Ignorance Makes Us All Dumber
Even when it's honest.
I had a good conversation with a friend today, and I realized something. There’s always been a strong anti-intellectual bias in the US, particularly outside of urban areas. It goes back to when intellectuals were seen as arrogant and snobby, Yankees with their noses in the air. (I honestly think it goes back to the civil war, when the rural south was defeated by the urban north).
Case in point: my grandpa grew up in a farm in Pennsylvania, and he was written out of his parents’ will when he decided to go to a university. That’s how much they were against it.
Today it’s not so extreme...at least in some ways. But the new modern flavor of this same sentiment is thinking that the entire scientific community is somehow corrupt. And this is every bit steeped in ignorance it was in my grandpa’s day, because it shows a complete lack of understanding how the scientific community operates.
This ignorance is honest, because if you aren’t a scientist yourself, of course you won’t know. But it’s still a problem because it leads people to reject what the scientific community says - and all the evidence it provides to our collective knowledge - and instead form their opinions based on the claims of people who have no idea what they’re talking about but get listened to because they’re trending (here’s looking at you, Joe Rogan).
This also leads people to pay far more attention to a fringe scientist with outrageous theories or a doctor discredited for malpractice than those people deserve — because social media algorithms love sob stories and conspiracy theories. I understand the empathy, and even kinship, that many feel with people who are rejected by the scientific community. Believe me, I know what it’s like to never fit in with the mainstream, to be rejected by the majority, to not be understood.
But here’s the thing. Being discredited in one’s scientific field isn’t the same thing as simply having a minority opinion. This goes back to not understanding how science works. There are always majority and minority theories in the scientific world. No one likes to debate more than a scientist (or academic). There are countless perspectives in that world, and new theories are constantly being created.
People aren’t discredited because they’re the only person to hold to a particular theory. Every new theory starts out with just one person believing in it: the person who first came up with it. New theories are respected in the scientific community... as long as they have evidence to support them, or in the case of physics, fit the math.
What causes a person to be discredited is not living up to the standards of scientific methodology. The scientific method is a way of exploring the world based on what the world tells us, not how we want it to be. It’s ok to start with an untested theory, but if the evidence gained by honest research doesn’t fit the theory, the theory needs to be changed or discarded.
So if a scientist denies evidence because it doesn’t fit their pet theory, that’s bad science. If a researcher fails to control variables or sets up a study so that it inevitably supports the theory, that’s bad science. Doing bad science is why people get discredited, not simply supporting a fringe idea.
Because here’s the thing about the scientific community: every single study and research paper that’s ever written is reviewed by the entire community of scientists in that field, and they are more than happy to point out any flaws that might exist. Because every scientist has different ideas about things, there is always someone willing to criticize of they see something that doesn’t add up. And others who are happy to criticize them if their criticisms don’t make sense.
As a result, bad science doesn’t easily fly under the radar. And if someone is critical of a theory purely because they have a personal beef with someone else, that won’t be well accepted by their peers.
So projecting our own tormented memories of schoolyard bullies onto discredited scientists isn’t wise, because while I’m sure bullying happens on a personal level in the scientific world (as in any world), that’s not why people get rejected by the rest of the scientific community. Those people aren’t being bullied, they’re getting called out for misconduct or shitty research and they’re too narcissistic to admit when they’re wrong.
This is also why it’s folly to distrust the scientific community in general. Individual scientists (on a corporate payroll) might be “bought out”, but it’s impossible for the scientific community as a whole to be anything other than honest about what they believe and what they stand for. If the evidence doesn’t fit, or the research isn’t sound, everyone else in the field will know it.
Now, this doesn’t mean that scientists know everything. Precisely because of its rigor, scientific knowledge is actually quite limited. Ideas abound in great abundance, but proven theories (and even moreso what is considered to be facts) are few. It is not the only way of knowing, nor even necessarily the best one. But research standards are incredibly strict, which is why it is worth looking at. And holding opinions that directly contradict that hard-won evidence is simply foolish.
I’m reminded of that saying: “It’s easy to believe in conspiracy theories when you don’t understand how the world works.” And conversely, the more we understand the world the better able we are to discern the actual conspiracies that are behind the problems we collectively face. (Hint, they usually involve billionaires).
So when you hear someone claim that all scientists are “in on” a conspiracy (whatever that conspiracy is), run the other way. That right there is hard proof that they don’t know what they’re talking about. Better yet, ask a scientist who is actually respected in their field what they think of that claim, and why. Because honestly, America could use a little education about how science actually works right about now.
What do you think?
Share your thoughts! I would love to hear them, and it helps me to dive even deeper into these topics and consider perspectives I never would have on my own.
But however you engage with my writings, I am grateful.❤️🔥