The COVID epidemic six years ago laid bare a national divide over the authority of science. Scientific recommendations, admittedly sometimes contradictory, were discounted and criticized, and scientists were vilified. It hasn’t gotten better. Science remains one more example of our polarized society.
Upper House, the Christian Study Center on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, waded into the issue with a 3-lecture presentation on a Friday evening, September 11th, featuring a retired University of Wisconsin scientist who is now a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Upper House’s Lumen Center.
Rick Lindroth is a chemical ecologist, Vilas Distinguished Achievement Professor of Ecology (Emeritus) and former University of Wisconsin Associate Dean for Research. The theme of his series of three short lectures: Can Science Be Trusted?
One hundred years ago, the federal government did not support scientific research, as it has over recent decades, but is doing less and less under the Trump administration. “The United States was a second rate science power before World War II,” Lindroth said.
The war changed that. With government-funded concentrated scientific research that led to inventions like radar, sonar, synthetic rubber, and the atomic bomb, the US won the war. As federal support for science continued into the latter half of the twentieth century, the US was catapulted into a scientific superpower. “Science was embraced by the American public,” Lindroth observed.
The world we live in today is far different from the world of 80 years ago. Science and scientific innovations have advanced our standard of living in many positive and helpful ways, but in other ways has been admittedly toxic. In the midst of its shortcomings and imperfections science is now swept up in our culture wars and identity politics. The consequences will reverberate for years.
One reason that science is not trusted is many people, including social media influencers, do not understand the scientific process. Science makes mistakes but as it continually grapples with the evidence it discovers in its various fields of research, it is self-correcting, Lindroth said. “It’s okay to be skeptical about science,” he continued.
Lindroth perhaps spent too little time addressing scientism, those who believe science is god, the only way to understand what is true about the world.
In the Q&A after the first lecture a question was raised about replication issues with scientific studies, another concern that might lead to distrust. Lindroth admitted it was an issue, especially in medicine. “The number one value in science is the pursuit of truth,” he said, “but human factors can impact science.”
In the second lecture, Lindroth looked at Why Science is Distrusted, including scientific denialism. He identified three challenges.
1) It’s complicated. Two hundred years ago the French political philosopher Alexis deTocqueville observed, “It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth.” An issue like climate change, for example, is quite complex and hard to grasp for anyone looking for quick answers. People more easily respond to quack answers.
2) The fundamental nature of science predisposes it to denial. Science is a process of uncertainty reduction. Scientific understanding changes over time and scientists change their minds. Lindroth noted that eggs were once considered unhealthy due to cholesterol concerns. Eventually more was learned about eggs and cholesterol and now they are healthy again. On a flight, the seatbelt sign may flick on and off at certain times. It’s not that the pilot can’t make up his mind, conditions change as the flight progresses.
3) Science is an easy target. As populism flourishes in our social media-dominated society, we see a high regard for authority and a low regard for expertise. Lindroth says that leads to emotional polarization. “We no longer think of people as wrong, but as evil.” Science denialism is rarely about science, rather it’s about threats that are perceived by some group. “We should ask, ‘who is feeling threatened?’ ”
He used the examples of cigarette makers and the American Petroleum Institute, not denying research on cancer and climate change but rather creating doubt, cherry picking data and magnifying uncertainty. Conspiracy theories feed on distrust over institutions and a sense of alienation and powerlessness.
In the current political environment we can see how political advertising focuses on threats and emotionalism, not logic. “The central issue in belief formation is not evidence; it’s identity,” Lindroth said, proposing that the main determing factor in beliefs about climate change was political affiliation.
Quizzed further about this, Lindroth suggested that the scientific community needed to develop its own influencers who could fast track responses to disinformation. Interactions with those who are anti-science should be done respectfully and through connection to shared values, he said.
The third and final lecture of the evening focused on the problem of Readdressing Trust in a Polarized World. Not an easy task but Lindroth proposed a variety of solutions. He noted that science denialism shows up on both sides of the political spectrum. “Liberals and conservatives both deny science when it challenges their moral frameworks.”
Science denialism doesn’t just relate to climate change. Liberal positions on biological differences and sexual differences in cognition and behavior were also mentioned.
But noting the religious nature of his audience, Lindroth urged faith leaders to commit to the pursuit of truth. “The process of spiritual development is also like the scientific process,” he said.
He quoted survey findings indicating that 90 percent of religious leaders believe climate change is real but most don’t mention it. Changing what people think other people believe can have a big impact.
Identity idolatry (i.e. tribalism) should be opposed and love should be modeled across cultural and ideological divides.
Noting that religion, science, and art are three ways of understanding the world, Lindroth said a Venn diagram of the three would show awe and wonder at the center of their connection. “Science stands on the edge of what we know and has a way of touching the divine.” Studies have found over half of scientists believe in God.
“Science must be trusted for a good future,” he concluded.
