Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Science is Real, Sort of

Science is Real, Sort of

Last updated on: January 4, 2021 at 7:15 am by Philip Jenkins

Science is Real, Sort of 2021-01-04T07:15:52-04:00 Philip Jenkins

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

You have undoubtedly seen yard signs like this around the place.

The sentiments listed vary from the indisputable to the (in the context) somewhat controversial, but one in particular is – well, nothing like as straightforward as it looks. I know and respect what the people who put up the signs mean to say, but the raw statement that “science is real” is tendentious at best, dangerous at worst, and especially for anyone who considers themselves on the left or liberal side of things. The statement is also plain irritating. A very large body of observation and scholarship suggests just how extensively science is shaped by a variety of non-“scientific” factors and prejudices, political, cultural. and otherwise. To use a phrase that is less fashionable than was once the case, science is socially constructed. And some Science (even with an upper case S) can be real, but dead wrong.

Mask Wars

The “science is real” line originated as a song title, (from They Might Be Giants) but it has acquired a whole new partisan life in recent years over climate issues, and even more centrally during our recent debates about the coronavirus, and the related Mask Wars. A solid scientific consensus holds that wearing masks plays a major role in reducing the incidence of infection, and I wholeheartedly follow those lessons. The maxim also condemns the many weird and wonderful alternative treatments that circulated over the past few months. Did President Trump actually advocate self-medication through bleach or disinfectant? Did he recommend self-injection? Actually, no (read the Politifact analysis), but the story acquired legs to the point of becoming an urban legend. So according to this view, the science is clear, and people who go against that are deluded or dishonest. Put another way, science is as real as gravity. You might not believe in gravity, but that skepticism won’t do you much good if you step off a twenty story building.

Having said that, there were some excellent reasons why people felt dubious about that supposedly real and unequivocal science. Exhibit A would be the notorious February 2020 tweet from the US Surgeon General, Jerome M. Adams, whom it would be reasonable to assume would represent a scientific or medical consensus, and who would therefore state that authoritatively to the public. He urged,

Seriously people — STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if health care providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!

Had he said “Please don’t panic buy masks, or health care workers will not have adequate supplies,” that would be one thing, but no, he said explicitly that masks did not prevent the spread of the virus, as opposed to the glorious practice of regular hand washing. Those were statements that he knew (or should have known) to be false. The accumulation of evidence from recent Asian experience left little doubt abut the role of airborne transmission, and thus the virtue of masks. Adams’s “seriously” further implies that this whole mask thing is just crazy fringe theory. As White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci proclaimed in early March, “there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask.”

And they wonder why later official government statements were met with incredulity? Or that many people decided that the science of the day was not real?

Objective Science?

The fact that an official might bend facts for political or bureaucratic convenience does not of itself contradict the “Science is real” mantra. The sense is that somewhere in the background, there is a noble figure labeled SCIENCE, a twelve foot tall gold statue clutching a sword of justice and a test tube, immune to mere worldly pressures and concerns, and single minded in the quest of truth. Her strength is as the strength of ten because her heart is pure. How sad that someone should misrepresent those objective truths for political advantage.

The problem is that science changes over time, and not just by the proper and understandable means that we know and accept. Obviously, most such change arises from the dynamic nature of the scientific process. Theoretical structures shape our views of reality until problems in them become apparent, and new ideas emerge to correct or replace those older models. The process evolves by a process of forming and testing hypotheses, commonly on the basis of new evidence as it becomes available. Scientists in 2020 believe very different things from scientists in 1920. That does not mean that the science of 1920 was necessarily wrong, or lacking in scientific validity, but just that new approaches and evidence have changed the field. Science is, and was, real.

But other parts of the story do raise questions about that imaginary twelve foot statue. There is a very large and distinguished literature on how scientific, and especially medical, statements have been shaped by biases of class, race, and (perhaps most pervasively) gender. That is an inevitable consequence of the makeup of the expert community. If white men constitute the overwhelming mass of theorists and observers, then they will not leave their prejudices at the laboratory door, but rather will import them into their work. They will present findings based on those tainted observations, which other experts will confirm because they fit the social, cultural and political paradigms of the age. Findings that fit a paradigm will be freely accepted, while deviant opinions are blocked or mocked. That holds true until the paradigms change, and the roles of mainstream and heretical are commonly reversed.

