Who is Anti-Science?

Author: Tim Platnich

Originally Published: February 19, 2024; Revised February 25, 2024; Further Revised April 4, 2024

One merely needs to google 'attacks on science' to find numerous articles concerning people that are said to be anti-science. What does it mean to be anti-science?

What is science? The term 'science' has two contexts. On the one hand, it refers to a method by which knowledge of the empirical world is obtained. On the other hand, it refers to the body of knowledge obtained through the use of the 'scientific method'.

The scientific method has been described in many ways. At its core is the objective testability of any scientific statement. In basic terms, observations are made, a hypothesis is stated concerning the observations, and the hypothesis is then tested against further observations. In the words of Karl Popper, ["The Logic of Scientific Discovery"] a hypothesis, or theory, consists of one or more statements that are testable. If they are not testable, they are not scientific statements. Continuing observations either corroborate the hypothesis or falsify it. No amount of corroborating observations can ever prove a hypothesis or theory to be true. However, one contrary observation may falsify a hypothesis. This does not necessarily mean the hypothesis must be discarded. It does mean however that the hypothesis, at the very least, needs modification.

Science, as a body of knowledge, remains subject to the scientific method. It remains subject to ongoing testing. The science is never settled. If a statement is 'settled', it is not a scientific statement; if it is a scientific statement, it is never settled.

Steven Pinker identified four themes of the Enlightenment, two of which are relevant for our purposes in this Post: reason and science. These themes have the following requirements: . First, we must "... apply the standard of reason to understanding our world, and not fall back on generators of delusion like faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts." [Steven Pinker, 'Enlightenment Now, The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism and Progress' p.8]. And, second, we must subject conventional wisdom to the methods of science including "... skepticism, fallibilism, open debate, and empirical testing .... " to achieve reliable knowledge. [Pinker, p. 10].

"... the history of science is a history of error. That is not a flaw but a feature. Scientific inquiry depends on falsification: the use of empirical evidence not to definitively prove the truth of a theory but to reveal his flaws." [[Bruce Pardy, 'The Four Doctrines of the Apocalypse: Critical Theory and Our Compromised Institutions', as reproduced in The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should be Cherished Not Cancelled]]

Attacks on science come from many sources on different grounds. One ground of attack is that mathematics, science, empiricism and objective truth are all western world inventions and therefore racist. I agree with Steven Pinker when he says: "... all ideas have to come from somewhere, and their birthplace has no bearing on merit."

Another attack is from indigenous peoples who claim that 'traditional knowledge' deserves to have the same standing as science when it comes to reliable knowledge.

Post-Modernism, is an anti-science and anti-Enlightenment movement. It challenges the premises of reason and that 'observation and rationality can identify objective truth, whether moral or scientific". [Bruce Pardy, 'The Four Doctrines of the Apocalypse: Critical Theory and Our Compromised Institutions', as reproduced in The 1867 Project: Why Canada Should be Cherished Not Cancelled] To Post-Modernists, truth and knowledge is subjective. You have your truth, and I have mine.

This brings us to two disparaged and vilified anti-science groups: the 'climate change deniers' and the 'Covid anti-vaxxers'.

Let's deal with climate change deniers first. These people are also called - oh, the horror - climate skeptics.

Dr. Judith Curry identifies three kinds of climate skeptics: 1) research scientists that challenge existing hypotheses to extend scientific knowledge; 2) science auditors whose main concern is ‘accountability, quality control and transparency of the science’; and 3) merchants of doubt who ‘distort and magnify scientific uncertainties’. [“Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response”].

Are the the first two kinds of skeptics participating in the scientific method or are they anti-science? The last kind of skeptic is of more dubious character and may be considered anti-science.

There are several related existing global warming hypotheses: the globe has warmed about 1 degree C since 1850; this warming is causing climate change; this warming is caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities; climate change is causing increased extreme weather events; and climate change is an existential threat to humanity.

