Saturday, March 11, 2017

Scientism Has Reached The EPA


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.