The Scientific Attitude

by Lee McIntyre

  We must here face squarely the implications of what this example says about the question of whether the scientific attitude is a defining feature of science. The idea behind the scientific attitude cannot be that the group is always right. Galileo, Semmelweis, Wegener, and Bretz provide the counterexamples. The individual is sometimes far ahead of his or her contemporaries. True, as we saw earlier in Sunstein’s experimental studies, it is often easier for groups to find the truth than for individuals. But this does not mean that this always happens. Sometimes the individual has the better theory. And that is perfectly all right in science. What is important for the preservation of the scientific attitude is that any disputes are settled by the evidence. Sometimes it is not just individual theories that need correction, but an entire discipline’s consensus.

  Returning to Bretz, it is worth considering for a moment why uniformitarianism had such a hold on geology. In this case, I think we see one of the rare instances where an entire scientific field was subject to ideological influence. One reason that uniformitarianism was so favored by geologists was that it was seen as a bulwark against the creationists. It was a way of vindicating the idea that the natural world could be explained through the slow workings of natural processes rather than some sort of catastrophe that might be expected from divine intervention. Still, it is perfectly consistent to think that natural events can occur suddenly, over short periods of time. But this does not necessarily mean that God exists.64 It is also important to realize that Bretz did not jump to the conclusion of catastrophism rashly. His own guiding philosophy was uniformitarianism until he was pushed elsewhere by the evidence. In his papers and talks on the subject, it is clear that Bretz did not take the implications of his theory lightly. He anticipated criticism and tried to address it, but still believed in his own theory because there was no other explanation for what he saw. Contrast that with some of the geologists who had not even seen the evidence of the scablands but were nonetheless trying to shut him down. In this, they were being ideologues. As scientists, why were they more committed to the theory of uniformitarianism than to following the evidence? This demands an explanation too.

  My hypothesis is that ideology can have a corrupting influence both on those who are committed to it and on those who are fighting it. As scientists, the members of the USGS should not have cared whether Bretz’s evidence was consistent with one overarching theory or another, yet they did. Why? Because they were locked in their own battle with fundamentalist Christians and did not want Bretz’s theory to give aid and comfort to their enemies. This is an example of how ideology can infect the scientific process, whether we are on the “right” side of it or not. That is, even if we are merely changing the way that we do science to fight against those who are unscientific, we can damage science. It is not a question of whether Bretz’s theory came from a lone individual or a group, whether it advocated gradual change or sudden intervention. What matters is that it was consistent with the data. But when we try to go around this—when we seek either to confirm or disconfirm a theory based on our extra-empirical commitments—problems can arise. Most often this occurs when religious or political ideologues crab the process of learning from evidence because of their personal beliefs about divine intervention, human freedom, equality, nature, nurture, or some other speculative commitments. But this can also occur when an individual or group is fighting against such ideologies as well. The temptation to push things a little toward the way that we think (or hope) truth lies can be great. But this can result in unexpected reversals (or even frauds), which can then backfire and do a disservice to the public’s trust in science.

  Consider here the “climate-gate” email controversy from a few years back, where a handful of scientists spoke of suppressing evidence in response to Freedom of Information Act requests that they knew would be used by denialists to cherry pick data and undercut the truth about global warming. Although they were joking, and surely must have felt that they were on the “right side” of science, the fallout for climate science was terrible. Even after multiple official inquiries—which showed that the scientists had actually done nothing wrong and that their work was never compromised—it fed straight into the conspiracy theories of those who had argued that global warming was a hoax perpetrated by liberal scientists. When we compromise our standards, even if we feel that we are working “on the side of the angels,” science can suffer.65

  It is deeply frustrating to have science attacked by ideologues, who care nothing for what is precious about it and seek data only to support their favored hypotheses. But the price of scientific freedom is eternal openness. This does not mean that we have to tolerate crackpot theories. If there is no evidence, and no warrant behind them, there is no reason to put the scarce resources of science into checking them. But what to do when the evidence does show something strange? Here Sagan seems right. We must give it a hearing. And this is exactly what we will do at the end of this chapter when we consider the nearly three decades of work done on ESP at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) center. But first we must attend to the topic of pseudoscience.

  Pseudoscientists Are Not Really Open to New Ideas

  The problem with pseudoscientists is not merely that they are not doing science, but that they claim that they are. Some probably know that they are only pretending. Others perhaps believe that their work is being unfairly scorned. But the bottom line is that when one is making explanatory claims about empirical matters, fit with the evidence should be the primary consideration.66 Why then is it so difficult to get most pseudoscientists to admit not just that their theories are not true, but that they are not even scientific? The answer is that, similar to denialists, their belief in their theories seems deeply rooted in wishful thinking.

