I hear a lot of people, especially during the pandemic, but before as well, saying “Listen to the Science” and accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being “Anti-Science.” There are several big problems with this.
“Science” doesn’t say anything. Science is a method of collecting data, testing and drawing conclusions about the data, so “Science” can’t say anything. You can’t “Listen to the Science.”
SCIENTISTS say things, but what they say often is opposed to what other just-as-qualified scientists are saying. How many times have you heard a study that said coffee (or wine or gluten) is bad for you, only to hear the following week that coffee (or wine or gluten) is good for you? It happens all the time and there are good reasons why.
The dirty secret about Science is that there are deep, rancorous divisions between scientists in many disciplines. “Science” doesn’t speak with one voice. That is true about the pandemic, it’s true about Climate Change, it’s even true about the theory of Evolution. There are eminently qualified scientists on all sides of these issues. It’s inconvenient for laymen and the news media that science is so messy. We want clear, infallible answers. We want the scientific equivalent of papal encyclicals. Alas, there’s no such thing.
Unfortunately, the media, laymen and even some scientists are guilty of charging those who argue against the orthodox positions on these questions as being “anti-science” or writing them off as quacks, hacks or charlatans. But there’s no such thing as Science that is “settled.” The history of Science is replete with examples of time-honored scientific orthodoxy being upended by new discoveries.
Science is involved in collecting data and drawing conclusions from the data. How one collects the data and what data one collects will impact the outcome and what conclusions can be drawn. That’s why studies have to be “peer-reviewed” and other scientists will try to duplicate the results. But well-meaning scientists can disagree on the same data, much less two studies which appear to demand opposing conclusions.
Another secret is that Science, like just about everything else, is fueled by money. That’s not a criticism or a scandal. Scientists and their families have to eat and have roofs over their heads, just like everybody else. They can’t be expected to pay for their research out of their own pockets, but it’s also true that “he who pays the piper, calls the tune.”
In other words, the money for Science, in the form of research grants, almost always has strings. Whether it’s from the government, a foundation or a private corporation, they aren’t going to fork over millions of dollars for research if they are agnostic about the outcome. A corporation that pays for research is hoping the result will give them a revolutionary product they can market that will bring them revenue many times their investment. Other grants may be given in hopes some product that has been criticized as unsafe can be salvaged and declared safe because SCIENCE.
Finally, since Science doesn’t speak, but scientists do, what they say goes through the same filters, world views and prejudices common to all human beings. Scientists are human, after all, which means they may be tempted to help the grantor get the result they want so they can get the next research grant. Or they may be ideologically committed to a certain outcome. This is certainly true concerning Climate Change and it appears to also factor into the counsel being given about the pandemic.
So when we are told to “Listen to the Science,” we could ask “which Science?” because it’s easy enough to find scientists, physicians, etc., who disagree with the accepted orthodox positions.
