Science Isn't About A Hashtag
Why 'Believe in Science' and 'Follow the Science' aren't really about science.
People go around telling you that you should "follow the science" or "believe in science." In reality, both are not about science, because while science can tell you some things, it can't answer everything, because science doesn't reach a point where it has all the answers.
When I thought about the statements "believe in science" and "follow the science," I kept going back to Leighton Woodhouse's writing this past summer about "The New Clerisy." He wrote about how the Democrats declared themselves the "party of science" a few years ago and how it has led to the "believe in science" mantra that's tossed around today.
One item Woodhouse touched upon is Dr. Anthony Fauci, who has been revered by plenty of individuals as the VIP of all things scientific. But Woodhouse writes that Fauci is more than just a scientist -- he's a technician and a bureaucrat as well.
Fauci has been with the National Institutes of Health for 50 years and, while he possesses scientific knowledge, he also has the mindset of a person who wants to task people with pursuing policy objectives, based on current wisdom.
This runs counter to the scientific process, which requires one to develop a hypothesis, research and test it, and determine what the evidence says about the hypothesis. Forcing science to meet a policy objective is a problem if hypotheses related to that policy objective don't hold up or call current wisdom into question.
Woodhouse said it best when he wrote that "believe in science" isn't about science, but politics. As he wrote in his June 5 Substack:
"Science demands a reflexive posture of skepticism toward received wisdom, tempered by trust in empirical evidence. Bowing habitually to expert authority on the strength of titles and credentials is the antithesis of the scientific mindset."
In other words, anything learned in the past -- even through pervious science -- shouldn't be taken as an absolute, though it may be useful. But the bureaucrat falls into the trap of latching onto previous wisdom and believing that it will work again -- or another way to put it may be the bureaucrat believes in "one size fits all."
As for "follow the science," I found one of the best explanations to come from Vinay Prasad, who I first discovered when listening to a podcast he did with Bari Weiss about the vaccine hesitant (one that is well worth your time to listen).
I later ran across what Prasad wrote for MedPage Today, in which he explained why "follow the science" isn't the best idea. As Prasad wrote:
"It's a popular and feel-good message. To me, #FollowTheScience means that science is essential to making good and rational decisions and implies that science makes policy decisions clear. The first half of that sentence is right. The second half is dangerously wrong. I think we must address what science is and is not."
Prasad elaborated that science can help one navigate, for example, the COVID-19 pandemic, but it cannot guide choices or trade-offs to deal with the pandemic. Policy decisions, Prasad wrote, include values and priorities.
Going back to Fauci, his decisions and advice are not simply being made based on science. Fauci has sometimes made decisions based on his concerns about relations with China or people hoarding protective equipment -- decisions that go back to values and priorities (some would say politics), but have nothing to do with science.
If one is going to look to science for answers, one has to realize that science isn't always going to have the answers. That's why the best scientists keep researching, keep asking questions and keep developing hypotheses, even when they consider the longest standing theories. Those theories are useful, and many have opened up new pathways for scientific research, but they are not an end point and they have limitations.
A scientist is going to recognize those limitations when carrying out research. Bureaucrats don't always do that -- especially if they have been used to doing something for a long time. Thus, if scientific research suggests that may not be the best path to take, a bureaucrat may find it difficult to adjust his thinking.
If one really wants to understand science, one needs to be dispassionate about it. One needs to keep any belief in check, regardless of what it is. Saying "believe in science" or "follow the science" is not about science -- it's about promoting a slogan that looks good in a hashtag.
If you really want to utilize science, remember that while science can be useful, scientific research never really ends. The best thing you can do with science is ask questions about it, not worship it.