  Clearly, wishful thinking is not in keeping with the scientific attitude. One should not decide in advance on the basis of ideology what one wants to be right, then chase the evidence to support it. In science, one is supposed to be guided by the evidence and one’s beliefs are supposed to be shaped by it. As we know, scientific hypotheses can come from anywhere. Intuition, wishful thinking, hope, stubbornness, and wild guesses have all resulted in respected scientific theories. But here is the key: they must be supported by the evidence, as judged by the community of other scientists.

  Here once again consider Sagan’s matrix. Are pseudoscientific hypotheses open to new ideas? Not particularly. While it is probably fair to say that many astrologers, dowsers, crystal healers, intelligent design theorists, and the like are extremely gullible (as Sagan notes), they are also customarily closed-minded to an extreme degree in accepting the import of any evidence that disproves their theories. They will not submit to falsification. Controlled experiments are rare. Cherry picking data is common. Like denialists, most pseudoscientists seem to want to avoid disconfirming evidence, even as they complain that other scientists will not consider their own.

  One expects that some are profiting from this cat-and-mouse game and know what they are doing. While some are misleading, others are misled. Astrology is a billion-dollar industry worldwide.67 According to NBC News, Americans spend $3 billion a year on homeopathy.68 Other advocates of pseudoscience are surely straight-up ideologues who are in it not for the money but because they think they are right. And of course there is always willful ignorance and those who are duped. All are a danger to good science. Whether someone actually believes their untruths or merely pretends to, it is hostile to science to refuse to form empirical beliefs based on commitment to the standards of evidence. In pseudoscience as in denialism, they eschew (or at least cheat on) the scientific attitude. Intuition is prized over fact. “Skepticism” is used at one’s convenience. Gullibility is rampant. A double standard is applied to evidence. Dark conspiracies are spun about the work of those who oppose them. Both pseudoscience and denialism surely also include those who are benefiting from public confusion, while others naively do their bidding.69

  The crucial quest
ion for pseudoscientists is this: If your theories are true, where is the evidence? You may claim that you are being persecuted or ignored by mainstream science, but if you actually have good answers, why would they do that? As we just saw with the example of Harlen Bretz, if you have the evidence, the rest of the field will eventually beat a path to your door. But the onus is still on you. If even an eminent scientist like Bretz faced fierce, sometimes unreasoned opposition to his theory, why should pseudoscientists expect to have it easier? It is perhaps not great testimony for open-mindedness in the practice of science that Bretz had to fight so hard—even when he had the evidence—but that is the plight of the maverick. Scientists are stingy with warrant. So why do pseudoscientists expect to be taken seriously when they can offer no—or only equivocal—evidence? Because they “might” be right? But we have already seen that this matters little when the question of justification is on the line.

  Where are the falsifiable predictions of astrology? Where are the double-blind controlled experiments by faith healers? Why have those who claim that time travel is possible never gone back and made a killing in the stock market?70 If those who hold “alternative” beliefs want their views to be taken seriously, they must expect them to hold up under intense scrutiny and criticism. As we saw earlier, this sometimes happens, and the results are routinely disappointing.71 Instead, pseudoscientists usually prefer to release their own selective evidence. But this is only a masquerade of science.

  Pseudoscience in Action: Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory

  The long sordid history of opposition to evolutionary theory has been well told elsewhere.72 Starting with the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee in 1925, those who sought to fight against Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection first chose to try to keep it out of the public school biology classroom. This strategy was fairly successful until its constitutionality was challenged in 1967.73 As we saw in chapter 2, a more modern creationist agenda then shifted from one of trying to keep evolution out of the classroom to one of lobbying for the inclusion of creationism alongside it. This began in Arkansas in 1981 with Act 590, which required teachers to give “balanced treatment” by teaching creation science alongside evolution science in biology classrooms. When this was successfully challenged on constitutional grounds in McLean v. Arkansas, Judge William Overton ruled that the claim that Darwinian biology was itself a “secular religion” was ludicrous and that “creation science” was not scientific in the least in that “a scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory.”74 Thus was creation science revealed to be nothing more than pseudoscience.

  Years later, the creationists regrouped under the banner of intelligent design (ID) theory, which purported to be a scientific alternative to evolution. This was the product of a “think tank” called the Discovery Institute, which was founded in Seattle, Washington, in 1990, with the agenda of promoting ID theory and attacking evolution. After a multiyear campaign of funding and promoting ideologically driven criticisms of evolution, and flooding the media with misinformation in a public relations blitz intended to raise doubts about evolution, the next court battle was fought in Pennsylvania in 2004, in a case called Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Again, this history is recounted elsewhere,75 but the main point is that the strategy was no longer one to get creationism or creation science taught in science classrooms, but instead to make the case for the completely separate scientific theory of intelligent design, which the paleobiologist Leonard Krishtalka among others has called “creationism in a cheap tuxedo.”76 This effort too went down in stunning defeat. In a judgment similar to the earlier Arkansas ruling, Judge John E. Jones found that intelligent design theory was not science and that its attacks on evolution had already been refuted by the scientific community. It had, moreover, none of its own peer-reviewed studies or evidence to offer in support of its claims. In a bold rebuke, Jones went on to scold school officials for such “breathtaking inanity” and wasting taxpayer money. He then ordered them to pay $1 million to the plaintiffs in damages.

