While browsing some site a few days ago I came across the question, "Why don't people trust science any more?"
As I suspected upon first seeing the question, the person who posed it went on to assert those who don't buy in to policies purported to address climate change and COVID don't trust science...well at least they didn't ask why people don't trust The Science™.
Perhaps this person, and those like them, are asking the wrong question(s) because they have a warped idea of what science is and isn't. I assert people generally haven't disregarded science, but have realized science isn't a democracy and isn't something with dogmata controlled and handed down by The Experts™.
Don't Trust but Do Verify
One of the first problems with statements like "trust The Science™/The Experts™" is that trust is not a scientific thing. Trust is a matter of faith in someone or something, and faith does not necessarily mean its religious. Someone telling you to trust The Experts™/The Science™ in a conversation thats supposedly about science should set off alarms in your head.
In STEM we don't trust, but we do verify. This is what we learn in school when we are studying our respective fields. We verify by reviewing the methods and data included in papers written by others. We don't simply trust someone because they are an "expert" or trust something because it was written or endorsed by "experts".
Science and the Scientific Method
Let's begin by defining science, which is the application of the scientific method, usually in the pursuit of knowledge. The latter part of the definition is what sets science apart from other areas of STEM. In engineering we use the scientific method to apply knowledge in solving problems. Engineering and research technicians apply the solutions developed by engineers and manage experiments envisioned by scientists. Math is extensively used in all three areas and supported by mathematicians. People who specialize in one area of STEM often need to act in the capacity of someone in another area of STEM in order to accomplish their tasks.
What, then, is the scientific method? If one uses the traditional concept that hasn't been watered down, the scientific method is something very specific. It is a process in which
Furthermore, the scientific method does not prove hypotheses true. It is simply a tool/method we use to show us which hypothesis best explains a phenomenon. "Proof", "fact", etc when used in science are not proof/facts in the common sense of the term. I learned in school at a young age, perhaps seven or eight, this fact as well as the difference between hypothesis, theory, and law. This was all confirmed later when I was in middle school, high school, then in university.
Corruption of the Scientific Method
The core of the scientific method is the performance of experiments to test a hypothesis. When I said the scientific method has been watered down, this is what I was referring to. With the invention and spread of the digital computer it has become very easy and cheap to do numerical analysis, and this has resulted in the modern idea of the scientific method being one which has been corrupted by those who insist numeric methods (aka models) and small-scale physical models are suitable substitutes for experiments.
One rebuttal to this is that models are based on things which have been tested via controlled experiments; therefore, models are sufficient stand-ins for experiments. This was in response to a longer conversation about models in which someone tried to pull a "gotcha" when I answered a question about my "expertise" (EE and astro) in STEM. We indeed use models in engineering, but those models are usually verified via experiment. When they are not verified, for example when determining what magnitude earthquake a high-rise will withstand, engineers following the scientific method will say they are confident in the results of their model-based (numeric and small-scale) tests. Being confident in an outcome is not the same as asserting something is correct.
Going back to the idea that models are suitable substitutes for experiment because the models were developed from one or more hypotheses that were verified using experiments...this idea is patently false. One cannot verify hypotheses, assemble those hypotheses to create a model, then assume such a model is verified or correct because each hypothesis comprising the model was verified.
Quasi-Experiments and Observational Study
Not only is the core of the scientific method performing experiments, but it is performing controlled experiments. On more than one occasion people who place their faith in models have asked me what are we supposed to do if we can't perform controlled experiments because we can't make copies of Earth and tweak conditions between each copy to observe what happens.
They are flustered, more than they already were, when I respond with, "That's not my problem to figure out. You are making assertions that your hypotheses are correct; therefore, it is up to you to figure it out."
While the use of quasi-experiments and observational study are not corruptions of the scientific method, they do fall under the same general limitations as the use of models in place of experiment. The responsible STEM "expert" would say they believe a hypothesis supported by quasi-experiment/observational study is correct, but there is no conclusive proof.
Consensus™, The Experts™, and Humility
The scientific method, thus STEM, is not subject to Consensus™. It is not a democracy aka mob-rule. Consensus™ does not make a hypothesis valid, make it a theory, or turn it into a law. This is a very simple fact that does not need further elaboration.
The best professors I had in university made it a point during their lectures to make it clear that we cannot prove some very basic concepts in science, but these concepts are accepted because they best describe what we observe. They also admitted, without long lines of questioning, when they didn't know something. This is called humility, and is something which is severely lacking in science, especially areas where the cancerous practice of storytelling has taken hold (most of cosmology, certain areas of geology, etc). Rather than simply admitting ignorance, people will rush to create fairy-tales of past events no humans were around to record, or of future events they will never be around to witness.
You Must Accept All Or None
On several occasions people have tried to play a "gotcha" by asking questions about hypotheses and theories I've used in engineering and accept the results of, then asserting if I accept these things I must accept other applications of those hypotheses/theories.
One such example is the process by which CO2 is affected by IR. We know, from experiments, that CO2 molecules can be physically excited by certain wavelengths of IR. If this excitation is not "bled off" by the molecule re-radiating energy, it can be transferred to other molecules through physical contact similar to billiard balls on a pool table. This is, of course, a simplification of the process.
The assertion here is that if one accepts the results of these experiments with CO2, they must also accept the idea that CO2, and in particular that emitted by humans, is the primary or a significant driver of climate change. This is another idea that is patently false. This relates back to the earlier subject of the requirment to test models even if the underlying hypotheses said models are based on have been verified experimentally.
Religion by Other Names is Still Religion
Nothing is sacrosanct in science; however, religions have plenty of sacrosanct ideas and in many cases relics. Consider this quote from Robert Proctor, a professor who participated in a March for Science
But this is even broader in the sense that there’s a broader perception of a massive attack on sacred notions of truth that are sacred to the scientific community.
Just as science doesn't have sacred ideas or relics, it does not reveal truths to us. Despite this there is no shortage of people who claim there are hypotheses which are unquestionable even though the only support for said hypotheses are models. This mindset is no different than the dogmatic mindsets these same people often level criticism at traditional religous organizations for. Slapping the word "science" on what is effectively religion does not change the fact that it is religion.
This dogmatism has shown to be false many times in the past, for example, when Mendeleev's ideas about an early periodic table were shunned by the dogmatic Experts and Consensus™ of his day, or when Semmelweis proposed hand washing to reduce infection and was opposed by the dogmatic Experts and Consensus™ of his day.
Follow this with a more recent religious-like assertion by a career bureaucrat that attacks on him are attacks on science
Fauci is right in his sentiment of "what on Earth were they trying to say", but no, Fauci is no more science than a police officer is the law. "Attacks" on Fauci are no more attacks on science than attacks on police officers are attacks on laws.
This isn't what some people think though. Just as disagreement with, or outright attacks on, the Pope or Muhammad elicit outrage from Catholics or Muslims, disagreement with or attacks on Saint Fauci and other saints like Thunberg elicit outrage from members of this strange religion of pseudo-science masquerading as science.
Another indicator much of this is nothing but a religion is the wording people choose, for example, by anthropomorphizing animals and inanimate objects. Calling the Earth or nature "mother" and referring to them as "her". Referring to the state of the Earth as far as pollution and similar issues go as the "health" of the Earth. This is just nature worship brought into modern times. Just as some cultures outright sacrificed people to appease various nature deities, modern pseudoscience zealots propose that we can appease the CO2 deities and help the Earth "heal" by sacrificing (not necessarily outright human sacrifice) future generations.
Science Politicized
I have met many who are quick to recite Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. These people usually have a predictable worldview that is always the same - trust The Science™, trust The Experts™, reduce military spending, stop warmongering, spend more on welfare, there are more than two sexes/genders, words and thoughts are equivalent to real violence, spend more on wind/solar, tax the rich, spend more on science, make it harder for coal/oil/gas to operate, belief that models can be substituted for experiments, etc.
I certainly agree with some of their views; however, they miss the other half of Eisenhower's warning and become silent and sometimes combative when it is brought up. Eisenhower followed his very correct warning about the military-industrial complex with a very correct warning about the "education-science complex":
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
COVID-related issues that started in 2020 and continue, to a lesser extent, through 2021 provided another insight into the poltitization of science and other issues. Some asserted that, if you oppose lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations, you are politicizing COVID and therefore politicizing The Science™. Nothing is further from the truth. Issues turn political when people wish to use political power, power of the government, to address said issues. The intent of those politicizing an issue doesn't matter, good intentions don't excuse politicization or magically render it not-politicization. People who oppose politicization of an issue by protesting or refusing to comply with government edicts and mandates are not the ones making the issue political.
Bad STEM Communication
A big problem, noted by people on all sides of the issues presented here, is a lack of quality STEM communication in many areas. As STEM professionals it is our responsibility to communicate STEM topics clearly and effectively to the general public. It is also our responsibility to point out inaccuracies, errors, and blatant misinformation passed off by media, politicians, and companies.
A huge offender in this area is the media, which in modern times prefers to sacrifice scientific/engineering accuracy in favor of producing sensationalist content, visual effects, and so on. I have had this conversation with several people with backgrounds in STEM who stream and produce independent educational content. Although we vehemently disagree on many issues, some of which have already been covered here, we all agree there is a problem in the accurate communication of science outside of educational institutions.
Bad STEM communication can lead to people not accepting concepts in science. This, in turn, can be the basis of criticism leveled at people who don't accept the Consensus™ by people who do accept it. As was alluded to before, it is up to those in STEM to effectively communicate and convince others their hypostheses are valid. The wrong approach is to automatically assume people who don't accept hypotheses are Science Deniers™ or other such nonsense.
I've often said in conversations about science that I'm open to talking about topics such as flat-Earth if someone has better evidence for flat-Earth than the evidence for oblate sphereoid Earth. If someone wants to try convincing me their hypotheses for a flat-Earth better describe observations than the current best hypotheses, that's great. I hold everyone else, including The Experts™, to these same standards. They don't get a free pass because they're "experts", have degrees, etc. I also hold myself to these same standards when communicating STEM subjects. So far I've only read one decent hypothesis for how what we observe could occur with flat-Earth. Sadly it was so long ago I don't remember where I found it.
Being Responsible Professionals in STEM
As people in STEM, when acting or speaking as "experts" in whatever STEM specialization we have, our "expertise" ends where the discussion of policies begin. For example, when speaking in a professional capacity as an electical engineer, I can suggest that keeping areas around high-tension and other power transmission line paths free of trees and brush reduces the risk of fires started by those transmission lines. Although this suggestion is backed by empirical evidence, it does not mean that when speaking as an electrical engineer I should be formulating or lobbying for specific policies to implement this suggestion.
Perhaps people don't distrust science these days, perhaps they have just gotten sick of all the dogmatic religious pesudo-science bullshit passed off as science.
