What’s Science?
Dare once told me that science is the modern world’snew superstition. ?Science? is the trojan horse that can slip beneath people’s BS-meters and exempt claims from rational scrutiny. We have all of the same snake-oil hucksters as before, but now their products are backed by the immutable, clinically-tested, scientific laws of nature.
I believe that the vast majority of adults (well over 90%, and more than 75% of the readers of this blog) do not really understand what science is. They have been brainwashed since youth to believe that (religion == bad; superstition == bad; science == good), and they have been led to believe that they can easily distinguish between science and superstition. They are taught that certain observable cues can alert them to religious or superstitious arguments, and that certain characteristics typify proper scientific discourse. Children are trained to distinguish between science and supertition based on the superficial characteristics of both, rather than based on an understanding of the fundamental perspective. By the time most children reach adulthood, they understand the fundamental assumptions of scientific method and discourse less than they understand the lives of the movie stars, but their understanding of the superficial characteristics is hardwired at a subconscious level. They are like Pavlov’s dogs; snarling at any superficial demonstration of?superstition? andobediently salivating for any superficial demonstrationof ?science?.
This conditioned response continues in the adult media, who consider it a public service to trash anything with superficial religious or superstitious characteristics, while dedicating an equal amount of airtime to publishing scientific ?studies? and ?expert opinions?. By continual example, our society reinforces the Pavlovian slobber response to the superficial characteristics of ?superstition? and ?science?.
Apsychological defense based on superficial characteristics is flawed,and leaves the door wide open to anyone with the ability to mimic.The hucksters know the superficial cues better than most people, and have long ago adopted all of the code-words and mannerisms that children are conditioned to perceive as ?scientific?. What we have is a wolf in sheep’s clothing; superstition masquerading as science. And adults are basically defenseless, because we have been taught only to fear things that look like wolves.
When people have their beliefs based on ?science? challenged, they often become defensive, just as any devotee of a cult would. It is instructive to ask someone who has had a belief installed through ?scientific evidence? to explain why their belief is any more validthan if it had simply been asserted by the Dalai Lama. Eating fat makes you fat, because science says so, right? Reducing cortisol helps you get slim, right? Insulin surges make you fat, right? Which of these statements do you believe? Now explain why your reasons for believing it have any more validity than an assertion from the Dalai Lama.
Some of these claims are more defensible than others, and none of them are defensible without proper context, so I’m not trying to say that any of them is ?wrong? or ?right?. The point is that most people who would agree with any of these statements, do so out of superstition rather than any scientifically defensible reason; and likely do not understand the paramaters under which their beliefs are valid or invalid. Furthermore, they do not even know that their belief is based on superstition. Most adults are probably not sophisticated enoughto defend specific claims at a ?scientific? level, but even the ones who are will quickly fall back on tangled webs of logical fallacy: ?Five scientific studies say that Cortisol leads to weight gain, and three scientific studies show that chemical X reduces cortisol; so chemical X must reduce weight!?