More Thoughts on American Antiscience

 

What is American antiscience? Firstly, antiscience is not a well-defined term. Few dictionaries list an explicit meaning. Wikipedia describes antiscience as any kind of general philosophical opposition to science holding a special relationship to the truth or deserving of special reverence in society.[i]

For practical purposes, that abstract definition has little meaning to most Americans, most of whom have never read a book or sat in a class on the topic of the philosophy of science. Outside of explicitly philosophical discussions, antiscience can best be defined as a determined opposition to the methodology of science or the conclusions that a reached via those methodologies, whether it be a general opposition or the opposition to a specific conclusion of scientists.

Antiscientific opposition to scientific methodology and the conclusions reached via those methods must be distinguished from legitimate scientific skepticism. Global warming is a good exegetical case. There is a large movement in the United States determined to deny the conclusions that most climate scientists have reached: that the earth is warming and that warming is increasingly due to the release of manmade greenhouse gasses.

This consensus of climate scientists is relatively new. Thomas Kuhn posited that science often advances in revolutions. After the revolution has occurred, the majority of scientists in a field will accept the paradigm shift. The climatologists who still hang-on to strong skepticism of anthropogenic global warming fit are simply those left behind clinging to the old-model left behind by the paradigm shift. Compare this to the mainstay of the global warming denial movement, led by individuals such as James Imhofe, people with no scientific expertise in the field of climatology who lack a proper lay understanding of the science. These people are not global warming skeptics. They are global warming deniers. Their position is antiscientific, and while not uniquely American, certainly have more clout here than in most other nations.

There are many different degrees of believers in antiscience. On one end of the spectrum are those who generally accept the methodology that scientists use and their conclusion as having a special relationship to the truth . . . except that one thing (evolution, global warming, the efficacy of acupuncture, et cetera). On the extreme end of the spectrum are those who have a basic philosophical opposition to the methodologies and conclusions of scientists having any special relationship to the truth. The post-modernist movement is a prime example of this sort of sophistry.

Most American anti-science falls into the less extreme side of the spectrum. Polls of Americans show that they hold a great deal of reverence for science in general. For instance, only ten percent believe that the harmful results of scientific progress outweigh the benefits and, “more Americans express a ‘great deal’ of confidence in scientific leaders than in the leaders of any other institution except the military.”[ii]

What are the sources of American antiscience? One strongly correlating factor with most specific antiscientific beliefs is political ideology. Literalist interpretation of the bible advocated by more conservative branches of Protestantism (such as the United States’ largest Protestant church, the Southern Baptists) are highly correlated with spiritual beliefs such as creationism which are in direct opposition to evolution. In fact, in its more extreme form, young earth creationism stands in direct opposition to the basic tenets of geology and cosmology as well. Of course, membership in these conservative Protestant churches is highly correlated with conservative political beliefs.

While Europe has its share of creationists, they are a small minority of the population. By contrast, it might be generous to Americans to declare that only half of them believe in evolution. Thus, this is one of the prime examples of American antiscience that Europeans have difficulty comprehending. By contrast, certain forms of antiscience popular in the US among those who tend to be more liberal (opposition to vaccination for example) are not shocking to many in the European Union because they are often more prevalent there than in the United Staets.

Evolution is the most well-known and most written about antiscientific belief. However, the difference in acceptance of evolution between the United States and the European Union is best explained by fundamental differences in religious beliefs rather than by fundamental differences in scientific understanding. This is probably not true of countries such as Japan where public understanding of science is much higher than in either the US or Europe. This was the conclusion of the National Science Foundation when it removed American beliefs in evolution from its report Science and Engineering Indicators. [iii] [iv] While the decision was controversial, the reason behind it should not have been. The differences between Americans and Europeans in their acceptance of evolution are primarily based on differences in religious beliefs.

In the case of the theory of evolution and anthropogenic global warming, reality does indeed have a liberal bias. In fairness though, there are many prominent antiscientific beliefs in the United States which are largely held by those on the left. While conservative Christianity seems to be the root of many antiscientific views held by conservative Americans, belief in the naturalistic fallacy serves as a similar analog on the left.

Alternative “medicine” is one prominent example (medicine being in scare quotes because medicine is defined as the science of healing, of which alternative “medicine” certainly is not). Many proponents prefer the definition of eastern “medicine”, as if legitimate medicine is practiced fundamentally differently in Asia than in the West. Alternative “medicine” practices range from the absurd and disproved to the possible but not sufficiently evidenced. The practices also vary in deleteriousness from benign placebo effects to incredibly deadly pseudoscience.

These alternative “medicine” beliefs are often correlated with new age spiritual beliefs which are correlated with liberal political views. One of the most unfortunate examples of these is the anti-vaccination movement. While many have blamed illegal immigrants from Mexico for outbreaks of pertussis (whooping cough) in places such as California, such vaccinations are actually mandatory in Mexico. The truth is that the responsibility lies firmly on the shoulders of the anti-vaccine movement. Marin County which lies at the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge and is one of the wealthiest counties in the nation, famous for its liberal politics, had one of the largest outbreaks of pertussis in 2010 and not surprisingly, one of the lowest vaccination rates for children.[v]

Of course, there are many other examples of American anti-science correlated with Americans holding more liberal beliefs. Prime examples include the belief that organic foods possess some special salutary qualities, irrational fears about the dangerous of nuclear power (as opposed to rational fears placed in context of the dangers of other power sources), irrational fears of genetic engineering of foods, the belief of a link between non-ionizing radiation (such as those emitted by power lines, cell phones, and wifi) and illnesses such as cancer, and many others.

Of course, Europeans are more accepting of these anti-scientific beliefs correlated with the American left, so it should shock no-one that do not find them as cofounding as antiscientific beliefs correlated with conservative beliefs. While many books could be written about the dynamics and history of American antiscience, it is important to note that what makes American antiscience different from the rest of the world (and most importantly the European Union) are the unique religious and political beliefs in the United States and the antiscientific beliefs associated with them. Americans are more likely to not believe in evolution and less likely to be scared by genetic engineering of food than Europeans because of fundamental differences in religion and politics, not fundamental differences in education or general support of science.

---

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience [Accessed 31 July 2011]

[ii] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm [Accessed 31 July 2011]

[iii] http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/ [Accessed 31 July 2011]

[iv] http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/us-national-science-board-tries-to-suppress-knowledge-of-americans-scientific-illiteracy/ [Accessed 31 July 2011]

[v] http://www.marinij.com/sanrafael/ci_18568877 [Accessed 31 July 2011]