2015 Fundraiser

Help us beat last year's record of $7100!

Awesome! We are half way to our goal!
Goal: $7,200 Donations so far: $6687.20
93%
Free speech isn't free. Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate today!

Silver-level articleAnti-science

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on
Philosophy of
science
Compound Microscope 1876.JPG
Foundations
Method
Conclusions
There is something even more vital to science than intelligent methods; namely, the sincere desire to discover the truth, whatever it may be.[1]
—Charles Sanders Peirce, pro-science
It's scientifically impossible for the bumblebee to fly; but the bumblebee, being unaware of these scientific facts, flies anyways.[2]
Mike Huckabee, anti-science

The term "anti-science" refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence,[3] usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own.

If a position or theory is pro-science (aka "science"), as opposed to anti-science, it will follow the scientific method, be potentially refutable, peer-reviewable, reproducible, and open to change if the position comes in conflict with observed fact. An anti-science position will violate one or more of these thresholds, in addition to likely being incoherent. In other words -- is it science?

Anti-science positions are promoted especially when political ideology and/or religious dogma conflict with actual science. While it is highly likely that anti-science positions are the result of ideological positions, it is important to note that holding a particular ideological position does not automatically make an individual guilty of being anti-science, or vice versa.

Common anti-science targets include evolution,[4] global warming,[5], GMOs, and various forms of medicine,[6] although other sciences that conflict with the anti-science ideology are often targeted as well.

While it is frequently associated with conservative political positions, vaccine denialism, alternative medicine (particularly of the Eastern or herbal-based variety), the entire organic food movement, chemophobia, and opposition to a lot of genetic research is associated with the left.

Contents

[edit] Examples

[edit] Examples of anti-science tactics

Get your facts first, and then you can distort them at your leisure.[7]
Mark Twain

Anti-science proponents often attack science through:

[edit] Examples of anti-science proponents

If somewhere in the Bible, I were to find a passage that said two plus two equaled five, I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and then try my best to work it out and understand it.[11][12]
—Pastor Peter LaRuffa

Anti-science proponents usually attack science because of their religious or political view(s). Some of the major ones are listed below:

[edit] Other uses of the term

This modern usage of the term should not be confused with the anti-science movement in the 1960s and 1970s, which, similar to but less violent than the Luddites, was mostly concerned with the potential dehumanization that uncontrolled scientific and technological advancement could cause.[15] While this skepticism of unchecked change meets the dictionary definition of classic conservatism, it falls far short of the anti-intellectual thrust of modern political conservatism.

[edit] What it is not

For the reasons stated above pseudosciences like intelligent design, and concepts such as the global warming conspiracy theory are examples of "anti-science."

The phrase does not mean:

  • "Having a scientifically testable and potentially falsifiable hypothesis which is opposed to the paradigm currently dominant in the scientific community," because in this case, Einstein, Darwin, Pasteur, Galileo, and Copernicus would also meet the definition of having been "anti-science".
  • "Wrong," in which case every scientist that has held a hypothesis, based on evidence of their time period, that is ultimately proven false would meet the definition of having been "anti-science". It is simply the nature of scientific theories to be overturned or updated once new evidence is found, often with technologies not present previously. On the other hand, even pseudoscientific or non-scientific claims can accidentally go right.

[edit] Impact

See the main article on this topic: Impact of science

Science is pretty damn great. Anti-science attitudes and policies actively hurt science's ability to do great things. This obstruction can and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, who otherwise could have been saved.

[edit] See Also

[edit] External links

[edit] Footnotes

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support