Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made the statement that “There is scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult… leading young people to have a legitimate question: is it still OK to have children?”
I’m completely comfortable with her deciding not to have children, but that aside, what scientific consensus is she talking about? What type of scientist can see into the future and know what kind of lives children born today might have? A microbiologist or a biochemist? A physicist, oncologist, or botanist? Perhaps a meteorologist, hydrologist, or astronomer?
The concept of science has become one of the most misunderstood in public discourse. It is hackneyed to the point of triteness to say policy leaders should “follow the science.” I’ve said that, too, but I flatter myself to have had at least an elementary understanding of what science is. Today, leaders throw the word into speeches whenever they need credibility the argument itself doesn’t have. You can spot it a mile away when they include the word “consensus.”
The very concept of consensus, meaning unanimous agreement, is an affront to science. As John Kay wrote in 2007, “Science is the pursuit of truth, not consensus.” He explained, “The route to knowledge is transparency in disagreement and openness in debate.”
No wonder people have grown weary of being told the science is “settled,” on various issues, only to observe later that the conclusions were exaggerated, or flat wrong. Think of the damage done over the centuries in the name of settled science.
In 1633, Galileo was arrested and interrogated by the Catholic Church for refusing to accept the “settled” church view that the Earth was the center of the universe. His own astronomical observations showed that the sun-centered theory of Copernicus was right. Nevertheless, the church banned Galileo’s books, prohibited him teaching his “heresy,” and he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The church finally admitted it was wrong, and cleared his name – in the 1990s.
When 17th Century physician William Harvey discovered that blood circulated through the heart and not the liver, as assumed the previous “scientific consensus,” he was ostracized by the entire scientific world and spent his remaining life as a hermit.
The great writer Michael Crichten, in a now-famous 2003 lecture at the California Institute of Technology, used the example of continental drift. He explained that every school child looking at a map could see that South America and Africa fit together almost perfectly. Yet when Alfred Wegener first proposed the idea of continental drift in 1912, the “scientific consensus” sneered at the idea – for fifty years, until 1961 when discoveries made clear that plates do shift and continents are in fact moving apart. In other words, “settled science” made fun of the idea for five decades until later scientists finally confirmed what any school child could see.
Crichten was more than just one of the most popular writers in history, though he was that. His books have sold more than 200 million copies and more than a dozen became blockbuster movies, including the Andromeda Strain, the Terminal Man, Twister, and Jurassic Park, as well as the hit TV series, ER. But he wasn’t just a writer. Crichton was a Harvard-trained doctor, computer game designer, intellectual property legal expert, and as Stephen Spielberg said at Crichten’s funeral, a pioneer in “blending science with big theatrical concepts, which is what gave credibility to dinosaurs again walking the Earth.”
In the 2003 lecture, Crichten warned sternly against the idea of scientific consensus. “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.” He went on, “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.”
People from different perspectives disagree on major policy issues, as intended in a democratic republic. Both sides often fall back on “science” to claim there is no need for discussion of their ideas; people should just do as they’re told. The beauty of a free society is that people are welcome to follow the science, or ignore it, debate it, disagree with it, and even question whether it is science at all.
Comments on this entry are closed.