The Left's Claim of "Science" is not Science...it's the Opposite

For some time now, there is a growing chorus of people singing the praises of science.  Well, sort of singing its praises.  It is more like using the term as a forcefield to shield against any unwelcome thoughts, ideas, or criticisms.  During the current pandemic crisis this has been the sentiment shared by politicians, media types, and scientist themselves.  Claims like "we are just following the science" are made not to engage in deeper debate and discussion regarding the science.  No, the purpose is quite opposite. It is to end the debate.  It reminds me of an exchange most parents have with their curious three year-old.  The child will ask  "why" or "how" questions, to which the parent gives an explanation, only to be asked a new "why" or "how" that is related to the response.  This goes on and on, until the parent finally says because I said so.  When politicians and others say "because of science," they are essentially saying, "because I said so." 

The current iteration of "because of science" has been centered around the pandemic and vaccine.  But it has other rather recent iterations as well.  For example, it is often used in any discussion about climate change.  In fact, Obama  famously claimed during a State of the Union Address, that climate change was a fact and that the "debate was settled," . There are other iterations of the " because of science" tactic such as those about gender and sexual orientation.  The use of "because of science" claim is characteristically a ploy of the left.  The infamously virtue signaling lawn sign that is seen in many progressive enclaves, clearly provides an example of the Left's claim that they are on the side of science.

This use of "science" in this manner is troubling because it is the antithesis to the very essence of what science is.  Science, in simple terms, is a method to discover truths about the world.  Much of what science attempts to discover is related to cause and effect.  More specifically, science is about identifying the variables that cause events to happen, and determining how those variables impact an outcome.  In this pursuit of discovery, scientist must continue, similar to the three year-old, "why?" or "how?" In science the "why's" and "how's" should be ongoing and welcomed.

But not all science is equal.  The reality is that there are a number of different genres of science and each have a different ability to produce certain answers.  This is not to say that one type of science is better or more important than another, just that some sciences lend themselves to more concrete answers than other sciences.  Sciences that can ascertain definite answers tend to have some things in common.  The first is that the genre allows them to control variables and do real experimentation with those variables.  These types of sciences can more accurately test hypothesis and also can be recreated more readily by other scientists.  If they are not reaching definite conclusions, they provide pretty close correlations.  Physics, aerodynamics, biology, botany, and many other sciences fall into this category and are often referred to as hard sciences. However, some sciences have a much more difficult time of isolating and controlling variables.  Often this is because of the complexity of what they are studying or the limitations to what they can do in a lab, or do ethically.  Climate science, evolutionary science, nutritional science, and many behavioral sciences are often plagued by this fact.  These sciences tend to provide best guesses and it is also the types of sciences in which you will see more contradictory and conflicting results.  Not surprisingly, it also where you see the most disagreement and skepticism.

So, when a politician claims "because of science", it really depends on the genre of science to which they speak and the policy they are advocating in response to the science.  More importantly, regardless of the science, public policy needs to be vigorously debated regarding the cost and benefits of implementing a policy based upon the science.  Cost-benefit analysis is its own science!  Unfortunately, "because of science" is meant to end this cost-benefit discussion and bulldoze all opposition.  

But in those aforementioned sciences that don't lead to concrete answers, there are some other dangers they present, most of which are the scientist themselves.  This is not a condition unique to scientist, it is similar to many other professions, especially those attempting to discover or promote the truth.  For example, journalists and media types are always in danger of allowing their bias to cloud their objectivity and prevent them from searching for the truth.  Instead, they settle for a narrative.  The same could be said for ministers and religious leaders who promote a truth but often fall short of the truth they proclaim.  The problem is not science, nor journalism, nor religion, but rather humanity.  The human condition limits science in the same way it limits religion.  

"For we all fall short of the glory of God" is a verse many Christians know well, and rightly so.  Regardless of one's faith, we can all agree that we all fall short in many areas.  Whereas the Christian turns to Christ, science must in turn to something else, something that can help in their weakness.  That something, is criticism, questions, more debate, and more understanding.  Then when one falls short of the answer, the knowledge of others can pick them up.

It is not science I am against.  Nor is it inconvenient truths of which I am afraid.  No, it is half truths-masquerading as absolutes, dressed in the garb of "science" that scares me.  Think about if we followed the "science" from Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb in 1968.  He was wrong, and yet his ideas still linger in many scientific circles as truth.  Ironically, the very thing that prevented the calamity Ehrlich envisioned was science.  The kind of science that produces real answers, that are applied to the world we live, not by policy, but through the market.  

The politicization of science is the issue and unfortunately many scientists have failed to realize they have become a part of the problem.  They have allowed their work to become politicized or have politicized their work, in hopes of securing future funding, or gaining prestige...or both, 

So, next time you hear your soy latte, Subaru driving, planet saving neighbor talk so arrogantly about their commitment to science; know that it is not science they are committed to, it is their wish to seem smarter and better than you.  Why do you think they have that stupid sign in their yard?