A very dear friend of mine posted something the other day that got me thinking. He is a brilliant person, a man of reason and integrity, and one that I enjoy bantering with as we push each other, question each other and generally force each other to ruminate…a lot. In the end, while we may disagree, we always end up laughing and making plans to see each other in the future. 

He posted the following quote by Neil DeGrasse Tyson: “If you are not a scientist and you disagree with scientists about science, it’s actually not a disagreement. You’re just wrong. Science is not truth. Science is finding the truth. When science changes its opinion, it didn’t lie to you. It learned more.”

Galileo Galilei, some years earlier, said this, “There are those who reason well, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who reason badly.”

I found Dr. DeGrasse Tyson’s little snippet interesting for several reasons, first and foremost asking myself what a “scientist” is. My answer is something along the lines of one who is trained in and practiced in the art of scientific discovery via the scientific method; using research, empirical data, and experimentation to arrive at a conclusion.” That’s my definition. The dictionary definition is thus: 

“A person who is engaged in and has expert knowledge of a science, especially a biological or physical science.” The secondary and tertiary definitions interestingly enough, refer back to my definition, mentioning using the scientific method, original research, and one “learned in science.”

In the definition it states, “expert knowledge,” but nowhere does it say, “possesses a degree,” or “holds a doctorate” in a scientific field, whatever that might be, although the assumption of “expert knowledge,” means a higher degree of some sort. 

Remember Bill Nye, The Science Guy? His degree is in mechanical engineering…not exactly a degree one thinks of when pondering what a scientist is, yet he’s hauled out in front of millions of viewers from time to time as a scientist.[1]

So, what are we to make of all this?

A Bit of History

The period known as the Scientific Revolution was not really a revolution in the bloody sense of the word. It represented a change in thinking, going from a God centered outlook to one of reason, meaning a belief that man could find the answers himself, using reason as the ancient Greeks once did, Aristotle becoming the new oracle long after his return to the dust.[2]

 The scientific revolution was also not one for the masses as they were too busy trying to produce food from a stubborn earth in the 16th century.  A harvest of 40% was considered a good one, and had to last from October to March, so there was no time, or inclination, to dally about with such questions as Does the earth move? 

Observation, detailed recordings of planetary movements, logic, and mathematics, considered by some in Church hierarchy to be heretical, were the chief means of conducting science. In other words, these scientists, few of them possessing a degree, gathered information as best they could through observation, charting, and collaboration with others about the heavens, and arriving at answers to various questions concerning the earth and its place in the heavens. 

Ptolemy, the ancient Greek scientist, began by postulating the earth was the center of the universe during the ancient period, with Copernicus (1473-1543) and Galileo (1564-1642) ultimately determining it was not, the sun was, with the earth moving around it in a perfect circle.[3] Factually, both were wrong in that there were other factors at play such as gravitational pull on the planets as well as the planetary bodies themselves, something Johannes Kepler figured out after careful and detailed study of Tycho Brahe’s observations and recordings. Neither were degreed scientists especially Brahe, but all were keen observers of heavenly movement and in Brahe’s case, a meticulous gatherer of data along with being quite eccentric as well.[4]

Science, or the study of it, wasn’t codified in universities until 1597 when Sir Thomas Gresham founded Gresham College, stipulating several studies focus on the new studies known as “the sciences.”[5]

It was then the sciences or at the very least, the questioning of the world around us took on its most basic form, morphing over time into what we know today, and eventually moving from astronomy into other areas of endeavor collectively known as the natural sciences. 

Were all these people degreed? No, but the degree process and the formal education leading to degrees, specialization, and further education was in process, the degree an affirmation of formal training, exposure to the latest ideas and the notion that the degreed person used some form of empiricism to arrive at their conclusions. Many answers were arrived at in this way, and many answers were also debunked…the nature of science as pointed out by the original quote beginning this essay.

But, as time went on, science took on a life of its own. For the Catholic Church (and even the Protestant Church and its many derivatives), the “sciences” were antithetical to what they were teaching, and in some cases, directly in contradiction to the Bible, the accepted book of science before the revolution itself. What’s most interesting is that while the Bible was accepted science, along with Aristotle’s observations, the proven notion of heliocentricity was not only debunked, but railed against by the Church itself along with its many defenders. 

Even Protestants such as Martin Luther claimed heliocentrism was “misinformation,” as it did not comport with Biblical teaching. Said Luther about Copernicus’ work, “This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the Sun to stand still, and not the Earth.”

Here’s where things get interesting

Those who spoke against accepted church teachings, be they theological or temporal were branded heretics and often burned at the stake or put under duress in any number of ways. The point was to quash not only questioning of accepted Church teachings, teachings seemingly backed by the Bible, but also to quash dissent in its many forms. 

Even politically, dissent was not acceptable. To speak against the King or Queen and what they decreed as truth was considered treason, punishable by jailing or in the most egregious cases, death. Free speech did not exist as it does today, and certainly not when said speech went against the Church or the temporal government. The European Enlightenment with its focus on philosophical application of science was the antidote to this sickness, being inspired by the Scientific Revolution rather than a separate movement from it.[6] They were linked by one common thread (among many), the questioning of accepted narratives and the search for truth, as Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in his quote.

However…

Today, we’ve come almost full circle. Questioning the accepted “truths” of the “degreed” ruling academic class by one not in the club is tantamount to treason, and punishable by any number of methods: ostracizing, name calling, or simply dismissal as something other than normal. What’s even more interesting is that the amount of information available not only to scientists but to those who are not scientists is staggering. No longer are people searching in the darkness with both hands to find information, or secretly carving up cadavers in the middle of the night as Leonardo DaVinci once did. A treasure trove of information is out there for all to see provided they have the wherewithal to obtain and examine it. 

Sometimes it’s behind a paywall, but most of it is available at any time, especially with the advent of AI, which, for research purposes, has made a painstaking process a bit more tolerable[7] and readily accessible. What was once the citadel of the educated elite is now available to many, many more thanks to the invention and proliferation of technology. 

The academic citadel has been breached, and the barbarians are at the gate.

All of this means to say a decree from a “professor,” is simply not the last word. A declaration from those who refer to themselves as “scientists,” does not mean they are the last word either. They, too, are subject to scrutiny by those that have access to the ultimate weapon…information…and this does not sit well with that privileged class, and certainly not governments.

Recently, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said this in response to a question about social media monitoring: “But we know that that was an overly simple view, that if platforms, whether it’s Facebook or Twitter/X or Instagram or TikTok, whatever they are, if they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.”

She very well may have a point as social media in its many forms has become, for better or worse, a news and information source for many, but consider this: does her point speak to the control the government, be it federal, state, or local needs, or to the gullibility of the general population? Who, exactly, are we saving and who should become the savior? Further, who is to discern information from misinformation?

It seems in the 21st century, a century in which more data is available at our fingertips, details that often contradicts the experts, we not only have a difference of opinion, but a difference of fact. Stated plainly, if the facts, whatever they may be, do not fit the accepted narrative, they are disregarded by many, derided as statements made by imbecilic dolts or cultists. Ignore what you see, we’re told, despite the charts, peer-reviewed papers or even simple-to-prove fact. If it does not align with the accepted narrative, then it is simply cast aside by the true believers because the scientist said so. 

As Neil DeGrasse Tyson said, “Science is finding the truth,” and that means, sometimes, the scientists themselves when there is clear evidence to the contrary. And Stephen J. Gould, a historian of science once said regarding science and truth, “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’ I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.”

