfully that nobody (beyond cohorts of conspiracists) can imagine how any other conclusion could ever be evidentially supported by this point. The earth simply is not flat. Call it a dogma if you wish, but it’s a scientific conclusion. Am I suppressing truth by choosing not to waste my time with uninformed or delusional conspiracists but concentrating on more interesting and live questions instead?
As regards the “policing our own” - here is a little thought experiment you might try: How many times (or from how many) have you ever heard the words “I was wrong” or “I’m sorry I did that” or even just “had I known then what I know now, I would have acted differently”. [And to ‘admit’ that “I was wrong about how bad the other side is - it turns out they are even worse!” absolutely does not count for this - I’m speaking of an actual concession to something your own tribe has already dogmatically committed itself against.] Science as a whole already does pretty well at this - it’s baked into it as part of the process, even as you’ve already noted. Those who tend to villify science or scientists whose conclusions they find inconvenient - how often do we hear any concession or apology from any of them? I’m not sure I can think of even just a single one in any high profile positions. I’d be happy to be corrected on that. But as far as “policing their own” goes - that is indeed a fruit that I very much look for. And thus far the tribe that I imagine you all will tend to want to defend hasn’t come off looking so well on that score. The only ‘policing’ I’ve seen happening is for them to excommunicate anyone who dared to show any integrity or self-restraint. Somebody wise once taught that a tree is known by its fruit. I’m all about observing the fruits.
Great examples of how science works to find answers and correct misconceptions of the past. It is a feature, not a bug. they are also good examples of how science is misrepresented and distorted, as while fat is good, excessive fat is bad, and despite the popularity of pop diets like carnivore diets and extreme low carb diets, a more balanced diet has been shown to more healthy, and a vegan diet perhaps even more. And while H. Pylori associated ulcers are still a risk, and that is probably what you referred to, in actuality, 90% of ulcers are negative for H. Pylori and are associated with NSAID use. Again, thanks to science, we have learned that things are not so simple. And, brain plasticity while present, particularly in children, it is pretty limited, as most strokes victims can attest, so such sweeping declarations are accurate only in part.
There were plenty of well reasoned and even tempered responses that demonstrated why the Great Barrington Declaration was both bad policy and bad science. For example:
On any contentious issue that involves strong emotions and political views, like the pandemic response, there are going to be unfortunate situations where people take things too far. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the even tempered voices.
But of course that had nothing, absolutely zero, to do with my point. My point was the unconsciously demeaning attempt at the public shaming of three great scientists, whose only offense was to disagree. And I can provide you the quotes from the (now revealed) emails from and to both Fauci and Collins…those emails put in their own words their attemps to demean those who disagree. That, my friend, is not what science is, or should be all about. In fact I shall provide the exact quote:
“Hi Tony and Cliff,
This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention—and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet—is it underway?”
To this, Science and Nature replied:
“These actions by Drs. Collins and Fauci were perceived by some as attempts to marginalize and discredit scientists who proposed alternative strategies for managing the COVID-19 pandemic. The controversy highlights tensions within the scientific community regarding pandemic response strategies and the boundaries of acceptable debate.”
Ahh, but this is the very thing I’m critiquing… so those who support (monetarily or otherwise) the universities who support policy A are “pro-intellectual”… but if someone objects to a university’s support of some controversial policy and thus withhold support or funds to said university (perhaps preferring to fund another university with which supports different policies), they are, de facto, “Anti-intellectual”?
I wanted to speak up cuz this will not unite the church. I think Biologos should stay out of politics. But if you want to wade in, you need to address the real concerns of your "fellow Christ followers,” which for this “initiative” is an utter fail. It addresses a non-problem while ignoring the real one! The problem is not about trust in a method, but of trust in self-styled elites. This aligns Biologos with the self-styled elites. And the wording - OMG! It’s “my politics are holier than thine.” That’s what it’s going to smell like to a LOT of people.
You are welcome to continue down this road and find out. This will do nothing to improve the status of “science” among the suspicious, but will diminish the reputation of Biologos among your fellow Christ followers.
I’m just sayin’! Either address the real concerns or just drop it. This approach will be a disaster all around.