Science Denialism Left and Right: Are there any Progressive, Critical Thinkers in Politics?
A 2016 article from Scientific American, “A Plan to Defend against the War on Science” by Shawn Otto, is even more pertinent 4 years on.
The ‘war on science’ has been escalating with the Trump administration, and now even more with the pandemic. Recently, I was shocked to discover that a politician I had worked with who was completely behind the science on climate change was questioning the science on vaccination research — it was a mish mash of science and science denialism to suit his world view.
The war on science manifests itself with the dismissal of facts, the twisting of information (misinformation), and the citing of non-scientific or discredited evidence and theories.
It’s being fought by politicians on the right and (more unwittingly?) by the left. It’s also being fought by those who do not understand the scientific method and those who find comfort in a fringe theory that allows them to alleviate some anxiety or find an easy scapegoat for their worries. From all camps you will hear how science is not neutral, that it represents particular interests and world views.
Otto (2016) states that viewing science as partisan is rooted in postmodern identity politics. University academics have taught that:
“science is a “meta-narrative” — a story concocted by the ruling white male elite in order to retain power — and therefore suspect. The claims of science, these academics argue, are no more privileged than any other “ways of knowing”, such as black truth, female truth or indigenous truth” (para. 10).
Listening to different perspectives and voices will not change scientific truth. Of course, it is important to get different perspectives on all things and that makes for good qualitative research. Furthermore, it’s important to acknowledge that marginalized people are not equally represented in the scientific community because of systemic racism and gender bias. However, the scientific method produces theories and facts which are not stories or meta-narratives; they are conclusions based on peer-reviewed, objective evidence and open to more investigation when new data or theories arise.
Science is innately anti-partisan because it is objective; it doesn’t care what a human wants it to conclude. Yet, it can be seen as political because scientific conclusions will ultimately always upset someone’s ideological or economic agenda.
Otto states, “By undermining science’s claim of objectivity, these postmodernists have unwittingly laid the philosophical foundation for the new rise of authoritarianism. Because if there is no objective evidence that has ultimate credibility, how is one to settle competing claims of truth, such as those made by Trump?”
I was slapped in the face by the war on science when I discovered that a Green Party member that I volunteered for as a research policy consultant in the last Canadian Federal election ended up displaying anti-science and anti-vax sentiments on his Facebook page. I assumed that Green Party members would be pro-science, climate change advocates. I felt embarrassed that I had promoted him to my friends. I felt naïve in my assumption that if he was a climate change advocate that he must also understood how science works. This is an example of a meme he posted:
This type of science denialism is worsened on social media; alternative views are legitimized by others and echo chambers are formed. Many argued with him and he claimed that gut health wasn’t being looked into seriously as a remedy for COVID-19 because politicians have a vested money interest in vaccines.
People can argue that the scientific research that gets funded is politically and financially motivated, but scientific discoveries are not political — they require rigorous testing by multiple sources which go through peer review. If a vaccine for COVID-19 is approved, he will likely argue that gut health should have been the public health focus and the vaccine is toxic even though the approval itself will mean that the vaccine is not toxic. I do not know how he rationalizes the anti-mask message in the meme, though I know several left and right-leaning people who say the whole pandemic is a hoax to control us.
The very wording around science is problematic. Science is not a belief system. It is not a religion. I cringe when I hear “I believe the science”. I think you mean “I trust the science because it went through rigorous testing”.
The political right has been organizing itself around anti-science sentiments for decades, Otto continues, because it feeds the voters they have come to rely on — the fundamentalist evangelicals who reject science at every level from human origins to reproduction and anything that clashes with their dogmatic beliefs. In return for political promises around pro-choice legislation and anti-gay marriage, they reject what environmental science says about pollution and resource extraction and support corporate interests and deregulation. Science denialism serves both sides and is reinforced by both sides.
The political left is not much better. Their platforms feed off of unfounded scientific fears around GMOs, cell phones and 5G causing brain cancer, and water fluoridation lowering IQs. Do they actually believe this or are they appealing to voters? Who knows.
Otto cites U.S. Green Party candidate Jill Stein as stating that science suspicions on the left have been caused by government agencies aligning themselves with corporate interests through regulations, or lack thereof. Then, once you start doubting that even government safety regulations are not impartial “the avoidance principle becomes the default position and science is denied on the basis that it’s corporate PR”.
And the supposedly politically progressive and critical thinking party — where are they? Is any political party or candidate both pro-science and not money, industry, corporate-influenced?
The subtitle of the Scientific American article is: “The challenge of creating a public able to parse evidence-free “facts” rests with the press, educators and other thought leaders”.
The questions for me are: How do we infiltrate the echo chambers being created by social media algorithms? Are echo chambers stronger than facts? How do we talk to the person posting misinformation on their news feed? And, how do we really know who we are voting for?
Reference:
Otto, Shawn. (2016, October 9th). A plan to defend against the war on science: The challenge of creating a public able to parse evidence-free “facts” rests with the press, educators and other thought leaders. In Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science/
