The Veneer of Science

Scientific conspiracy theories, a veneer for irrational beliefs

by Rusty Pritchard

Editor's Note: This seven-part series explores the "veneer" of each channel of culture. It is inspired by the latest Q book by Jason Locy and TIm Willard: Veneer: Living Deeply in a Surface Society. If these ideas resonate with you, consider picking up a copy and diving deeper into this conversation.

When I was asked to consider the “veneer” of science, my mind kept wandering back to conspiracy theories. They often come in the form of skepticism toward scientific findings or flat out denialism of well-proven truths. Consider two examples.

Vaccines have been shown safe enough to warrant widespread use in immunizing children against childhood diseases. Conspiracy theories about the link between childhood vaccines and autism have circulated for some time, yet scientists could generally find no such link. Yet in January of this year, the single scientific article that had supported the tentative link was shown to be the result of outright fraud and falsified data, and highly-publicized claims that components of those vaccines cause autism in young children were conclusively debunked.

But the discovery of fraud did not quell the fear-mongering of activist groups of parents of autistic children, many of whom still refuse to get their youngsters vaccinated. That decision puts their own children, and others' children, at increased risk of death from preventable diseases.

More than a decade earlier—at the end of 1996—scientists were so certain that the HIV virus caused the condition called AIDS that they began giving patients anti-retroviral therapy intended to keep the HIV virus from replicating. The result came to be known as the “Lazarus effect,” as AIDS patients at death’s door began to “come forth,” and to go back to their jobs.

[READ: Vanity Fair explores the "Lazarus effect."]

But that didn’t convince South African President Thabo Mbeki, who simply didn’t want to believe in the HIV/AIDS connection (he thought it cast Africans in a bad light); instead he invited prominent skeptics to sit on important government health panels and used their advice to derail programs that could have saved lives. A study from the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes claims that at least 365,000 extra South African deaths can be blamed on Mbeki’s fallacious viewpoint.

It's classic conspiracy theory stuff. An article in the New Scientist describes what these movements have in common:

All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.

Such theories often arise from the political right, but the left has its conspiracy theories too--usually involving evil corporations colluding to take over the world economy, market unscrupulous products, kill children with high-fructose corn syrup and dump pollution on us all. They worry that religious elites are trying to institute an American theocracy.

Jigsaw Puzzles and Card Houses

Denialism (a word first used in connection with conspiracy theorists who tried to cast doubt on the historicity of the German genocides of WWII) tries to veneer over its irrationality with a paradoxical appeal to science without doing the hard work of convincing scientists of an argument. Conspiracy theorists and denialists short-cut the scientific process by relying on anecdote and cherry-picking the small number of contrarian scientists and dissenting scientific articles. They claim that a handful of contrarian papers undermine the validity of most scientists’ conclusions.

So HIV/AIDs denialists, like the vaccine alarmists, trumpet the work of a few dissenters, many of whom did important research in the past but whose recent, more ideological work fails to get published because it can’t pass peer review. The dissenters see their alienation as a sign of persecution and lockout orchestrated by the establishment, rather than a reflection of the quality of their work. They might even accuse the editors of “groupthink” for failing to recognize their brilliance.

Conspiracy theorists look at science as a post-modern exercise of power, instead of as society’s best effort to find coherent explanations for natural observations. An article in The Economist states it this way:

In any complex scientific picture of the world there will be gaps, misperceptions and mistakes. Whether your impression is dominated by the whole or the holes will depend on your attitude to the project at hand. You might say that some see a jigsaw where others see a house of cards. Jigsaw types have in mind an overall picture and are open to bits being taken out, moved around or abandoned should they not fit. Those who see houses of cards think that if any piece is removed, the whole lot falls down. …[A]cademic scientists are jigsaw types, dissenters from their view house-of-cards-ists.

Nothing is more frustrating for a credentialed scientist than to present their research to a general, non-academic audience, and then find themselves facing off during the Q-and-A with a blogger who says "I've done a lot of internet research on this question, and I think your science is a house of cards."

Deep Science

I’m not arguing that an appeal to scientific credentials should resolve debates. I’m saying that there are both deep and shallow ways to answer questions with science. Faithful Christians should favor the deep ways.

To do scientific research is to study the world deeply, to understand the history of and relationships among scientific ideas, to develop questions and (crucially) to design experiments that uncover answers that satisfy not only yourself but a community of skeptical peers. To do science that is believable (or “credible”) one must generally have spent years in graduate school and in the workplace demonstrating competence in gathering, analyzing and interpreting data.

Science involves a great deal of humility, because most new ideas, even good ones, turn out to be wrong. Science is predisposed to disbelief. Just because someone says they have a new idea, or they've got a new result from an experiment, does not mean their peers believe them. Even so-called "peer reviewed" research must stand the test of time to be credible. The original study on vaccines and autism cited above (now known to be fraudulent) got through peer review but did not withstand subsequent challenges.

The paradoxical things about non-scientists who profess "skepticism" about whether HIV causes AIDS or about the safety of childhood vaccines is that they are so staggeringly unskeptical about the claims of people who agree with them. They are willing to believe that almost all the experts are being duped.

Denialism and conspiracy theories of all kinds are attempts to get power for nothing. Without investing in the hard work of advancing credible, persuasive arguments, denialists of every stripe tend to use the trappings of science to convince non-experts of the validity of ideas that can't hold their own in the truly skeptical worlds of science. When we fail to take the scientific enterprise seriously, or when we misappropriate its language and (limited) authority for our own pet causes, we cover our beliefs in veneer.

-----
Do you agree with Dr. Pritchard that conspiracy theories and scientific denialism is a "veneer?" Should we or should we not be skeptical of science's claims, in your opinion?

Comments

Rusty Pritchard

Of course we should be skeptical of science's claims; after all, scientists themselves are skeptical. Scientifically-grounded skepticism stimulates discovery and conversation among scientists. The skepticism of a non-scientist is different from the skepticism of a scientist--but how exactly? How do we discipline our skepticism to keep it virtuous--to keep from spiraling into cynicism or denialism?

Su Elliott

The challenge for the faith community is freeing ourselves from the kind of fear that is rooted in insecurity. When our faith is rooted in a dogma that can be shaken by scientific discoveries, we feel the temptation of denialism, because we have too much at stake. When our faith is rooted in the love and sovereignty of God, we can absorb threatening discoveries instead of denying them. We can turn to God and ask what to do with this knowledge, and wait in peace for further illumination.

What I find interesting is that most of the ethics Jesus brought to the world have become a permanent part of our cultural goals whether he is recognized as Lord or not. All the Darwinist science in the world has not shaken our horror at Hitler's survival-of-the-fittest inspired programs. What I also find interesting is that so many Christians find evolution to be a dirty word, and I question whether the reason is not so much about possible threats to Biblical inerrancy as it is the fear that faith itself is meant to evolve.

The best people of faith, just like the best scientists, go fearlessly where the solid, peer-reviewed research takes them. They know that wheels turn and turn again, and the research that appears to lead to the death of morality at one turn, can prove its necessity at the next. If God is God, will not His creation tell us of Him?

James Weaks

Fine and well, but sometimes science IS USED as an exercise of power. It's not a one sided problem. The "veneer" runs in both directions.

We all should be reasonably skeptical, but not cynical.

jw

John Mulholland

I agree with the idea here, but now let's actually engage.

Start posting links to articles in science magazines that have an online presence, even if one cannot read the whole article - at the general level - Discover, Scientific American, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Psychology Today; at a higher level Science and Nature, for starters.

Then invite scientists, not necessarily always Christians, to write an article about current developments in their fields.

If we are going to get out of the hole we are in, awaken from our Rip Van Winkle decades long sleep, we must set to work with the people doing this work. We need to start - yesterday !!

John Mulholland

Here is a very interesting article on biological engineering - cutting edge science, by Doug Lauffenburger at MIT

http://asa3.org/zine/?p=562 />
This article is published by American Scientific Affiliation, the association of Christians in the sciences. ASA is taking great strides toward regular reporting of cutting edge research, and has resources on history of science and much else as well.

http://www.asa3.org/

Jeff Nelson

I thought the piece was called the veneer of Science? Not the veneer of the Non academic. This illustrates the problem precisely.

IF my product is loosing credibility then I either have a problem with my product or a marketing problem. And either way it is the height of arrogance to simply talk louder when you’re not being listened to. Science has got an integrity problem and while you say Scientists are some of the most humble people, that is simply not the perception that most of us have.

