I don't believe it!

Should I trust science?

Lyubov Sokovikova, Hi-News

The development of the scientific method over the past five centuries has led to unprecedented technological growth, which has significantly improved the quality of people's lives. I don't know if you've noticed, but we are literally surrounded by high technology. The same plasma TVs and computer screens, for example, are nothing but the results of advances in quantum mechanics and quantum technologies. Thanks to the development of science, we have been able to defeat many deadly diseases, life expectancy has increased significantly, and the world's population will reach a record eight billion people in the near future. It would seem that this is the future. A world that is getting better and better. But is it so? The coronavirus pandemic, oddly enough, drew attention to the "elephant in the room": it turned out that some people seriously treat covid from "healers", plotting the disease or sending it to inanimate objects. Yes, the people with whom we work, are friends or just know each other, seriously build their lives according to astrological forecasts, and it's not worth talking about climate change, they say, "there is no such problem." But how did it happen that, along with scientific and technological progress, millions of people around the world deny science? And what can such a state of affairs lead to?

"Why should we trust science?"

We all love simple answers to complex questions. This is how we are built and sometimes it's really easier. However, the more often we choose a simple answer, the less often we think about the question and ask new ones. It just so happened that the Internet allowed everyone to form their own so–called "information bubble" - people surround themselves with the information they like.

Imagine that somewhere on the Internet you came across an opinion that is the opposite of yours. And so much so that you are even ready to be offended by taking a random, for example, tweet on your account. There are countless similar situations in the world, especially today, when everyone around seems to be offended. But insulting is one thing and distrust of science is quite another. Or not?

I have no answers to these questions, after all, I am not a psychiatrist. However, unflattering reviews about their work (and often aggressive) I observe mainly in articles about climate change, vaccination, astrology and other pseudosciences. Any arguments are used, and out of respect for the reader, I will not give them. I would like to note, however, that not only I noticed this trend – the press is literally buzzing, as aggressive denial of science contributes to the spread of COVID-19, the pandemic of which is far from over. And this is only part of the problem.

According to Time newspaper, in recent years, such questions as "Are genetically modified crops safe to eat?", "Do childhood vaccinations cause autism?", "Is climate change an emergency?" and others have become politically biased, and people reject scientific data that does not agree with their political preferences.

When Greta Thunberg, a Swedish environmental activist, testified before Congress, presenting as her testimony the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one of the members asked her why we should trust science. She replied incredulously: "Because it's science!"  Today, there is more and more evidence that a massive and organized campaign aimed at arousing distrust in science has been carried out for decades.

According to Green Peace, all this beauty is funded by individuals whose interests and ideologies are under threat due to the discoveries of modern science.

In response, scientists tend to emphasize the successes of science. And they are really impressive. After all, our planet really revolves around the Sun (and not vice versa), and the theory of relativity has formed the basis of all our knowledge about the world that lies far beyond our tiny blue planet.

Alternative answer

An alternative answer to the question "Why trust science?" is as follows: scientists use the "scientific method". But do we really know what it is? What is usually considered a scientific method — developing a hypothesis and then developing an experiment to test it — is not what scientists actually do.

The history of science shows us that scientists use many different methods, and these methods change over time. Those that did not meet expectations are discarded, but new ones appear instead. So the so-called scientific method doesn't work?

False theories can produce true results, so even if an experiment works, it does not prove that the theory it was designed to test is correct.

Moreover, there may be hundreds and thousands of different theories that, when tested, can show the same result. And vice versa – if the experiment failed, it does not mean that the theory is wrong; perhaps the experiment was poorly planned or there was a failure in one of the devices. But if the scientific method doesn't work, then why suddenly trust scientists? And is it even possible to justify the use of scientific knowledge in making complex personal and public decisions?

What is the scientific method?

To try to answer these questions, it would not be bad to understand what these methods are in general, with the help of which statements are evaluated. The reality is that regardless of methods and assumptions, the main force driving science is the critical examination of statements. This is what scientists do when they accept a scientific article for publication in a serious scientific publication.

And yet, there are many cases when unscrupulous "scientists" have published their so-called works in renowned scientific journals. Moreover, there is a whole "Graveyard of recalled articles".

It is this process – rigorous, constant monitoring — that works to ensure that erroneous assumptions and claims are rejected and that accepted comments are likely to be correct.

Science is developing, since a scientific statement cannot be considered true until a long process of study by other specialists, including colleagues, is completed (this is an informal process during which scientists discuss data and preliminary conclusions with their colleagues). Then the application for scientific work is submitted for discussion at specialized conferences and seminars.

Sometimes additional research and seminars lead to a revision of the preliminary results. And yet, reasonable criticism is the best thing that can happen to a scientist. After receiving additional information and new data, he can revise the preliminary results and if they are wrong, discard them. Of course, sometimes this leads to a more radical revision, for example, to a change in the data collection program or a complete rejection of the study.

