There are many other examples of notable paradigm shifts, including when the germ theory of disease was accepted and the idea of spontaneous generation was refuted, an event that caused a change in the world of medicine that prompted additional discoveries. When this happens, when the scientific community is forced to amend its collective beliefs, should we be scared? Should we doubt everything we’ve ever discovered? No, because our shifts in understanding aren’t a result of science itself being “wrong” or unreliable. Science is simply a method designed to help us follow the evidence, and new data becomes available all the time, which is why it has a track record for improving on its own existing ideas. So, what do we do when new scientific discoveries upstage old hypotheses? Just as we can do when we are proven wrong on a personal level, we have the option to seize the opportunity and use it to learn something, as opposed to running from the fear of being contradicted. This constant openness to change is an important part of the scientific process that allows the community as a whole to grow its knowledge and dispose of bad ideas, but some people still see it as a bad thing.
A lot of those who oppose (or, in some cases, fear) scientific discovery say they don’t “believe in” science because it has been “proven wrong” time and time again. Because scientific understandings progress over time, they reason, they aren’t consistent or reliable and should be avoided entirely. Members of the antiscience crowd have even been known to shout, “Science once said cigarettes were healthy!” But did science ever say that? I don’t think so. I think some flawed tests may have shown fewer side effects than actually existed, and some flawed people cherry-picked results in an effort to sell cigarettes and make money, but science—the process itself—wasn’t wrong.
In the case of tobacco, the cigarette industry spent billions of dollars in the hopes of distorting the facts surrounding the health risks associated with smoking.33 This wasn’t science itself engaging in the unethical behavior—it was tobacco companies and many of the people they employed—but the spread of ignorance in this manner raises serious issues nonetheless. The discovery of the tobacco executives’ corrupt behavior during this time led Robert N. Proctor, a professor of the history of science at Stanford University, to coin the term agnotology. Agnotology, according to Proctor, is the study of ignorance or doubt—especially as it relates to the publication of faulty scientific data—that is culturally induced, often as a means to sell a product or service.34
The scientific method can’t directly cause false beliefs, nor can it discriminate based on funding levels or preconceived notions, but individual scientists are another story. Scientists can lie, cheat, steal, and knowingly promote false ideas just like any other person. A good example of this is Haruko Obokata, a former stem-cell biologist who published research in 2014 that seemed to suggest she and her colleagues were able to get embryonic stem cell effects from normal body cells. She was hailed as a champion of the stem-cell world for a short period of time, but her employer, the Riken Center for Developmental Biology, ultimately discovered her results were doctored and found her guilty of scientific misconduct.35 Was Obokata’s fraud caused by her hubris? Her desire to please a supervisor, or for fame and fortune? We may never know for certain what her motives were, but we can certainly learn a lesson from the events that transpired. John Rasko, who directs cell and molecular therapies at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, and Carl Power, a researcher and editorial coordinator at the Centenary Institute and University of Sydney, say the scientific community often fails when it comes to reproducibility, “one of the cornerstones of modern science.” Still, Obokata’s downfall should give us some confidence, the scientists explained.
“[T]he speed of Obokata’s undoing should make us feel more confident about the ability of science to correct itself,” Rasko and Power wrote in a joint article.36 “As soon as she announced the creation of Stap (stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency) cells, other researchers tried to make their own and, when they failed, wanted to know why.”
When scientists incorrectly interpret data or jump to false assumptions, we can end up with bad information, and that can and does lead us to all sorts of wrong conclusions. But through the process of peer review, and through duplicated experiments and rigorous scientific scrutiny, we can correct that data and make the world a better place as a result. In other words, the only way to solve a scientific error is to experiment and find better, more accurate scientific answers. French novelist Jules Verne explained the importance of mistakes in science in his science fiction novel, Journey to the Center of the Earth.
“Science, my lad, is made up of mistakes, but they are mistakes which it is useful to make, because they lead little by little to the truth,” Verne wrote.