While I can understand your dilemma and can empathize with your cause I can also similarly argue that I have the truth of Christ and that you must believe me because I have done the hard work and if you reject my slanted message which I know to be true I will cast you into the class of deniers. And yet if you rightly sense some manipulation is going on from me you will retract and begin to seek answers for your self, it's simply a natural human reaction.

Science is a wonderful thing and yet we are becoming more and more skeptical of the purity of science because it is being manipulated by a majority of scientists, that may not be completely true but the why is simpler to see from the outside looking in and though you may make a case for the deniers and conspiracy theorists, you are still losing the war because your argument sounds a lot like a backwards fundamentalist preacher pounding his fist on the pulpit and thinking he's made a good point because of the excessive noise and the deer in the headlight s looks from the parishioners.

We all want good science, and it is understood that there is always going to be an undertow of skepticism, but for scientists to try to isolate the Right and brand them as the problem that science faces today is like blaming a certain group of your customers for not buying your rotten fruit. If Christ is pure then does that make the preacher pure who try's to proselytize pure also? Scientists need to do a much better job of selling their “product” by restoring integrity to the process and engaging the right not trying to isolate them into a camp of "Non Believers"

When Scientific theory from the Right gets "black listed" just because of the political winds of our culture then we know we have a problem with Science and it is up to Scientists to stand up and restore integrity back to this wonderful God given institution that Isaac Newton loved, he was arguably one of our most influential scientists and had this to say;

"To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. 'Tis much better to do a little with certainty, & leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things by conjecture without making sure of any thing".

Rusty Pritchard

Thanks for the comments. Jeff, it sounds like you believe scientists are especially worried about the "right" but the two cases I cited were conspiracy theories mostly of "the left". The South African HIV/AIDS debacle was caused by political correctness intruding into science, and the anti-vaccine activists are, I think, mostly lefty, affluent parents, led by Hollywood types like actress Jenny McCarthy. So there's something else going on other than partisan politics. What do you think it might be?

Jeff Nelson

Rusty, I appreciate your question and I will respond as soon as I can get back to the office. I'm flying into the Alaskan Bush for a week or so and I won't have internet access, But I am eager to respond.

Jeff Nelson

Rusty I have a reply but it may be to large to post so I will attempt to break it in two parts.

Rusty, first of all I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to the comments here.

Regarding your article and follow up to my questions I would like to point out as you alluded to in your original piece just before you made your point about jigsaw puzzles and card houses you suggested that such theories often arise from the political right so I was just responding to what you wrote.

I think it’s useful to point out that there will always be conspiracy theories around of a certain proportion. And the way I see your article is that you built the foundation of your piece on conspiracy theorists and then you built upon your foundation a case of Deniers and from there you made an addition or a bridge if you will on to dissenters.

When you are building a house, your foundation has to be rock solid or you risk the whole thing crashing down around you and I would like to use a simple analogy to help explain my point. If you were a CEO of a large retail chain and had, lets say a 10% loss of merchandise annually due to theft then instead of figuring that loss into your bottom line each year you built your business upon a model that assumes all customers are potential thieves and that becomes the foundation that you build the rest of your business on and the filter in which you see most your customers. This incidentally is a very bad business policy. So instead of realizing that 90% of your customers are good honest well meaning folks you end up alienating a larger portion of your base by lumping them in with the thieves.

Rusty I know it’s not apples to apples because science is not and should never be controlled by the "customer" or by lobbyists or by corporations or by congress. This brings me to the real topic of what I see under the “veneer of science”. Is it controlled by any thing other than a pure motive?

The quest for truth as science rightly should be often gets perverted into something other than intended. Has the quest for truth possibly been replaced for the quest for funding? And if so where is the funding coming from?

We see study after study constantly that undermine themselves and leads us on a wild goose chase that leaves us exhausted trying to know what is truth and what is not. How can science maintain credibility when its guardians are spending more time angling for funding instead of a quest for truth?

I’d also like to point out some thing you said about dissent. When the Supreme Court rules on a case, does not an esteemed member of the high court offer a dissenting opinion? Would you say that dissenting judge is a "conspiracy theorists", a "denier" or simply a rational respected voice of opposition?

