‘The science’ and the scientific method are not necessarily the same
We are hectored: “Listen to the science.”
If what is meant by this is, listen to the scientific method, then count us in, 100%. But if what is meant by this is, submit to a given finding of science, then we may be skeptical because these days scientific findings are offered often enough not purely for their content but because they promote a certain agenda. This is directly contrary to the scientific method.
That method says: Test for evidence, and keep testing. Keep gathering data. Act on the best available data now, but keep in mind that this conclusion may be overturned.
Start with the macro:
Newtonian physics. “Listen to the science” for some three centuries meant “Listen to Newtonian physics.” Lo and behold, Einstein overthrew much of Newtonian physics. Einstein did not “listen to the science.” To be truly scientific, “Listen to the science” had to mean, accept Newtonian physics provisionally. Keep testing.
On to the micro:
Coronavirus. “The science” on the coronavirus has come and gone on a number of fronts. First we were told that ventilators were critical. The country went into a panic. Every manner of blame was cast for their absence, from Obama to Trump. Turns out that, yes, ventilators are critical, but in a much reduced number of cases; still more, ventilators are damaging in many cases. Therefore, “the science” changed. Which is a normal process under the scientific method, and which is why “the science” is always to be received with skepticism.
Second, we were told that the virus rests on surfaces and is spread by touching surfaces, the only debate being whether the virus rests on surfaces for a few hours or possibly even a few days. Turns out that, yes, it is still valuable to keep surfaces clean, but mainly — well, for now, the virus is spread in the air. “The science” changed.
Third, we were told that the virus is spread in the air through tiny droplets. Turns out that, yes, it is still believed that the virus is spread via droplets, but it also may spread via much smaller aerosols — notice the qualifier, may. One day last week the Center for Disease Control posted on its website that the virus does spread via aerosols, then an hour later the CDC took down the post. What does “the science” actually say? Aerosols, or not? It was a matter of debate among scientists. The CDC wasn’t clear. Science can be unclear.
Debate among scientists — which is common — is both healthy and grounds for skepticism about any instance of “the science.” Needless to say, much science is infinitely valuable. It is the primary reason why lifespans have lengthened dramatically in the past century. It is the reason why we have computers and GPS and all the technological benefits that flow from them. But if Newtonian physics was “settled” for three centuries and then overturned, so can virtually any sophisticated scientific finding be overturned. Scientists debate the meaning of data and keep searching for new data, and keep refining the science.
Which is why debate over the cause, or causes, of wildfires is necessary. Is there more than one cause? Is it climate change? Is it poor forestry management — the environmental-activist driven refusal to thin forests? Is it poor zoning? Is it all of the above? A non-agenda-driven approach to these terrible disasters will not dismiss any of these possible causes (or others) out of hand, for the answer must be evidence-based, with all evidence admissible, not just evidence that serves a given agenda. Only with all the evidence considered can “the science” speak. Even then, an open mind about future explanations of wildfires is necessary because still further data may be gathered — and debated.
Which is as it should be — it’s called the scientific method.
And which is why it is alarming that the National Institutes of Health is institutionalizing the corruption of data. According to the NIH, “listen to the science” apparently now means that racial, gender and economic status, not data, may define science. The NIH is now seeking to promote diversity in research by making additional federal money available for a variety of minority researchers without reference to scientific qualifications.
Sadly enough, minorities are underrepesented in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math), but the solution is not at the level of the NIH, not federal grants to unqualified researchers, which can only undermine science. The solution is at a different level, in the elementary, middle and high schools. This is where expertise is seeded. This is where future scientists are built. This is where rigorous standards are required. This is where additional spending for minorities is a sound decision. This is where the STEM gap can be closed. This is where the gap in scientific skills is both created and subject to solution. To “listen to the science,” it must be derived from scientific data, regardless of the race, religion, economic background or gender of the scientist.
Copyright © 2020 by the Intermountain Jewish News
