Attacks on science have become commonplace - from climate change denial to anti-vaccination movements.Defenders of science often point to its discoveries without explaining exactly why scientific claims are superior. In his book "The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience" (MIT Press), Lee McIntyre argues that science is distinct because of its concern with evidence and being willing to change theories on the basis of new evidence. Here, McIntyre, who is a Research Fellow at the Center for Philosophy and History of Science at Boston University, discusses his arguments.
What brought you to this subject matter?
When I started college I wanted to be an astronomy major, but then I discovered the philosophy of science. Karl Popper's vision of how to defend science from its critics and enemies has always motivated me. But then, as I went into the field, I decided that he had taken the wrong approach. For me, what's special about science isn't its logic or methodology, it's the attitude or ethos of the people who are doing it. They believe in evidence and are willing to change their minds based on new evidence. That is powerful! And I think that once we embrace this idea that the "scientific attitude" is what's most distinctive about science, it allows for a more robust (and practical) defense of science from denial, fraud, and pseudoscience, which is what Popper was trying to do in the first place.
You discuss attacks on scientific authority on such subjects as climate change, vaccines, and evolution. Could you explain what these attacks look like, where they come from, and what the implications are?
Some people think that science denial starts with ignorance, but I think it actually starts with fear. Fear that the truth about some empirical topic will challenge the "truth" that someone is already committed to on the basis of their ideological or personal beliefs. Now maybe the roots of this are religious, or political, or even monetary, but the idea is that for whatever reason, some people feel threatened by science. And they react by trying to undermine scientific authority - to claim that scientists are 'biased' or incompetent or that science isn't all it's cracked up to be. But now look at the alternatives. If vaccine deniers really think that they are "better scientists than the scientists" -- that THEY have the proof -- then where is it? Why are their standards of evidence so inferior? Why do they rely so much on conspiracy theories and fake experts, who tell them what they want to hear? The same thing goes for climate change. There are deep-pocketed interests out there who want it not to be true that fossil fuels are causing global warming. And once they decided to fight that - through public relations, creating misinformation, and making scientists the enemy - climate change became partisan and a lot of people just came along for the ride.
Why do so many people refuse to accept science?
What actually happens is that they DON'T refuse to accept science, they just refuse to accept the science that threatens their favoured beliefs. Vaccine deniers still go to an orthopaedist when they break their foot; Flat Earthers fly on planes and use cell phones. One of the biggest problems I have with science deniers is that they seem to embrace a double standard of evidence. They're what I call "cafeteria skeptics." If they don't want to believe something, then no amount of evidence could ever convince them. This is where you hear the phrase "evolution is just a theory" or climate change "isn't settled science." But if they DO want to believe something, it's almost as if no evidence is required. A good number are conspiracy theorists and so completely gullible. I've talked to Flat Earthers who will tell you that every single picture out of NASA is faked, but believe a photo that shows Chicago on the horizon from 60 miles away as definitive proof (even though what's pictured is a mirage and not the city itself).
How do you define "the scientific attitude" of your title?
I think the scientific attitude consists of two theses: 1. that scientists believe in forming their beliefs based on evidence, and 2. they are willing to change their minds on the basis of new evidence. It's important to realise, however, that this isn't just a matter of individual disposition; the scientific attitude is really a group ethos, or a set of values, that is instantiated in a set of practices like peer review, data sharing, and replication, that are intended to keep scientists honest, even if they were honest in the first place. Scientists are human like everyone else, and surely want their own theories to be true. But one thing they can be sure of: their work will be checked and criticised by their peers. Scientists are some of the most skeptical people on Earth. As Carl Sagan explained, they also have to be open minded (because remember that "new evidence" counts), but as he memorably put it "not so open minded that their brains fall out."
You talk about the importance of scientific failure. Could you expand?
A lot of science deniers buy into the myth that science must be perfect and that its job is to prove its results and reach certainty. Well maybe that is the goal, but it's not how science works. In science, there are all sorts of mistakes, uncertainty, and conjectures, which is how scientific knowledge grows. In school, we're always taught that science discovers truth. How lucky we are to have been born into the age in which all truth was finally discovered! But of course that's what every age thinks. I wish that science educators would spend more time teaching the process of scientific thinking, instead of just the results of science. The real problem here, I think, is that some scientists buy into the myth that they are discovering "truth" as well. But this just gives aid and comfort to science's critic; what happens when your theory is overthrown? Why should anyone trust you again? As Popper said, every scientific theory has to be capable of failure or it isn't a scientific theory in the first place. You have to be able to specify what evidence -- if it existed -- would prove your theory false. But until that happens, a well-corroborated scientific theory is eminently worthy of belief. If a theory is justified by evidence, then it's got "warrant," and that's what makes scientific theories credible.
Is there a problem with how science is communicated to the general public?
Yes, very much so. Most people buy into one of more of the myths about science. People talk these days about the "death of expertise" and our lack of trust in authority, and I think that science gets caught up in that. But it's not that people used to understand how science worked and now they don't, it's just that they used to trust it. Why did that change? Disinformation and the Internet. Now we all fancy ourselves "experts." What scientists learn in graduate school isn't just a set of facts, it's a way of reasoning. And where can the general public learn that? I wish that scientific results were more clearly communicated, as scientists do with one another, with "errors bars". Scientific knowledge is always to some extent uncertain. Now that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of belief. Far from it! Statistics and probability still hold. It's just that when we pretend science is about proof, and then it can't prove something, science deniers and other critics walk around like they've won some sort of victory. The fact is that the confidence level for anthropogenic climate change has now reached the five sigma level. That means there's a one out of a million chance that the consensus of climate scientists is wrong. Would you take that bet? This is where ignorance really comes in. Not so much about the results of science, but of what it means to reason scientifically. Most of the public are completely ignorant of that. Scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that any other damn fool hypothesis is more likely to be true.
The question of scientific authority is pressing in our current "post-truth" political climate. What could be done to improve the situation?
Science denial was a major contributor to post-truth. There is now a feedback loop where science has become politicised and science denial is becoming worse. The best solution is engagement. When scientists walk away and refuse to engage with science deniers, it just contributes to the sort of polarisation that is tearing us apart. Of course it's uncomfortable to try to engage with someone who is doubting your facts and questioning your integrity. But I also think it is absolutely necessary for scientists to be part of the effort to push back. Scientists should have a lot more to say about the rigour with which they examine theories and then impart that, along with their results, to the lay public. If you look at the recent upsurge of measles cases, one bright spot was what happened in Washington state, where they sent public health officials out to hold workshops and engage with vaccine deniers sometimes one on one. And it worked. Some people changed their minds. Of course some didn't. And some never will. But that's why it's so important to fight back. You've got to get to them early, before their beliefs harden under the assault of misinformation. But if we treat empirical belief like a "tribal" thing, where some people just aren't worth talking to, the problem will only get worse. When people are confused and questioning, maybe a bit skeptical and even fearful, that's when we can still recruit them over to science.