To see that process at work, look at generations of orthodox scientific findings and theorizing about women’s physical and mental ailments and well being. Or look at the literature on child sexual abuse from the 1950s through the 1970s, which utterly trivialized such behavior, mocked any concept of harmfulness, and often blamed the victims. Yet in each case, those studies purported to be founded on solid scientific methodologies, and were duly verified by subsequent researchers. As the political environment changed – as women’s voices were more heard – the science changed. The science was socially and culturally constructed.

Surely, that statement is not even close to controversial?

Eugenics: Weird Science, But (In Its Day) Science

To see how science can change and evolve, look at the theory of eugenics, which held sway over much of Western thought from the 1870s through the 1930s and beyond. Eugenics held that good or bad characteristics were passed on through heredity, and that extended to features like criminality, insanity, mental deficiency, sexual deviations, alcoholism, epilepsy, or vagrancy. All were aspects of “degeneracy” that apparently had a close connection to each other—at least they all seemed to manifest in the same degenerate blood-lines. Eugenics meant encouraging the breeding of “good” human stock, while discouraging or preventing the spread of the bad seed by means of selective breeding and sterilization. In practical terms, eugenics affected approaches to education, social welfare and criminal justice, among many other things. It also had a profound impact on religious thinkers, which is a whole other story.

The lessons of eugenics were (seemingly) confirmed by the intelligence tests that were very widely applied, and which we now understand to have been horribly flawed in conception and execution. In some versions, these notions were applied to specific races, with conclusions that mightily buttressed White Supremacy. During those long decades, just try and find credentialed scientists who actually did proclaim the biological equality of races, or who denied that Africans represented an extremely low or marginal form of humanity.

Few today would deny that eugenics was a dreadful and pernicious idea, which blighted the lives of millions. But the issue of definition is critical. Today we call it a “pseudo-science,” to stress the error of its conclusions, and the deeply unreliable methods by which the theory was established and tested. Eugenics was indeed wrong, lethally so, but in its day, it absolutely must be described, simply, as a science, precisely because it was so very widely believed to be solid and unchallengeable. To say that it was once a science does not mean that is was anything but worthless, but definitions do matter.

What Scientists Do

One criterion for establishing the scientific quality of a theory is whether it accords with what most or all scientists believe. This was a critical theme in the legal cases through the years about Creationism and Intelligent Design. Put crudely, science is what scientists do, and if they don’t do it, it ain’t science. If one or two isolated people come forward and present an opinion, then it is quite proper to object that, if they are right, why are they such an outrageous minority within the profession? Why do they account for a microscopic proportion of the published literature? They can’t really be said to be speaking for science. The same lesson emerges from the Daubert Standard by which federal courts decide whether an expert witness is presenting a scientifically valid theory. High on the list of criteria is whether the ideas are generally accepted by the scientific community.

By that standard, eugenics between (say) 1870 and 1940 was unquestionably a science because it reflected the views of such a scientific consensus. That is not to say that every single scientist accepted its approaches, but those critics were marginalized and treated as isolated cranks. What makes a pseudo-science is not the accuracy or reliability or its conclusions, but simply its status within the intellectual world. If it commands an overwhelming majority, it’s science. If not, not. Eugenics in its day was thus a science. In the same way, alchemy in the sixteenth century clearly occupied the status of science, or indeed Science, although today it would just as obviously be in the status of “pseudo.”

So why should we not speak of a bygone world-view as “pseudo-science”? If we are to say that older ideas must be “pseudo-science” because we now know them to be incorrect and flawed, then the scientific statements of all previous generations must be so labeled. That also means that by 2050, say, our present scientific knowledge will have been so surpassed and revised that the intellectual world of 2021 must constitute pseudo-science.