When there are disagreements among scientists who are conducting their own research, and our understandings shift, it’s not because “science was wrong.” It’s because we learned to overcome our own biases, or the errors in our testing methods or sampling size. We usually see these changes when science was abused, or when we acquired new knowledge that put our previous perspective into better context. You might say scientific understandings are unreliable because they change over time, but, to me, this fluidity in the realm of science is exactly what makes the process so great. We build off old ideas and fine-tune data until we know something with as much certainty as is possible. It’s true that new scientific studies sometimes reveal flaws in older ideas, but that fact shouldn’t be ridiculed or be cause for alarm; it should be celebrated. After all, as Isaac Asimov said, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘That’s funny …’”
You might be asking yourself, “If accepted scientific theories are sometimes overturned, then why should I trust scientists or, for that matter, scientific consensus on a particular subject within a field?” The answer is simple: scientists practicing within their specialized field are experts and are more equipped to understand the various factors at play. When the vast majority of those specialists agree on a topic, they form a consensus, which is likely to form a paradigm when accepted by the vast majority of the population. Might that paradigm shift at some point? Sure, but until then, it makes sense to listen to those with extensive training related to the issue unless you have contradictory data, in which case you should present it. Of course this doesn’t mean that scientists are always right, nor does it mean that scientific consensus is infallible, but some research shows that experts on certain issues, like judges when it comes to law, are more easily able to set aside political biases when analyzing data than lay people. This is the finding of Yale law professor and science communication researcher Dan Kahan, who along with others conducted a study of 253 judges.37 He says the results could extend beyond the legal world and into any area in which someone is an expert, including science. Some people have criticized this conclusion, including John Horgan, a science journalist and director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology. He says the study “merely shows that lawyers and judges know the law better than law students and non-lawyers.”38
Regardless of whether you believe experts have more credibility in their fields than members of the public at large or not, the fact that science is regularly wrong is undoubtedly a good thing because it is self-correcting. Its ever-changing landscape of ideas is actually what makes the scientific approach a more valuable method for understanding the world than, say, strict adherence to the stagnant holy books of some religions. Unlike scientific theories, religious texts only change in their interpretation, and that usually only happens when something within them is shown to be objectively false based on…you guessed it: new scientific findings. As English author Terry Pratchett explained, the most important part of science is not that it is perfect, but that it allows us to “reality-check” ourselves.
“Science is not about building a body of known ‘facts,’” Pratchett said. “It is a method for asking awkward questions and
subjecting them to a reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes us feel good.”
SCIENCE AND RELIGION
Some people who don’t understand science think it directly conflicts with all forms of spirituality, that it is out to “disprove God,” or even that it is itself a type of faith, but today religion and science are so separated that they don’t necessarily interact at all. Sure, some religious believers make testable claims, like that prayer can heal wounds (or move mountains), but those same claims might be repudiated by someone of the same faith who has a different interpretation of their shared holy text. One believer might see scripture as metaphorical while another sees it as literal, but they are both practicing the same tradition. In the case of the first believer, who has put forth no claims about how the natural world works or how it was formed, science has no opinion. Once a believer insists that their god(s) or other supernatural forces intervene in our realm and change things, however, we have the capacity and, I would argue, the duty to test those claims to the best of our abilities. Not surprisingly, looking at the times when, historically, science and religion did butt heads, we see that the system based on repeated testing and verification has often prevailed over rigid dogma.
If you think religion and science are always in direct conflict, I recommend researching a few of the many incredibly intelligent, accomplished, and respected scientists who identify with a specific religious faith. Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei, and other well-known historical discoverers are often cited as scientists to whom religion was important, but considering our many more recent significant scientific advancements and altered cultural taboos, I prefer to look at modern examples. Consider Francis Collins, a devout evangelical Christian and physician-geneticist who led the Human Genome Project, or even Brother Guy J. Consolmagno, a research astronomer who serves as the director of the Vatican Observatory. I would never say these educated, accomplished, pillars of the scientific community are “dumb” or accuse them of being bad scientists, but I do think they might (intentionally or subconsciously) exempt their firmly held religious beliefs from scientific scrutiny. I don’t think Collins applies the same scientific rigor to the Bible as he does to genes, nor do I believe Consolmagno looks for the same types of evidence for his religion’s claims as he does for the presence of meteorites, but that’s okay. These people and others like them might not see the conflicting forces between their religion, which could give philosophical comfort, and their work in science, which provides a certainty that faith can’t. As Dartmouth College Professor Marcelo Gleiser has said, “Religious myths attempt to explain the unknown with the unknowable, while science attempts to explain the unknown with the knowable.”39
FLAWED SCIENTISTS
It’s not uncommon for otherwise accomplished scientists to have false beliefs, including some that are demonstrably so, and religion doesn’t have that market cornered. Take Edgar D. Mitchell, for instance. He was an aeronautical engineer, an astronaut for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the sixth man on the moon, and he had a Doctor of Science degree in aeronautics and astronautics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but he was also convinced by some pretty silly ideas. Despite having flown in space and experienced its vastness, Mitchell believed that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) seen from Earth were the result of alien visitation. And that wasn’t his only sacred cow: he also believed in remote healing and extrasensory perception (ESP), neither of which have ever been demonstrated under conditions that rule out fraud. Does that mean he was a bad engineer or a bad astronaut? Of course not; it just means he wasn’t being consistent in his application of the scientific method. The same goes for Jeff Meldrum, an Idaho State University anatomy and anthropology professor who believes in the existence of animals in the Bigfoot family. He can still be a good teacher and scientist, despite the fact that he has a false belief, and he can even make valuable observations regarding the search for what he considers to be our long lost primate cousin. Meldrum, who has also tried to reconcile Book of Mormon stories with modern DNA data,40 actually pointed out, “If one flips open to a field guide distribution of black bear across North America, one finds a remarkable coincidence with reports of an unrecognized primate—Bigfoot, Sasquatch.” Meldrum likely retains his preestablished perspective despite recognizing this “coincidence” because he doesn’t apply scrutiny to his cherished belief.