Given our review of the definition of science and the scientific method above, it seems that research scientists challenging any of the above hypotheses to extend scientific knowledge are doing precisely what scientists should be doing. How can they be called anti-science, or worse yet 'deniers' akin to Holocaust deniers? Similarly, science auditors seeking accountability, quality control, and transparency in the area of climate change are doing a service to science and are not anti-science. Reviewers of submitted scientific papers are such 'science auditors' reviewing papers for accountability, quality and transparency.

The claim 'the science is settled' is dogmatic and anti-science. Scientists who oppose critical review of their work are anti-science. Name calling is anti-science. Demanding submission to authority is anti-science. Yet many climate scientists do all of the above. Most alarmingly, they demand that everyone submit to their authority, without question.

Let's move to Covid anti-vaxxers. In general, an anti-vaxxer is someone who is opposed to vaccines. Vaccines have been used for decades, safely and effectively. They have saved millions of lives. Such vaccines include vaccines against: small pox, measles, whooping cough, tetanus, polio, shingles and flu - to name a few. Generally anti-vaxxers have non-scientific reasons for being opposed to vaccines. By non-scientific reasons, I mean reasons not backed by rational argument or objective empirical data. Their reasons border on the superstitious. Often, their reasons are anecdotal - I got the flu shot once and it made me sick. Or, I knew a guy, who knew a guy who died from a flu shot.

Covid anti-vaxxers include some general anti-vaxxers. In the following analysis, I mean to deal with those Covid anti-vaxxers who generally accept that vaccines are safe and effective, but were concerned about the Covid vaccines. One reason for concern was the newness of the science surrounding the creation of the new Covid vaccines. The other was the fact that the Covid vaccines were being released without the usual testing for safety and effectiveness. The argument was that the general population was being used as guinea pigs. These concerns, at least early on in the epidemic, were reasonable and not necessarily anti-science. As time went on however, and the vaccines were proving to be safe within usual parameters, the refusal to be vaccinated became less reasonable. This become especially so when evidence was mounting that vaccinations reduced the severity of Covid symptoms thereby reducing the number of people requiring hospital care.

But, other non-scientific factors entered into the decision whether to receive vaccines or not. One big factor related to the 'noble lies' being told by top scientists and politicians at the outset of the epidemic. Scientists in high government positions [e.g. Dr. Anthony Fauci; Dr. Theresa Tam], first discouraged the public from wearing masks suggesting that masks were not useful or needed. This was disingenuous. It must have been known at the time that masks, if properly worn, could be effective in reducing transmission. This 'lie' was told, as later admitted by Dr. Fauci, out of concern there were not enough masks available and a run on masks might deprive medical workers of masks. Another noble lie that was told was that the virus was not being transmitted by incoming visitors to Canada. This lie was told to counter perceived xenophobia by those calling for the closure of borders.

To support the soon to be mandated vaccinations, it was said by politicians, including Prime Minister Trudeau, quoting the supposed science, that those who were vaccinated would not transmit the virus. Hence, refusing to get vaccinated was tantamount to intentionally putting others at risk. It turned out that even those who were vaccinated could get the virus and pass it on to others. Whether this was a lie or merely a statement based on incomplete knowledge is unknown. Government forcing people to get vaccinated led to push-back that was anti-government and not necessarily anti-science.

The problem with noble lies is when discovered they breed distrust. Unfortunately, many in the public came to distrust top government scientists on Covid mandated measures. This included mandated vaccines.

So who is anti-science? People are anti-science: 1) who do not use the standard of reason to understand our world but rather rely on faith, dogma, revelation, authority, charisma, mysticism, divination, visions, gut feelings, or the hermeneutic parsing of sacred texts for knowledge; 2) who refuse to subject 'knowledge', including conventional wisdom, to the methods of science including skepticism, fallibilism, open debate, and empirical testing to achieve reliable knowledge; 3) in the case of scientists, those who resist or obstruct scientific investigation into or testing of their scientific statements including their research, data, methodologies and bases for conclusions; and 4) who use the veil of science to tell noble lies in order to effect some public policy purpose.

An example of point 4 above was when the Supreme Court of Canada decided that climate change was an existential threat to humanity in order to 'find' federal jurisdiction to regulate carbon emissions.