When Galileo wrote his piece entitled, Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems wherein he argued for the movement of the earth, he was brought before a tribunal on charges of heresy, a charge that came with a death sentence.[8] The accepted practice was the earth did not move, and on pain of death, Galileo was forced to recant his position that, indeed, the earth did move. Galileo acquiesced and did recant. He was an old man at the time and simply wished for the matter to be done. The legend is that when Galileo recanted, saying, “The earth does not move,” he turned to leave and said under his breath, “and yet, it does.”[9]

He was sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life.

What About Today?

We seem to be in the same conundrum in our time in various areas of inquiry. Man-made climate change, the government’s response to Covid, the efficacy of completely “going green,” or even the dietary recommendations of the FDA all falling into the category of doubting what we’re told or what we’ve been trained to believe because there is evidence to the contrary. We are also in something of an information battle as well with social media outlets either being co-opted by the government to suppress items it deems unacceptable or untruthful, to rabid proponents of anything defending that anything with everything they have, even if they’re proven incorrect by provable, data driven fact.[10]

As stated earlier, if the fact doesn’t fit the accepted narrative, it is simply ignored, and those who spout what is considered misinformation are labelled everything from crackpots to dolts to cult followers. This cuts across all spectrums and all political affiliations, said affiliations becoming increasingly unwilling to live with each other, but even more disturbingly, willing to believe almost anything “their side” says while dismissing “the other side,” societal cracks exacerbated by news and cable outlets all too willing to exploit the divide. 

Why not? It keeps viewership, brings in money, and keeps the partisans happy. Accept anything one side says, and reject, even if it happens in plain sight, what the other side says. They’re always wrong.

Where Do We Go From Here?

We’re in a death spiral of sorts, and I am not sure how to get out of it or how it ends. George Orwell once said, “Tell people facts they don’t want to hear.” It makes sense as it would force at least a cursory attention to the truth. The problem is many won’t hear it anyway. It’ll be dismissed as misinformation, the arbiter of such being whoever has the microphone at the time.

Follow the science? Which science? Fostered by whom? If science is the truth, who is the arbiter of said truth? Maybe there’s too much information floating about causing chaos, distrust, and an inability to discern what the truth is, its veracity hidden amongst the fog of dissenting opinion and forced conclusions to fit a narrative. 

We tend to put our faith in those who claim to be our betters, giving them outsized weight to our own willingness to investigate, reason, and think for ourselves. This point seems especially cogent seeing as how many Hollywood celebrities have such outsized influence in our society. It also seems we prefer to be guided, but increasingly, it appears those who are the guides are doing so dishonestly, the opposite of science and the truth. 

The Chinese have a phrase but it’s more a curse. “May you live in interesting times.”

I’m afraid we do.

[1] He also worked as a Boeing engineer before quitting to focus on stand-up and sketch comedy.

[2] There are a number of reasons for this, chief among them because the Catholic Church during the high middle ages found palatable to their own teaching.

[3] The Geocentric and Heliocentric theories respectively.

[4] Tales of Brahe reach almost fantastical proportions, most of which are true. Johannes Kepler discovered elliptical orbits, among other things, which solved many problems of planetary alignment.

[5] The original areas of study included: Astronomy, Divinity, Geometry, Law, Music, Physic, Rhetoric

[6] The Enlightenment attempted to apply science to philosophy to foster notions like free speech, representative government, crime and punishment…essentially establishing the tenants of Western philosophy and life in the modern world.

[7] AI and its derivatives are far from perfect, with examples of bias floating all over the place. However, for basic factual research, it is fairly reliable provided it, too, is checked.

[8] Interestingly enough, the Pope at the time, Pope Paul V was a personal friend of Galileo, and the two often had conversations regarding Galileo’s theory prior to Pope Paul becoming Pope. Once in that position, he had to oppose Galileo to keep Church teachings in place.

[9] There is no evidence that exchange occurred, but in 1640, the moment was preserved by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo with the painting depicting Galileo in prison pointing to the phrase on scrawled onto the prison wall.

[10] Mark Zuckerberg stated recently he regretted caving in to White House pressure on content regarding the pandemic.