Why Science Struggles to Maintain Its Relevance
Written on
The Battle for Scientific Understanding
The rise of the so-called "war on science," particularly during the Trump administration, is not particularly shocking. Empirical reasoning appears to be losing ground to charismatic figures who promote misleading information, a trend observable even amid a global health crisis where scientific guidance is essential.
Despite the obvious need for scientific expertise, a significant number of individuals support a leadership that actively undermines the scientists and health professionals crucial to public well-being. This begs the question: what drives this phenomenon?
Section 1.1 Understanding Science's Communication Challenge
The issue isn't that scientific concepts are inherently too complex or dull for the average person. Figures like Mr. Wizard, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and cultural phenomena like Star Trek demonstrate that science can indeed be engaging and accessible.
To grasp why the influence of science is diminishing, we might reflect on the insightful words of American poet Muriel Rukeyser: "The universe is made of stories, not atoms."
Subsection 1.1.1 The Stories We Prefer
Science faces a fundamental challenge: it often presents narratives that are uncomfortable for us. For instance, it warns that our desire for cheap consumer goods and unrestricted travel could lead to environmental devastation. Similarly, it stresses that relaxing social distancing measures too soon could exacerbate the spread of COVID-19. Science asks us to prioritize future well-being over immediate gratification, often based on ideas that are neither intuitive nor self-evident, such as the fact that unseen microorganisms can cause illness.
Historically, science thrived not because people became inherently more analytical post-Enlightenment, but because the narratives it provided aligned with public desires. The promise of atomic energy as a solution for warfare and a source of clean power, the efficacy of antibiotics in curing illness, and the Internet as a tool for global knowledge dissemination were all stories that resonated positively with the masses.
Section 1.2 The Shift in Scientific Narratives
However, this favorable perception shifted. Unlike dogmatic ideologies, scientific understanding evolves as new data emerges. Incidents like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island reshaped the public's narrative around nuclear power. The realization that antibiotic overuse led to the emergence of resistant superbugs altered perceptions of medical advances. The Internet, initially seen as a beacon of knowledge, also became a platform for misinformation and repression.
This evolution of narratives leads many to seek out alternative, more comforting stories. For example, the narrative that "climate change isn't real" allows continued indulgence in travel. The belief that "vaccines cause autism" provides a way to avoid medical interventions that seem intimidating. Similarly, notions that "the coronavirus threat is exaggerated" enable the continuation of business operations without the burden of strict health protocols.
Chapter 2 Title The Return of Scientific Authority?
While it's conceivable that science and rational thought could regain their footing, it is unlikely to happen through a collective epiphany that acknowledges the validity of scientific claims. People seldom admit they were wrong. Science's resurgence will depend on its ability to craft compelling narratives—simple solutions that promise improvement in our lives. A successful coronavirus vaccine could be one such story, potentially reinstating scientists as trusted authorities.
Yet, one should not expect this newfound trust to endure beyond the next challenging revelation that science must deliver.