But even if everything is in order, the process is not over, because the confirmation of new data and conclusions is ahead. The next step is even more difficult: as soon as the article is ready, it is sent to a scientific journal. Then the editors intentionally send scientific articles to people who are not friends or colleagues of the authors – reviewers. Their task is to find errors or other shortcomings in the article.

In the academic environment, this process is called "peer review" – reviewers are not scientific colleagues – experts in the same field – but they act as a boss who has both the right and the duty to find flaws. Reviewers, like critics, can be quite harsh (so don't take it personally).

After the reviewers and the editor are satisfied with the "work on errors", the article is accepted for publication. But the story does not end here either, as serious mistakes are often found in articles of eminent scientific publications. When this happens, the editorial board of the journal withdraws the article and writes a corresponding refutation, indicating the mistakes made in the work.

Denial of science

The answer to the question of why you should trust science sounds, I believe, as follows: a scientific judgment is not an individual judgment. It is collective. Yes, there are many disputes among academics on a variety of issues. But if some individual scientist, even a very famous one, does not agree with the scientific consensus, calling it nonsense, does this mean that he is right?

The probability that a lone dissenter is right and everyone else is wrong is not zero. But only as long as it is possible to fully verify all his works and statements. That's why diversity in science is important: the more people view a statement from different perspectives, the more likely they are to discover errors and inaccuracies.

Anti-science protests in the USA. In the photo, the girl holds a poster with the inscription "The silence of doctors is violence"

That is why it is necessary to treat news (any) with healthy skepticism, as well as loud statements: it takes years, and sometimes decades, to deploy the scientific process.

The denial of science has acquired unprecedented proportions today. The results of numerous studies indicate that most of all people doubt the reality of climate change and the impending, possible, environmental catastrophe. It may seem surprising, but pseudoscientific beliefs are most common in the United States (or similar studies are conducted there somewhat more often than in Russia).

Interestingly, dissatisfied scientists were found in France. According to a recent survey conducted in the country, almost 40% of the French are convinced of the existence of conspiracies.

Opponents of knockdown and vaccination organize protests more often than you might think

Fortunately, the defenders of scientific knowledge also gather at the rally. The inscription on the poster reads: The planet needs thinkers, not deniers"

As David Ludden, a professor of psychology at Georgia Gwinnett College, writes in one of his articles, recent polls have shown that 41% of Americans believe in ESP and about a third of them believe in haunted houses, ghosts and telepathy.

This may be partly due to a lack of scientific literacy, but even well–educated people can deliberately reject science when it comes to issues such as vaccines, genetically modified foods or climate change," writes Ludden.

Who denies science and why?

In a 2020 article Why Facts Are Not Enough: Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, a psychologist from the University of Queensland (Australia), Matthew Hornsey, suggested that motivated rejection of science occurs not so much because of a lack of scientific literacy, but because of deep-rooted emotions and psychological needs.

Thus, a direct approach to providing additional information or rational arguments will have no effect on the denier of science, and the only hope to influence their attitude is to appeal to the emotions that underlie them. Hornsey explains the psychology of rejection of science by the example of six main criteria:

• Ideology. People adhere to certain belief systems that clearly define who they are. They are also motivated to reject any aspect of science that does not agree with their point of view or ideology. Two examples are relevant here, namely the rejection of human evolution by fundamentalist Christians and the rejection of climate change by those who hold conservative political views.

• Acceptance or rejection of climate science is related to political affiliation and education, but in an interesting way. As liberals become more educated, their confidence in the science of climate change increases. However, the opposite is true for conservatives, they are becoming more committed to rejecting climate change as their level of education increases. Thus, climate skepticism is associated not only with the lack of scientific literacy, but rather with a conflict with ideology.

• Selfish interests. Actually, people strongly support scientific progress — after all, smartphones, computers, medicines and many other technological advances have significantly improved our lives compared to previous generations. But we often resist scientific knowledge when the discovery entails costs or inconveniences on our part.

• Vested interests also play an important role in skepticism about climate science. Obviously, those who are engaged in the production of fossil fuels are very interested in refuting climate change. Similarly, political conservatives — with their desire to maintain the status quo - resist lifestyle changes necessary to address global warming.

• Conspiracy worldview. The vast majority of people clearly find conspiracy theories extremely implausible. However, part of the population is deeply convinced that conspiracies rule the world. Thus, a person who believes that the moon landing was rigged is also likely to subscribe to conspiracy theories about reptiloids, "chemical trails" and microchips in vaccines.

• Fears and phobias. It is very likely that anxiety is the main source of problems. For example, studies show that the opinion of vaccination opponents is based on a deep sense of anxiety and disgust towards hospitals and medical procedures.

As you can see, the topic is extensive and very interesting. In addition, the emergence of social networks has led to the creation of online communities that promote all kinds of positions that deny science - from Flat Earth Society to psychoanalysis. But is there anything we can do about it?

According to Hornsey, we need to be sensitive to the psychological motives for rejecting science and instead build communication in such a way as to bypass the emotional basis of their beliefs.

And, of course, we remind you that every year in Russia the most outstanding pseudo-scientists of the country are awarded. Follow the news!

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru