Science

A significant portion of our society disregards scientific evidence. These science deniers don’t constitute a majority, but their are enough to have serious impacts on a number of our systems. We collectively face a myriad of existential problems, and many of the solutions rely in some degree on science.

The scientific method is not overly complicated to understand. It starts with a question or observation, that question is researched, then a hypothesis or educated guess is devised, an experiment is designed and executed, the results are recorded and analyzed, and a conclusion is submitted for peer review and replication.

This process is repeated by many scientists and groups of scientists and if a result is reliably replicated then it becomes a Scientific Theory. If it can be replicated and a mathematical equation can be used to predict behavior then it becomes a Scientific Law. Science is not simply a guess, and the scientific method is very different than faith, belief, opinion, or gut feeling – as I’ll try to point out here.

There are four main factors that contribute to the current wave of widespread disbelief in science. One is a societal problem, one deals with religion, one a commerce problem, and the final an individual problem. The societal problem has to do with a failure of our educational system. The religion issue involves the asymmetrical comparison of science and religion. The commerce problem has to do with a social media industry whose greed has allowed bad actors to infiltrate the national psyche. Finally, the individual problem is a combination of the above three problems. It is the personal responsibility that we as individuals must take to educate ourselves and seek reliable truth and fact.

The Societal Problem

The societal problem has to do with the failings of our education system. This is not a failure of teachers or even administrators, but a problem of resources. Keeping a ‘troubled’ kid in school and engaged is not an easy task. Even with unlimited resources there will still be kids that can’t be reached and will ultimately drop out before graduation, but that isn’t a reason we shouldn’t take whatever steps possible to provide as much of a chance to our young citizens as we can.

Research in early childhood development, from birth until age 5, has shown that this age range is perhaps the most crucial in a person’s life. This seems intuitive now that the science is there to back it up, but until recently it has largely been overlooked. This early development is the foundation on which we build the structure of education and hence civilization.

We fail kids, parents, and ultimately society when we don’t provide the resources necessary to give our youth what they need in these crucial early years. We can’t put loving, caring, and attentive parents in every home, but we can attempt to give our most vulnerable citizens the chances they deserve. Instead of spending money on mitigating the damage to society in the criminal justice system, prison system, and healthcare system later in life we could reallocate those resources to early childhood development programs that greatly improve graduation rates as well as reduce crime and unhealthy habits – and also cost less in the long run.

The programs will also lead to innovation, opportunity, and improved wages as it will increase the number of intelligent and engaged citizens working to solve societal problems. Our society will not only benefit from saved collective resources due to better use of tax dollars, but we will also benefit from less crime, less homelessness, and a better sense of community.

An argument could be made that the greatest tragedy with our current system is that it leaves so many with unrealized potential. With that unrealized potential comes individual, and more often than necessary, generational suffering. Without the resources to properly nurture our youngest citizens we will be stuck trying to solve tomorrow’s problems with the same unsuccessful tactics we’ve been using for the past few generations.

Without the ability to understand science and other complex processes we will not be able to solve the existential problems that advanced technology has created and will continue to create. Our best shot at increasing scientific literacy is to keep our youth engaged in school. Fortunately the same methods to keep kids engaged in school will also help to solve other major societal issues as well.

The Religious Factor

The religious factor deal s with the asymmetrical comparisons of religion and science. We shouldn’t be teaching science beside religious belief and Faith. Certainly religion and Faith are important facets of people’s lives, and it is written in our first law that people have a right to worship as they see fit. The reality is that the blurring of lines between science and religion leads to collective consequences. Faith is based on belief of that which cannot be proven, while science is the best tool we have to understand that which intrigues us.

Religion cannot do what science can and science cannot do what religion or Faith can. Science is putting into sharper focus how the universe, our world, and our species came to be and how it functions, but it cannot currently answer the questions of why we are here or what we should do with this life. While religion and Faith can give its followers answers to those questions along with providing a sense of comfort and purpose.

