What could be the cause of anti-science attitudes?

 

What could be the cause of anti-science attitudes?

 

A few days ago, on 18^th December 2021, I went on Twitter and asked for some opinions about when the current anti-science attitudes began, those attitudes that seem so virulent at the moment around Covid19 vaccinations. Over the last two days it has been fascinating to read the responses on Twitter, to further explore books and articles, to listen to podcasts, and to have conversations on this issue. Rather than this being the result of one thing, it seems like there may be all sorts of factors playing in to this anti-science rhetoric. As a consequence I've collected together some of what seems to be the principal opinions from my limited two day long research exercise.

 

Reflecting on more than 25 years of teaching science I have believed that I have instilled scientific thinking in all those I have taught. However, I'm now wondering how many anti-vaxxers must be amongst those I have educated, as it seems unlikely that from the many thousands I’ve taught that none of them possess these anti-science views. I think this is serious stuff, and for those of us involved in science education we can't ignore this. At one extreme we can shake our heads and laugh at the flat earthers, but this progresses through bizarre ideas about 5G and ends with potentially life-threatening negative attitudes towards vaccination. Maybe by being conscious of possible causes of anti-science sentiment we are more able to address this in the classroom.

 

The list that follows is just a collection of opinions, I am making no judgement about relative merits of each, and it is certainly not exhaustive. Hopefully though this will give you something to think about when it comes to the anti-science challenge. It might be that what we meant by “scientific literacy” in 1990 is very different to what it needs to mean today.

 

The internet

Where to start?!! A whole universe of un-filtered, un-moderated opinions, in which personality wins over substance. Whereas in a pre-internet world, opinions had to get over lots of hurdles to be read, seen or heard by the public (itself very problematic), but now an opinion can be expressed with no third-party intervention. An internet following can rapidly amplify idiocy and drown out reason. Social media, Youtube, un-moderated blogs, and personal websites, all offer platforms for anti-science views.

 

The un-representative world of science

I should qualify this by admitting I’m a physicist, and whilst we are working very hard to be more inclusive, we recognise that our community does not reflect society as a whole.  I realise that elsewhere in science that this is less of an issue. So the question is how messages coming from people who don’t look like you, sound like you, share your life experiences and so on, land with you? Does the inability to identify with those doing and communicating the science impact on the credence given to that science?

 

Intellectual Dignity

Those in authority within the STEM world tend to have lots of experience and demonstrate high educational achievement. Some may see this as intellectual arrogance, many may feel excluded from the science as true understanding is not possible. This may be an afront to someone who feels vulnerable by their own lack of understanding. From a personal perspective, I don’t understand gravitational waves even though I’m a physicist, and I don’t like that situation!

 

Intellectual Snobbery

When watching TV quizzes, especially the likes of University Challenge, I feel that an in-depth knowledge on Shakespeare is expected, whilst knowing that W is the chemical symbol for Tungsten is a remarkable bit of information held only by a cognoscenti. There does appear to be a media bias against the sciences, using language that is either derogatory or at least trivialises science, and also the use of lazy stereotypes. A media populated by well-educated, intelligent people still seems to cast science in a peculiar light, in which those engaged in science are seen as odd, nerdy, geeky and so on. It’s easier to mock “boffins” (I hate that word!) than to try to take a little time to begin to understand them.

 

Negative images of scientists in the media

Literature and the media do use negative images of scientists, portraying them as dangerous individuals or maybe just figures of derision. A headline from the last week in the UK “Boris versus the Scientists”, the novel “Frankenstein”, and the character of Sheldon, all play into certain anti-science narratives.

 

Too much information

There’s just too much! How do you decide which to access, and how do you access it? Do people take the line of least resistance and go for the simplest messages as they seem the easiest to understand and to accommodate within a personal worldview?

 

Bad actors spreading doubt

The spreading of misinformation and the discrediting of science is a tool that has been deployed by bad actors, whether these are tobacco and oil companies, or national leaders or entire governments. This misinformation can be spread by powerful organisations that have financial strength and far-reaching influence.  The messages may appeal to prejudice and populism, and so land easier than some of the difficult and uncomfortable messages of science (just look at the climate emergency for this). The act of discrediting one area of science will eventually impact all of science.

 

Science has problems too

Of course, science is not blameless. Scientists have been involved in, and responsible for, various tragedies. Nuclear weapons, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, Thalidomide, chemical weapons, and so on.

 

Scientific methodology

As a physicist I’m generally from the school of thought that science is about evidence and not proof, in fact proof is the stuff of mathematics and not physics. I’m comfortable with the methodology that I work with a theory until there is overwhelming evidence that it is wrong and we move on to the new theory. However, is this a problem when it comes to perception? If I’m asked to prove something in physics, whilst I can possibly show mathematical consistency, I can’t definitively say something is true and will be forever. It isn’t scientific methodology that I would suggest is at fault, but rather the public understanding of how science works. A population demanding “proof” and being met with “we don’t do proof, but on the balance of probability…” may not see a body of knowledge able to make progress as we learn new things, but rather “well they just can’t prove it”!

 

Aesthetics

Nothing new here in truth, and we can thank this for a great deal of wonderful art, but nevertheless science has been rejected over the last few hundred years because it appears to others to lack creativity and imagination, to appear inhuman and impersonal, and removes mystery from life, it lacks romanticism. As a physicist, I don’t agree, and believe that my awe and wonder in Life and the Universe is enhanced by my scientific background, but this is just my view.

 

 

So, if you’ve got to this point I hope you’ve found something that resonates with you. You might think that this is all nonsense, and that’s fine, these are opinions with little or no evidence to support them! If you know of any research that supports or refutes any of the above points I would love to hear about it.