Most important, to speak of some prevailing idea as “pseudo-science” suggests that it must be a violation of the proper mainstream order which carries on existing somewhere like an exiled prince or prophet, so that during the long supremacy of eugenics or alchemy, True Science was lurking somewhere, constantly protesting. Or that all the “real” scientists were loudly wailing and gnashing their test tubes over all the bad things being perpetrated in their name. Or, indeed, that a twelve foot gold statue was desperately and prophetically crying her protests against the global tyranny of error. But no, no cries were heard, because that metaphysical True Science didn’t exist. Eugenics and scientific racism were the Science of the day, and the world paid a brutally heavy price for that fact.

Part of the nature of science is that it always changes and develops. You may like the consensus on any given issue as it stands right now, but don’t assume that it will stick there. It won’t. In consequence, it’s perilous to idealize Science as a rhetorical weapon against political or cultural rivals.

So is Science real? Sure. Well, sort of. But it cannot fail to be shaped and reshaped by the assumptions of the world in which it operates, and of the shifting interest groups within that world.

social constructionism

Previous Post

January 1, 2021

How Changes in Climate Drive Religious Revolutions

Next Post

January 5, 2021 Is My Biography of Charles Lindbergh Actually an Autobiography of Chris Gehrz?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category abolitionism Abortion Abraham Joshua Heschel Abraham Kuyper Abraham Lincoln Academia Activism Adam Renberg Advent Adventist africa African American Religion Agnes Howard Albert Camus American History American Religious History American Revolution American West Anabaptists Ancient History Andrea Turpin Andrei Tarkovsky Anglicanism Annales Ansley Lillian Quiros anti-Catholicism Antisemitism Anxious Bench apologetics Apparitions Arash Azizi Archaeology archives art Artificial Intelligence Asia Asian Americans Augustine Authors Bad Bunny Baptism Baptists Barack Obama Battle of Hastings Benjamin Franklin Bernard-Henri Levy Beth Allison Barr Beth Moore Bethany Mannon Bible Bill Cunningham Billy Graham Black Music Bob Dylan Body Boenhoffer Books Breastfeeding Bruce Springsteen C.S. Lewis Calvinism Cancel Culture Capitalism Carmelites Catholicism Cedric Robinson Cesar Chavez Charismaticism charity Charles Dickens Charles Lindbergh Che Guevara Chicago Children Chinese Christianity Chris Gehrz Christ Christian death Christian Higher Education Christian life Christian Nation Christian Nationalism Christianity Today Christmas Church life Church Practice cinema Civil Religion Civil Rights Movement Civil War civility Classics Climate Change Cold War Colonial Mexico colonialism Comer Communism community complementarianism Conference on Faith and History Congregationalism Conspiracies Conspiracy Conversion Narratives Coronavirus Costa Rica Council of Nicaea Covid-19 Creation Critical Race Theory Crusades Culture culture wars Daniel K. Williams David Barton David Swartz Death Ways death with dignity DEI democracy Democratic Party Devotion Digital Age Diplomacy discipleship diversity Donald Trump Drama Dua Lipa Early Church early modern Early modern Catholicism Easter Eastern Christianity economic exploitation Education elections Elie Wiesel Elizabeth II Elizabeth Taylor emotions Empire Engineering England enslavement Entertainment Episcopal Church Erica Ramirez eschatology Eurocentrism Evangelicalism Evangelicals Exegesis Family Feminism Film Flannery O'Connor folk music Food Foreign Policy founding fathers Franciscans Franciscus Junius fundamentalism Funerals G.K. Chesterton Gender Genocide genre geography George W. Bush George Washington George Whitefield Global Christianity Global church Grief Guadalupe Guest Post guest post gun control gun violence Gustavo Gutierrez Hamid Dabashi Harold John Ockenga Harvest Hate Hawaiian Christianity Healing