The pandemic has focused my attention on how science, politics and religion interact. I have been appalled at the disregard that the Trump administration has had for scientific and medical input when it does not align with their political agenda. This conflict between politics and science in our country stands in stark contrast to the relationship between the two in other developed nations.
Before the pandemic hit, Trump also refused to acknowledge or even address the preponderance of evidence for human-influenced climate change. He has called climate change a hoax and blamed the Chinese for ‘inventing’ it to hobble the U.S. economy.
Trump has been able to defy or reject scientific consensus because his followers are highly suspicious of science and gleefully endorse his opinions. He knows he will not be held accountable or criticized for any disparagement of scientific opinion.
Why are a substantial portion of Americans ready to dispute or disregard scientific or medical information? The U.S. is the most technologically advanced nation in the world. Our universities, medical centers and research labs are outstanding. The work done in these institutions has led to a rapidly increasing longevity, healthier lives, time-saving technology and endless devices for entertainment and other leisure activities.
It is true that science and medicine are not black and white worlds. There is constant disagreement and debate as ideas, hypotheses and theories are introduced and go through the scientific process. In every field there is lively discussion and sometimes acrimonious argument. However, the scientific community has established a process of peer review and evidence-based analysis to make progress as rationally as possible and to avoid the chaos of random theories and unproven ideas.
Science is not always about the majority opinion, but over the years the best way for the truth to emerge is for every qualified party to look at all the facts and weigh in with opinions or perform supporting or opposing experiments. In the great majority of cases, the majority ends up being right.
There are always contrarians and outliers in every scientific discipline. They are a necessary and important part of the process, to ensure that theories are not promoted or accepted without vigorous debate and as much confirmation as possible. Occasionally a contrarian will cause a significant re-thinking of a theory or result and thus contribute to the onward march of science.
But there are also contrarians and outliers who simply enjoy the controversy and the renown that comes with fighting against the ‘establishment’. And when science and politics intersect, these outliers can be given a megaphone by political supporters who like what they are hearing.
In the pandemic, Trump’s supporters have eagerly sought out any scientist or medical doctor who supports Trump’s astonishing contradictions or departures from the epidemiology community’s best advice. With the media’s rapid-fire reporting of every new theory and collection of data, it is easy to make a case for almost any point of view.
There is a term for the tendency of people to seek out information or opinions that confirm their own political or social views – confirmation bias. Those who support Trump, for example, assume that his handling of the pandemic is exemplary. They are stung and angered by the criticism of his COVID-19 record, and look around on the Internet to find interpretations of data that defend him – COVID is no worse than the flu, the death statistics are wrong, the pandemic is a hoax, only the very weak and old are dying - all at odds with the vast majority of the medical and scientific community. They do not seek a consensus view, or try to really understand the science, but rather start with a conclusion and work back from there.
Religion is at the heart of science distrust. Religious views have been under attack for several centuries because of scientific advances. Believers who are unable to accept the mystery and ambiguity of faith and seek out a rigid dogma have been brainwashed to be suspicious of any scientific theory or fact that does not support their religious doctrine.
Religion and politics have become closely intertwined. Perhaps they always were. Political views merge with religious doctrine. Thus, the rejection of science by fundamentalist religious people extends into the political realm as well.
The Internet and social media have become the primary sources of information for a significant percentage of the population. This is a very dangerous situation. There is no moderator, no arbitrator or editor to guide people and to separate the credible from the preposterous. This is ultimate freedom for people to choose, but it comes with a price. That price could be the death of scientific truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment