Blind Faith in Science Is the New Religion…
…And it’s not a good one
It would be easy to argue that there are many positives associated with science and religion, and it would probably be easy to argue the opposite too. Ultimately — and as is the case with anything — both can be taken to the extreme and used to justify or enable harmful outcomes.
Religion and science are often juxtaposed, and many would even say that they are largely incompatible, highlighting blind faith as being a key element and flaw of religion that does not exist in the world of science.
And I would agree that blind faith is flawed; it is intellectually lazy, and it leaves believers vulnerable to exploitation by those they perceive as subject-matter experts. However, blind faith does not only occur in religious contexts, and I have observed a problematic — and ironic — phenomenon in recent years…
A blind faith in science.
Before continuing, it’s worth establishing what science is, both in terms of its definition and its practice, because science is being misunderstood — even by its own advocates.
Science is not right or wrong. Science is not a belief or a fact. Science is not an individual or an organisation.
Science is a process, the essential principle of which revolves around the pursuit and application of evidence-based knowledge in order to find replicable results and form reliable conclusions, via systematic methodologies for testing and challenging theories and hypotheses.
Science is used not only by scientists in a lab, but also by scientific and evidence-based thinkers in everyday life who seek to develop cognitive filters against misinformation. It is not intuitive, so requires conscious effort to master.
However, many people are conflating science with all the things listed above that it is not. These people subsequently make claims like “The science says XXX” when the truth is actually that “An institution says XXX” or “An individual says XXX”. I’m sure that I have also been guilty of making similar claims in the past, probably driven by frustration or arrogance.
This misuse or misunderstanding of what science is, and what it means to practice science, is at the crux of the problem that is, what I am referring to as, a blind faith in science:
Many people — including popular scientific commentators — have developed a blind faith in information that is presented as scientific, either explicitly or implicitly.
And it’s easy to see why they would do this…
Applying the appropriate analytical considerations to assess the reliability of information can require a lot of effort, particularly regarding fields that we are less familiar with — in such cases, additional research is often needed, which is not a simple task given the complexity of the modern information landscape. As such, it is efficient to find opportunities where it may be suitable to lower your barriers regarding the acceptance of information. And if you are an advocate of science, how better to do so than to trust seemingly scientific information? Well…
As with any industry, the world of science is filled with entities that have varying degrees of biases and expertise, as well as other unscientific influencing factors, so we should not complacently mistake a blind faith in this broad and diverse sector as being scientific.
For example, it is a well-understood phenomenon that pharmaceutical‐industry sponsored studies are more often favourable to the sponsor’s product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. Of course, this is despite the product being developed and trialled by scientists, and published by a supposedly scientific entity. (For more information on this, I’d highly recommend Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Pharma”)
Furthermore, mainstream media organisations are only helping to muddy the waters by failing to provide a balanced and properly-nuanced coverage of reality, instead prioritising their own preferred narratives based on political biases. In some cases, they have even been misrepresenting individuals as scientific experts in subjects which they have little or no relevant expertise.
All of this is resulting not only in the belief of falsehoods, but also the mocking of — and even discrimination against — those who hold alternative views. In some cases, these differing views are lazily being labelled as conspiracy theories, to the extent that the phrase “conspiracy theory” has lost much of its meaning (this is part of a wider trend in which traditionally-extreme terms are being adopted and redefined by groups seeking to use them to exaggerate the representation of an idea or entity, usually in a negative way).
We must try to maintain the distinction between science and those involved in conducting and presenting scientific research. Science — as a term or as a process — is often misunderstood or misused, ignorantly and deliberately. Accordingly, we must seek to educate or expose those responsible.
We cannot take information for granted, no matter who or what the source is. We must remain curious, we must remain open-minded, and we must remain civil. The acceptance of ideas should be dependent on their merits and how well they hold up to scrutiny. This is what science is all about.