health care Heather Cox Richardson Hell Heresy Hermeneutics Higher Education Hinduism Hippocratic oath Historical Fiction Historical Methodology Historical Profession Historical Profession Historical Theology Historical Thinking historiography Holidays Holocaust horror movies Human rights Humanitarian Work humanities Hummingbirds Hungary hymns Imago Dei Immigration Injustice Interviews Iran Islam Islamophobia Israel Ivan's Childhood Jacob Randolph James Bratt Janine Giordano Drake Japanese history Japanese Literature Jean Paul Sartre Jesse Miranda Jesus Jesus Christ Jimmy Carter Joan Baez Joan Didion Joanne Freeman João B. Chaves Joao Chaves Joey Cochran John Calvin John Fea John Tillotson John Turner Johnny Cash Jonathan Edwards Jonathan Tran Joseph Smith Josh Howerton Journalism Jr. Judaism Jürgen Moltmann Just War Justice Justin Brierley Karl Barth Katelyn Beaty koi ponds Kris Kristofferson Kristin Kobes Du Mez Latin American Religious History Latino Americans Lectio Divina Leisure Lent Leonard Cohen liberal arts liberalism Liberation Theology Linda Ronstadt Lisa Clark Diller Literature Lou Reed Lynchings Lynneth Miller Renberg Mainline Protestantism Malcolm Foley Marilyn Monroe Maritime history Mark Noll Marriage Martin Luther Martin Luther King Martyrdom Marxism Mary Masih Alinejad mass shootings material culture medieval Christianity Medieval Ethiopia Melissa Borja memory Mennonites Mental Health Mental Illness Methodism Mexican Americans Mexicans Mike Madrid Miles Mullin Min Jin Lee Miscarriage Missionaries Mister Rogers Mitt Romney modernity Monasticism Mormonism Motherhood Mothers of the Church Moving Music Musicals Nadya Williams Nahua Christianity Native Americans Natsume Sōseki New Contributor New England New Year New York Nico Non-Violent Protest Orthodoxy pacifism Paleo Evangelicals Palestinians Parenting Patti Smith Paul Kingsnorth Pedro Calderón de la Barca Pentecostalism Philip Jenkins Phillis Wheatley physician-assisted suicide pilgrimage Pilgrims pluralism Plutocracy Poetry Politics Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV post-modernism prayer preaching Presbyterians prosperity gospel Protest Public history Publishing Puritans purity culture Quakers race Race Massacres Racial Capitalism racial reconciliation racialization Racism Raha Bahloulipour Re-Enchantment reading Reformation Refugees religion and the university religion and war Religious Freedom Religious Nones Religious Pluralism Religious Symbols religious violence Republican Party Revival Rita Coolidge Ritual Roger Williams Roman Catholic church Royalty Russell Moore same-sex marriage Sarah Irving-Stonebraker Scandinavia Science Science and Technology Scopes trial Scriptural Interpretation secularism Selena Quintanilla seminary Seventh-Day Adventists sexual morality Sexuality Sikhs Silence slaveholders theology Slavery Slavoj Zizek social justice Social Media Southern Baptist Convention Southern Religion Spain Spiritual Autobiography Spiritual but not religious Spiritual Discipline Sports Stanley Hauerwas Suffering Summer Camps Sunday Night Odds and Ends Supernatural Supreme Court Syriac Christianity Tal Howard Taylor Swift Teaching Technology Television Thanksgiving The Beatles The Mission theater TheoBros Theology Thomas Dixon Thomas Jefferson Thomas Kidd Thomas Merton Tim Gloege Tim Walz Tom Holland Tourism tradition Tragedy Translation Transnationalism Travel Trump Ukraine Uncategorized Unitarians United Methodist Church US History Vanessa Chan Velvet Underground Verónica A. Gutiérrez Veronica Gutierrez Vikings Violence Virgin Mary Virtue Virtue ethics Visions Voting War WCTU Wendell Berry Westminster Assembly White Evangelicalism Wildfires Winnie the Pooh Witches women Women in Ministry Women's and Gender Studies Work Worship writing Yasunari Kawabata Zena Hitz

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does "Ebenezer" mean, as in the stone Samuel set up?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Stone of David Stone of help Stone of God Stone of Law