  After this, the creationists’ strategy changed. With court options now deemed too dangerous, the opponents of evolution chose to try to influence the law itself. In 2008, the Discovery Institute drafted a piece of model legislation that sought to protect the “academic freedom” of teachers who felt intimidated or threatened in teaching the “full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution.”77 The language went on to identify the “confusion” created by the Dover ruling and stated that of course nothing in the act should be construed as “promoting any religious doctrine.” This was nothing but a fig leaf for renewed attempts to try to get creationism into the nation’s science classrooms.

  After an initial defeat in Florida in 2008—where Democrats seized on ambiguities in the House language to argue that the academic freedom of teachers to cover birth control, abortion, and sex education should also be protected—the first such academic freedom bill was passed in Louisiana that same year. Though not completely modeled on the Discovery Institute’s language, it was seen as a win for antiscience forces. Here legislators were careful to strip out all mention of evolution (and global warming) as examples of “controversial” theories from their original bill and renamed it the Louisiana Science Education Act. It was signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindahl and remains one of only two state academic freedom bills in the country.

  Similar efforts then died in legislation in Missouri, Alabama, Michigan, South Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Iowa, Texas, and Kentucky, before another academic freedom bill was passed in Tennessee in 2012. This one purported to protect “teachers who explore the ‘scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses’ of evolution and climate change.”78 Soon after, in early 2013, four other states immediately followed suit: Colorado, Missouri, Montana, and Oklahoma. Indeed, Oklahoma has become the poster child for such legislation, as it had been reintroduced for every session in the state senate for the last five consecutive years. The language in these bills is similar.79 In the latest 2016 Oklahoma Senate bill legislators sought to

  create an environment within public school districts that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues.80

  There is only one problem: disputes in science are and should be resolved on the basis of evidence, not opinion. The Oklahoma House bill in 2016 states that:

  The Legislature further finds that the teaching of some scientific concepts including but not limited to premises in the areas of biology, chemistry, meteorology, bioethics and physics can cause controversy, and that some teachers may be unsure of the expectations concerning how they should present information in some subjects such as, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning.81

  I am happy to report that these bills, along with similar ones in Mississippi and South Dakota, all failed in 2016. In recent years, similar bills have also failed in Arizona, Indiana, Texas, and Virginia. For those interested in keeping track of the fate of current and future antiscience legislation, there is a complete chronology at the website for the National Center for Science Education.82

  It is sad commentary on public understanding of science that things have gone this far. As Thomas Henry Huxley (“Darwin’s bulldog”) once put it, “Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once.” But this is precisely the wrong attitude to have when one is fighting pseudoscience, which is perennial. As we have seen, the tactics shift and new strategies are employed, but the fight must go on.

  Indeed, I witnessed this firsthand in my own skirmish with the Discovery Institute. In a 2015 article entitled “The Attack on Truth” that appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education, I wrote that the Discovery
Institute was a “Seattle organization advocating that ‘intelligent-design theory’ be taught in the public schools as balance for the ‘holes’ in evolutionary theory.”83 This apparently enraged the folks at the Discovery Institute, who blasted me with two consecutive blog posts for allegedly not recognizing that they had always “consistently opposed mandating intelligent design in public schools.”84 This is absurd, but perhaps it was part of their new strategy to outrun the stink of the Kitzmiller ruling.85 On the advice of friends, I did not respond, but if I had it surely would have been worth pointing out that there is a difference between “mandating” and “advocating,” and that if it were really true that they did not advocate teaching intelligent design in public schools, then what was the point of all of their amicus work on behalf of the defendants in the Kitzmiller case?

  The picture painted here is a familiar one: pseudoscientists have no real understanding of or respect for what science entails. Furthermore, with the example of creationism/intelligent design, one also suspects that in this instance pseudoscience has bled over into denialism, where their proponents’ minds are made up before they have even considered the evidence, because their views were not based on evidence in the first place. How then could intelligent design hope to pass itself off as a science? Part of the strategy is to try to exploit the weaknesses of science. Recall Sagan’s criterion that science must be open to new ideas: Here the ID theorists complain that evolutionists are unfairly excluding their views from a fair hearing (even while they themselves refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts their own views). “Teach the controversy” is their mantra. We need to examine all subjects impartially in science because ideas can come from anywhere. But if so, they complain, then why are the “scientific” claims of ID theory excluded from the biology classroom? Because there are none. I could spend many pages here dismembering the “scientific” evidence of ID theory point by point, but this has already been done brilliantly and at length by others.86 If any readers feel the need to be convinced, I refer them to this work. For now, I am prepared to defer to Judge Jones’s pithy conclusion in the Kitzmiller case that ID theory is “not science.”87