Then If we can agree on a certain percentage or rough number of conspiracy theorists that will come against science simply to muck up the works and then set them aside it would make the foundation of your article a little more realistic and little less foundational. Then lets look at how you described "deniers" you invoked the holocaust as an origin of the word and that is a very caustic and inflammatory description of someone who simply disagrees with you don't you think? It certainly isn't a term I'd use if I were trying to win friends and influence people, more like something Id say if I were trying to isolate, control and manipulate people. It sounds more realistic to me Rusty that most folks are just worn out with all the studies that have taken us on a bad roller coaster ride only to leave us queasy from political bias and to prove who has the biggest bankroll. Please don't get me wrong I love science and I think most folks want to trust it, but average folks are intuitive enough to know when they are being taken for a ride and unfortunately that messes things up for the many ethical scientists who are trying hard to maintain a high level of integrity.

continued........

Jeff Nelson

Part two

Let me use another analogy and a different angle on your take of the puzzles and card houses. Most puzzles that we are familiar with are on a card table and are therefore two dimensional, much like a scientific theory on paper or a puzzle with holes in it, or picture of a pattern on paper. While a house of cards is three dimensional and more befitting of a real world we live in. Most of us live in a three dimensional world where if the foundation is missing then the house falls down. I completely understand why scientists live in the two dimensional world of puzzles because without theories we would not have a basis to begin working out a problem. But Scientists should equally understand that we need to live in the real world or the world of practicality of walls and roofs and windows and foundations. If my house of cards was a puzzle it wouldn't keep me warm in the winter or cold in the summer, it must have all its parts to work properly. Science only starts in the two dimensional world to bring truth to life it must have all of its pieces to move past the theory stage and into the realm of fact and that my friend is where some scientists are playing a little game. I think science is experiencing a credibility crisis and you can’t effectively solve a crisis by blaming those that disagree or are simply recalcitrant no matter how good your argument sounds.

Dirk Throckmorton

"Science has got an integrity problem and while you say Scientists are some of the most humble people, that is simply not the perception that most of us have...

we are becoming more and more skeptical of the purity of science because it is being manipulated by a majority of scientists"

Manipulated by a majority of the scientists? Evidence? A majority?

Science is not politics. Generally, scientists should not try to convince the public. They should prove/disprove to themselves, and then to peers. If they think their findings are important enough (revealing significant potential benefit or risk), they probably do have a moral obligation to communicate that to governments, the press, or industry.

"Scientists need to do a much better job of selling their “product” by restoring integrity to the process and engaging the right not trying to isolate them into a camp of "Non Believers"

No -- the product of science is evidence... mostly fuel for further research. Asking scientists to sell their product is like having judges campaign for office. The result will be exactly what you are rightly criticizing -- manipulative salespeople soliciting your vote as homecoming king/queen rather than pursuing truth.

"We see study after study constantly that undermine themselves and leads us on a wild goose chase that leaves us exhausted trying to know what is truth and what is not. How can science maintain credibility when its guardians are spending more time angling for funding instead of a quest for truth?"

That's how research works. It's tedious, iterative, often error-prone or leading down blind alleys. It's not intended to be exciting or encouraging or even interesting to the public.

RE. Angling for funding: Yes, that's unfortunate. It's also unfortunate that non-profits may spend more time fund-raising then doing good. But that's how it works in a capitalist society.

When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps."

It's like drilling for oil or starting a new business. Most will fail. But we don't argue that the entire system is corrupt because there are false starts.

Then lets look at how you described "deniers" you invoked the holocaust as an origin of the word and that is a very caustic and inflammatory description of someone who simply disagrees with you don't you think?

Somewhat like implying that most scientists are politically biased, pridefully trying to prove who has the biggest bankroll, & have an integrity problem, eh?

It sounds more realistic to me Rusty that most folks are just worn out with all the studies that have taken us on a bad roller coaster ride only to leave us queasy from political bias and to prove who has the biggest bankroll. Please don't get me wrong I love science and I think most folks want to trust it, but average folks are intuitive enough to know when they are being taken for a ride and unfortunately that messes things up for the many ethical scientists who are trying hard to maintain a high level of integrity.

Again, it's not a spectator sport. Hanging on every scientific study is like checking your investment portfolio every hour. Guaranteed to leave you confused, frustrated, and

cynical

Comments are now closed

ALSO BY RUSTY PRITCHARD

ALSO IN SCIENCE + TECH