The Weaponization of Science
I majored in Political Science. Despite the name, there is nothing scientific about politics. Most of the “social sciences” aren’t science at all; they merely masquerade as such, led by agitators urging others to “listen to the science.” These calls to action deeply concern me and have prompted me to think more about science and its role in modern society.
It’s said that there is no such thing as science with a capital “S.” The very idea of “the Science” is opposite the entire notion of real science. When the goal becomes consensus building, it is politics, not science. Further, a consensus is only valid to the extent that one has the freedom to disagree. When individual freedom is torn away, it’s far worse than consensus building; it’s coercion.
Voting is not scientific. Agreeing is not scientific. Fear-mongering is not scientific. Science is not a blind belief in experts. Richard Feynman, the physicist of Manhattan project fame, famously noted the exact opposite; “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says, “science teaches such and such,” he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it.”
Since the term science is widely misappropriated and weaponized, I think it’s worth defining. In a lecture titled “what is science,” Feynman concluded that science is “the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race[’s] experience from the past.” I like this definition for both its conciseness and depth. It’s also noteworthy that the description is not full of jargon that requires further defining.
Let’s dissect Feynman’s definition a bit.
“The result of the discovery” — the opening words suggest science hasn’t always existed. It alludes to a history that pre-dates man’s ability to share history. Imagine a time when the brain had not yet evolved to accommodate the passing of knowledge from one generation to the next. Without shared history, there isn’t a lot that requires science. You are born, reproduce, and die. Fortunately, we’ve adapted to the point of sharing and recording history, even across cultures and geographies—the ability to collect and pass along knowledge allowed for the eventual creation of science.
“that is worthwhile rechecking” — science seeks to explain important discoveries about the world and existence. As our collective knowledge expands (due to the work of individuals), it’s essential to revisit prior findings. Knowledge cannot further develop if we trust that previous explanations are valid. If we didn’t “recheck” the notion that the earth is flat and discovered contrary evidence, we would not have further improved our understanding of physics, astronomy, and being.
“by new direct experience” — it’s a challenge to define science because it’s experience-based. It requires action through experimentation. It’s not simply contemplating a hypothesis (although guessing is the first step in the scientific process). As the human experiment continues, new experiences and discoveries lead to the replacement of old assumptions. It happens not by thinking alone. It occurs by experience.
“and not necessarily trusting the human race’s experience from the past.” — This is the crux of the issue. There is no role for trust in science, only questioning, testing, re-testing, and more questioning. Asking others to trust science is equivalent to saying, stop science. Many once widely believed theories have been disproven, and despite the tendency to think we have a firm grasp on how the world works, many more will be disproven. That is the nature of understanding. It is the nature of human progress. Failure to admit this reality is foolish.
If not to gain consensus, what is the role of science?
David Deutsche examined this question repeatedly in his works and lectures. Simply put, the purpose of science is explanation, a quest for truth. In the introduction to his book “The Beginning of Infinity,” Deutsche says, “all progress, both theoretical and practical, has resulted from a single human activity: the quest for what I call good explanations.” Unfortunately, what is often designated science is no more than a veiled attempt to confirm existing biases.
When a group desires a particular hypothesis to be right, they can consciously or subconsciously work to confirm this hypothesis instead of seeking truth. The aforementioned is called ruling theory, and when politics and science comingle, it’s a very likely occurrence. As important as it is to separate church and state, it’s equally important to separate science and state.
Science is an individual endeavor in the sense that it starts with the personal thirst for more knowledge. Collaboration, when done freely, enhances scientific efforts, but when groups set out with a prescribed answer to confirm, the resulting process is not science.
These thoughts aren’t meant to be pessimistic. While I am skeptical of some information presented as scientific, I’m generally very optimistic about innovation and progress.
As we progress humanity, we mustn’t allow groups to hijack science no matter their agenda. In “How Innovation Works,” Matt Ridley wrote that “innovation is the child of freedom.” The ability to freely question the status quo is paramount to progressing our understanding of the world and ourselves. Thus it’s vital that we protect individual freedom, whether it’s convenient or not, and even when views go against the consensus.
