Settled science

When you attack science, you harm all of us. Sometimes, you show ignorance, at other times, deceit. Currently, many attacks on science are indirect. They even masquerade as defenses of science. They claim to be purging science. Ridding it of "woke" scientists and elite institutional influence. They claim that something called "settled science" stands in the way of what they call "real" scientific progress. I want to be clear about this. I am not blind to the misuses of science, nor to the unavoidable biases of all bodies of thought. Therefore, I believe it is important for all of us to keep a balanced view of science. Information, understanding, and confirmed beliefs are not neutral. They serve interests. We take science with us into our partisan battles over policies that advance our own ambitions, and that of powerful economic interests, and the common good. Science, more often than not, shapes these policies and provides the best arguments for their choice. Scientific findings are not certain, however. Ongoing research will uncover new information that may require adjustments in our understandings of the world (theories). Far more often, though, such challenges to "settled" science have led us in the wrong direction. They have wasted scarce resources. They have kept us from important accomplishments. That is why we must guard against false attacks on science. Scientific knowledge and its methods for understanding what is yet unknown is a fundamental part of how we live in the 21st century. Many so-called challenges to these foundational ideas are simply scams. They are deliberate deceits behind predatory economic interests. Others, and no less pardonable, are confused guesses by those not trained in the methods (rigor and skepticism) of mainline science. These days some of the most dangerous attacks on science come from those that reject what they call "Settled science." They insist that they are not attacking "real" science. By calling a body of knowledge "settled" they trick their reader into thinking that such knowledge is stubbornly, stupidly, frozen in time. Outdated. =That is why these critics of science prefer this term to the conventional description used by historians of science like Thomas Kuhn, i.e. "normal science," to describe how far we have come and how likely we are to be on the right track for developing future knowledge. Normal science refers to what we presently know, the best we have. The best current understanding of how "nature works." It is what guides the research of trained professional experts, i.e. experiments and their interpretations. It is our present best way to understand the basic scaffolding of nature. These critics are actually suggesting that we should not use the best current knowledge to make decisions, because it is settled, i.e. the best we have. This is nonsense. We must insist that our elected leaders of either political party embrace established science, the research produced by state-of-the-art laboratories, and years of patience observation and demanding study. Yes, we need to be cautious. While the history of science is largely a long list of challenges to normal science that have proved to be wrong, there have been breakthroughs when new information has overturned parts of conventional wisdom. We need to be aware of the extent of our ignorance. All actions based on the best available knowledge, entails a risk. The point is, though, that we can be cautious only for so long. Often, we must act before we miss an opportunity or before we suffer severe loss. We don't need certainty. We need courage and judgement. And we need to trust the men and women whose struggle to understand the world has been one of our finest achievements. But let's be clear about one thing. Attacks on science will continue. They are often supported by major financial interests. The findings of "settled" science constantly challenge established ways of producing products and utilizing the resources of this planet. Unbiased science shines a laser on activities that undermine the common good. Many that profit from their exploitation of nature try to escape blame by criticizing science. They support fringe pseudo-science and discredited the work of millions of dedicated professionals in hundreds of fields of study. We can not let them succeed. John Bing is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Heidelberg University and writes a by-weekly newsletter at johnb0c.substack.com