Another good example of a flawed scientist and Bigfoot enthusiast is Jane Goodall. Goodall, a British primatologist known for her 55-year study of wild chimpanzees, has also stated a number of times that she believes in modern upright primates that have apparently been successful in hiding all evidence of their existence for hundreds of years. When asked about these creatures, Goodall, who most would consider an expert on primates, told NPR, “Well, now, you will be amazed when I tell you that I’m sure that they exist.”41 Goodall goes on to cite Native Americans who “all describe the same sounds” and unidentified hair as support for her belief, but she doesn’t acknowledge that there are probably better explanations than a nondescript bipedal ape for which we have never discovered a bone or a body. To me, this lack of legitimate physical evidence, which has been demonstrated in numerous scientific studies,42 can be explained relatively easily: Bigfoot sightings are not experiences with Sasquatch at all. They are instead the result of fraud, mistaken identity, and misattributed forest sounds. Goodall ultimately concludes the interview with an admission that she is “a romantic” and has “always wanted them to exist.”
“Well, there are people looking. There are very ardent groups in Russia, and they have published a whole lot of stuff about what they’ve seen,” Goodall told NPR. “Of course, the big, the big criticism of all this is, ‘Where is the body?’ You know, why isn’t there a body? I can’t answer that, and maybe they don’t exist, but I want them to.”
Goodall seemed to take a step back from her initial claim that she was “sure” Bigfoot was real, but that particular cryptid isn’t her only false belief. She is also known for her staunch opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which have been shown to be just as safe as their nonmodified counterparts,4344 and her comments on homosexuality, which she argues is absent in the natural world without some form of environmental disruption. Goodall said, “We’ve never seen anything remotely like homosexuality in chimpanzees in the wild. However, in captivity, where their lives are disrupted, where they can’t express themselves the way they would in the wild, then we sometimes see it.” Despite the fact that numerous valid studies have shown that thousands of other animal species demonstrate homosexual behavior,45 she added that homosexuality has become prevalent in humans because “we are not free to express” what we really like to do, making a comparison between wild wolves and domesticated dogs. Despite her years of experience with primates, Goodall’s claims about chimpanzees in the wild directly contradict established scientific findings.46 In 1967, long before Goodall expressed her opinion about homosexuality being absent in wild chimps, English zoologist Desmond Morris published his best-selling book, The Naked Ape.47 In the book, Morris documents that “many species indulge in” homosexual behavior and that there is nothing “biologically unusual” about it. Empirical evidence of homosexual activity in wild bonobos and chimps has also been clearly outlined by Craig Stanford, professor of biological sciences and anthropology at the University of Southern California,48 and Dutch primatologist Frans de Waal.49
While he may not be as renowned in the science community as Mitchell or Goodall, Ben Carson—retired neurosurgeon, failed 2016 Republican presidential candidate, and President Trump’s choice to head the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—serves as an example of a deservedly celebrated medical doctor who accepts science when it comes to his chosen field yet who also holds demonstrably false and unscientific beliefs. A graduate of Yale University, Carson famously led a 70-person team that for the first time separated conjoined twins who we
re connected at the back of their heads,50 yet he also believes (against all historical and physical evidence) that the Pyramids of Giza were used to store grain by Joseph of Bible fame.51 This claim has been debunked by historians, archaeologists, anyone who can see that the pyramids aren’t hollow, and even the Bible itself, which states that Joseph’s grain was stored “in the cities,”52 yet Carson continues to believe it. Science writer Guy P. Harrison says Carson is a “glaring example” of how “a sharp mind and extensive education do not guarantee good thinking skills.”
“Major League pitchers and NFL quarterbacks both use their arms to throw. But we can’t assume one can do the other’s job well. The skills don’t necessarily translate. It is much the same with thinking,” Harrison wrote for Psychology Today.53 “The ability to use a human brain well one way does not mean it automatically works well in other ways. Critical thinking requires self-awareness, commitment, and vigilance. It’s a mindset and an attitude, not a body of coursework or an IQ test score.”
To clarify: I don’t think Goodall, Collins, Consolmagno, Carson, or other scientists with unsupported beliefs are necessarily dumb, nor do I believe Mitchell failed to understand scientific principles. I do, however, think these scientists and others with similarly false beliefs help us see that no one is immune from being wrong. They all have certain topics on which further study is warranted or claims they haven’t analyzed closely enough, and that’s okay because being wrong is part of being human. It’s actually not unusual at all, even among academics. It’s quite common for incredibly intelligent people to believe what might be considered “dumb” things, especially if they separate those flawed ideas from others that would undergo careful scientific scrutiny. It’s called compartmentalization. In the minds of some scientists, certain ideas, such as religious or spiritual notions, are considered sacred and demand only faith and observance—not tests. Everything else, however, is worldly: medical decisions, finance deals, corporate transactions, and other daily occurrences demand real-world evidence and actions, while exempted beliefs (sacred cows) simply do not. Skeptical writer Neil Carter says intelligence itself “is compartmental.”
No Sacred Cows Page 15