Some religions cherry-pick extreme stories upon which they base their ideology – think anti-homosexuality extremists in Christianity and jihadists in Islam. Anyone that uses religion as a means to withhold rights, inflict pain, or cause death is starkly in the wrong. While I am not religious nor a person of Faith I do believe that people have the right to it and it plays an important role in our current culture.

Because religion has a place in our current society doesn’t mean that it is a counterpoint to science. We must understand what science is and what religion is in our society in order to suss out their respective roles. Defining what the capabilities and deficiencies are in both will help us further down the road to solving the problems we face as a civilization and species.

When we compare good science to religion, or Faith, we are creating an asymmetrical comparison in which we are diminishing the scientific method while at the same time giving religion unfair credence. To put on the same plain the theory of evolution and the Christian story of Adam and Eve is very asymmetrical, but it happens frequently to young people in America. This leads to an ‘either-or’ mentality when in reality both can exist simultaneously. One is as close to the truth as we can calculate and the other is a story to help us understand that perhaps we are all connected.

The Commerce Problem

The commerce problem is a direct result of the largely unregulated tech industries, specifically Facebook and YouTube in this case. Facebook and other social media companies benefit from bad incentives by creating a platform and business model that profits from exploiting weaknesses in our psychology. This leads to the creation of filter and perception bubbles, which are essentially echo chambers that present users only with information that will keep them engaged with their platforms.

Their business model completely disregards what is best for the user. This means that users are subject to misinformation and disinformation as long as it keeps their eyes on the platform. By preying on rage, fear, and the need for belonging these platforms drive people into groups that disregard dissenting views. They make it easy for people to settle into a cozy place where they can continue to believe whatever they want without the necessity of evidence.

Evidence is replaced by group-think. Science then becomes simply a belief or opinion. It is not respected or understood as the rigorous process that it is. When science and opinion are given even footing then the scientific method is greatly diminished. If one can be convinced that climate change is a worldwide conspiracy then convincing them of any conspiracy theory is quite probable.

This bad incentive model is also implemented by the ‘news media’. The consolidation of news media into a relative few hands by folks such as Rupert Murdoch and the Sinclair Broadcast Group create more spaces for disinformation, filter bubbles, and preference bubbles. These organizations can package opinion as news and push agendas that pander to certain ideologies. They don’t adhere to the standards of journalism, but rather to the economic incentives of business. Their products aren’t to inform but rather to sell commercial advertising. The more homogenous the group the easier it is to target their marketing.

When private interest can gain profit by placating to a specific sect of people bereft of the standards of truth then they can push whatever agenda they wish. Science is put on even footing with ‘news’ and opinion. It gives the illusion that believing science is a choice. When we cannot agree on basic scientific evidence then we have no chance of navigating the road ahead.

Personal Responsibility

Personal responsibility cannot bare the sole blame for the movement towards science denial – just as a failure of personal responsibility is not solely to blame for poverty, addiction, and criminal behavior. But while the solutions to many of our collective problems start elsewhere they cannot be fully realized without action taken at the individual level.

We can collectively provide tools and programs to give everyone a more equitable chance at success, but personal responsibility is an equally important part of the solution. When the societal and commercial problems are corrected for then the possibility for personal responsibility becomes a reality.

Every person must take that step and find value in understanding our world to the best of their ability. The incentivized mis-or-disinformation has no place in a democracy. The failure of our system to properly fund education makes large swaths of our population susceptible to these bad actors. And when we put science next to Faith, opinion and belief we devalue the process and the invaluable information that the process provides.

When those hurdles are corrected for then the individual has a much better chance of being properly informed. Science isn’t perfect, but it is as close as we can currently get to understanding natural phenomena because of the methods and processes used. Due to the lack of understanding and respect for the scientific method we are woefully behind on solving major collective problems. Those problems will linger and compound until we can make the necessary changes to give science the credence it deserves.

Thanks for Reading.