This does not surprise me at all, and in fact it is quite
appropriate. We now have someone running
the EPA (one of the departments of the US government that is and should be most
reliant on science) who believes in scientism: Scott Pruitt. This is not surprising considering how
widespread scientism is in general.
What is scientism? It
is typically defined as the belief that scientific methods, logic, reasoning
and/or standards can (or in fact must) be applied to all human pursuits,
especially those related to truth. It
often denies that there are even differences in the methods, logic and
standards in the different fields of science.
As a result it thinks that everything should be held to scientific
standards: literature, philosophy, art, etc.
If a topic of field of study isn’t or can’t be then it is of little or
no use except as entertainment.
This often manifests itself in the belief that scientific
truths are unchanging and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. In reality, scientific truths can always
change and proof in science consists of convincing the large majority of the
experts in a field to agree upon something.
It does not deal with eternal truths nor is anything in science
indisputable. Truths are based on
physical evidence which can always change.
They are also open to debate, but inside the field and among the experts
who are qualified to engage in the debate.
And even when something is under debate, science is conservative in the
fact that it doesn’t throw out the old truth or theory until there is consensus
on a new one.
In short, scientism is fundamentalist science. Fundamentalist Catholics might believe that
whatever the Pope says is true absolutely.
This is far from the truth and ignores the complexity of the Church: the
theology, tradition, laws and hierarchy.
A different kind of fundamentalist Christian may believe that anything
the Bible says is absolutely true. This
ignores the fact that the Bible sometimes contradicts itself. It also ignores the fact that it was written
by humans who were living in a certain time and space and limited by their
language and worldview. God may have
inspired them, but humans had to understand that inspiration and put it into
words. That makes the Bible a human
document that is not infallible and absolute.
I make the examples about religion because I think they are
easy to understand, and they are related to my educational background. However, there are fundamentalist economists
(on both sides: free market and socialist), fundamentalist democrats (who
believe in the absolute applicability of democracy) and so on.
Getting back to the EPA: Pruitt is not denying facts
necessarily; he is just asking for a level of proof that is unrealistic. In fact, I would say it is actually
unscientific. He can likely do this with
a clear conscience because he misunderstands what science is. (He misunderstands what truth and facts are
in general it seems.) This is not
something that is unique to him, and in fact it is a widespread understanding
of what science is, or is supposed to be.
For all too many people, science is made up of definite undeniable facts
and truths that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The other side of the coin with scientism is what we see
often portrayed in the media, especially when it comes to medical
research. People take the latest study
to be the definitive word on the subject.
If a new study goes against the accepted theory, the average person
(spurred on by the media) take that to mean that everything must change. This misunderstands science because in real
science no one study or set of data can change what is considered accepted
scientific truth, or fact. It takes
multiple studies and years at least. In
the end it takes a change in consensus among the large majority of experts in
the field.
What I think makes it easier to be a scientist today can be
roughly explained with two factors:
The
first is that people these days distrust authority and experts. (This is true not just in science but in many
other areas as well.) They want to trust
just the facts and data, and they want to believe that the data will tell them
exactly what is to be trusted and believed.
They don’t trust the experts in science or their consensus. The experts should not be necessary because
the data and facts should speak for themselves.
The second is that people can find all sorts of ‘information’
in the internet and in doing so are often (without knowing it) only ‘finding’
only the information that supports what they already believe.
Much more should be said about these two points, but I will leave it at that for now.
I think the important thing now is to realize that it is not just stubbornness, idiocy or deceit that is causing people like Scott Pruitt to do and say what he is. To take that approach is to set him up as a strawman and not take him seriously. (And I believe that has been done for far too long and has led to him now being the head of the EPA.) Also, he is not alone in what he thinks. At the root of this is a misunderstanding of what science is. What is at the root is scientism, a fundamentalist view of science, and it seems to be widespread.
