Do You Have Faith in “Settled Science?”

“Science in America” is an online video commentary with over 1 million views.  It features Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator who begins with an important question:  How did America rise up from a backwoods country to become one of the greatest nations the world has ever known?

Tyson’s answer?  SCIENCE!  “Science is a fundamental part of the country that we are.”

But Tyson warns his viewers that we are in danger of losing the scientific momentum behind America’s rise (emphasis mine):  

...in this, the 21st century, when it comes time to make decisions about science, it seems we have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable and what is not, what you should believe and what you should not believe.  And when you have people who don’t know much about science standing in denial of it and rising to power, that is a recipe for the complete dismantling of our informed democracy.

Tyson’s dire warning is followed by a sequence of clips which feature what he believes are “people who don’t know much about science.”  The sequence includes Vice President Mike Pence calling for the teaching of “evolution, not as fact, but as theory.” It continues with parents who are skeptical of vaccinations, voters who wish to ban GMO’s, and people who consider climate change as “unproven science.”  Tyson remembers the difficult times of the 1960’s and 1970’s but does not recall people ever “standing in denial of what science was.”

With all of the progress we have made in America, how can there still be “people who don’t know much about science standing in denial of it..?”  After all, according to Tyson,

One of the great things about science is that it is an entire exercise in finding what is true.  [First] a hypothesis, you test it, I get a result, a rival of mine double-checks it because they think I might be wrong.  They perform an even better experiment and they find out, hey, this experiment matches.  O my gosh, we’re onto something here!

So far so good for Tyson’s explanation of our so-called scientific method.  It begins with stating a testable hypothesis based on patterns observed in the natural world, and is followed by rigorous experimental testing in one laboratory, and then corroboration by other laboratories who are skeptical of the validity of the hypothesis.  If the hypothesis is consistently supported, Tyson says, “what arises is emergent truth.  Something better than we’ve ever come up with.”  While “emergent truth” may be an ambiguous term here, we can generally agree with his summary of the scientific method.

But then, Tyson’s narrative makes a wrong turn—one that exposes the contradiction in his logic.  He leaps to the conclusion that “emergent truth” becomes “established scientific emergent truth”—truth that is guaranteed to be true even if some people dare to deny it.  Note here that Tyson dismisses his “rival” who “double-checks” experimental outcomes because he is convinced beyond a doubt that he has reached “settled science.” 

At this point, all of us who value “good science” should be hearing loud sirens going off in our minds.  Here is Tyson’s dangerous conclusion (emphasis mine):

When you have an established scientific emergent truth, it is true whether or not you believe it.  And the sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us.  So, once you understand that humans are warming the planet you can then have a political conversation about that…every minute one is in denial you are delaying the political solution that should have been established years ago.

In other words, the double-checker’s and deniers of Darwinian evolution should be silenced.  Those who question the safety of vaccinations and GMO foods, or who doubt human-caused climate change must be prevented and eliminated from positions of influence.  Unfortunately, it is only a small step from “settled science” to a “tyranny of science?”  The latter assumes that science alone can and should guide the political agenda without consideration of moral and ethical claims.   An article by Brendan O’Neill in The Guardian suggests that Americans of all political persuasions ought to be aware of the danger of going down the path to a science dominated by politics, especially without morality and ethics.

Supposedly, only “people who don’t know much about science” are questioners of “settled science.”  But then, some of Tyson’s viewers, and readers here, may remember that scientific progress and discovery was greatly influenced by people who, in their time, were regarded as not knowing much about science—people like Galileo, Pythagoras (Earth not flat), Pasteur (living cells do not spontaneously originate from nonliving matter), Einstein (relativity), and Barbara McClintock (ridiculed until her “jumping genes” hypothesis was validated).  Tyrannical science has no place for those who question long-held theories and “think outside the box.”  [Note: Regarding “thinking beyond the box,” see “Halting the Demise of “Liberal Education.”]

Two “experiments” from the former Soviet Union underscore the danger of the “tyranny of science.”  The first, called the Lysenko Affair, occurred during the 1930’s and 1940’s.  Russian scientist, Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), succeeded in duping the communist government under Joseph Stalin into believing in his experimental results based on the false notion of Lamarckian genetics.   Lysenko believed that, with repeated harsh environmental treatments, temperate zone crop varieties would produce offspring that “inherit acquired characteristics” –i.e. “toughen up to thrive in frigid Siberia.  Under the tyranny of the Soviet regime, Lysenko’s critics were silenced, Lysenkoism flourished, and Soviet progress in genetics was stunted for decades.

The second “experiment” to illustrate the danger of “settled science” came a few decades after Lysenko, and resulted from communist tyranny over science.  This was the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl in northern Ukraine on April 26, 1986.  A nuclear power plant suffered a ruptured reactor core releasing large amounts deadly nuclear radiation.  The disaster was popularized by this year’s release of an HBO movie, Chernobyl.  I have not watched this 6-episode series, but reviews have outlined several of the political and scientific factors that caused Chernobyl to be a much worse disaster than it should have been.

First, the communist party propaganda machine suppressed communication and stifled expression from concerned scientists.   Consequently, like the Lysenko Affair decades earlier, highly politicized science became stunted and fell behind that of the western world. 

Second, the Chernobyl incident was made much worse because of inadequate expertise and availability of equipment to handle an otherwise preventable disaster.  The cloak of secrecy and isolation from the West that typified Russian communism made it difficult for the Soviets to admit their need of basic assistance and technology to deal with something that their science and technology couldn’t handle. 

The severity of the danger was not realized until much damage was done to humans, animals, and ecosystems.  Unfortunately, the ineptness of Soviet science magnified the Chernobyl disaster which shouldn’t have occurred under a reign of “good science.”  Just as bad, Chernobyl has become a “poster child” to elicit fear of nuclear energy production that still haunts our world and discourages nuclear energy production as a viable option.

The horrific effects of the Chernobyl disaster highlighted once again the disastrous result of “good science” becoming a prisoner to a godless political philosophy.  “Settled science” becomes “stale science” when people in power adopt Neil deGrasse Tyson’s philosophy that a scientific finding is true whether or not you believe it.  And the sooner you understand that, the faster we can get on with the political conversation about how to solve the problems that face us. 

Not so fast Dr. Tyson.  Shouldn't you let “your rivals” keep double-checking the results?  The “informed democracy” that you value depends on “good science.”  It is stunted by “settled science.”  If you don’t believe it, just consider the lessons of Lysenko and Chernobyl.  And, moms and dads, commit to being scientifically literate and make sure your sons and daughters follow your example.