It’s 2024 and Science is whatever you want it to be!

That's a lot to unpack!

Where do we begin when Science is challenged?

Working in an industry based so much in the sciences (building, health, chemistry, microbiology, physics, sociology, psychology, history, etc.) is fun. It’s great. I love it. It is also very difficult in 2024. Ask anyone that does what I do. We all agree. Apparently, real science isn’t what we thought when we started out. Today, pseudoscience and science denialism are stronger and more prevalent than real science.

It’s easier to watch a YouTube video or some Instagram shorts and become an instant expert than it is to actually spend years learning the basic and advanced sciences that are required to do critical thinking and research and application in the fields of health, environment, medicine, geology, cosmology, even sociology and history.

The public (our clients) face difficult, confusing, and competing choices that cover a range of relationship to actual fact. Almost all the stuff they get on social media and other instant sources are really “non-science” (and yes, that does sound just like non-sense!):

·      bad science (implausible or impossible underlying science [aka science-fiction!], implausible hypotheses; unreliable data from poorly designed or poorly conducted research; incorrect analysis and interpretation of the data; non-valid conclusions drawn from the data even if data is good)

·      misunderstood science (honest ignorance, or incompetence. These are two distinct and very different conditions)

·      pseudo-science (fake, fiction, myth, snake oil, sham, bunkum [which of course needs to be “debunked”])

·      metaphysical science (myth, wishful beliefs, theological explanations, snake oil, sham)

·      distorted science, i.e., co-opted science (intentional spin if not outright fraud, snake oil, deception, and lies)

·      outright science denialism (usually based on the belief that scientists lie or science itself is fake and can’t be believed. This includes various theological alternatives to science)

There are many reasons for all this. The extent of how far this non-science problem extends in the first quarter of the 21^st Century is truly mind-boggling. Even after several hundred years of advanced scientific development and understanding.

After putting behind us millenia-old myths and misunderstandings of the natural world. After modernizing and popularizing science education. After making science knowledge available to everyone on the planet. After all that and more, people continue to prefer the non-science over the science. They prefer the fiction over the reality. And they’ll argue and fight to prove the fiction is real. They’ll argue and fight to retain their right to BELIEVE and practice and share (and like and follow) and sell – and BUY - the fiction instead accepting the real world and universe.

But let’s not get caught up in all the pseudoscience marketing and nonsensical products, even if they are worth Billions of dollars in sales every year.

Let’s see how many people I’m talking about.

Recent large careful studies have revealed what Americans think and feel about science (it’s probably similar for people all over the world). There has clearly been a large change since the COVID pandemic. Prior to 2020 there was a consistent and substantial amount of mistrust in medicine and those who practice (rely on) science.

Sadly, politics has played an undeniable role in how the public (i.e., the non-science public) viewpoint has changed – for the worse.

Looking at both sides of this picture, those that have no trust and those that do:

“As of April 2020 (the very early days of the global pandemic), 14 percent of Republicans reported to Pew Research that they had little or no faith that scientists would ‘act in the best interest of the public.’ By October 2023, that figure had [almost tripled] to 38 percent of Republicans”- Four out of Ten -  don’t think scientists care about the public interest!

That is astounding. Well, it would be except I’ve seen it take place with my own experience and observations in the science-based niche of environmental health in which I work. For the last 8 years I’ve watched how the public discusses and uses science and medicine. I’ve seen what they believe in, what they promote, and what they buy. I’ve heard arguments for and against all sorts of medical claims and scientific oddities.

A third fewer Democrats than Republicans in 2020 expressed no confidence and that fraction rose by barely half - from 9% to 13% had no confidence scientists would be trustworthy to act in the public interest. These are substantial and significant differences both in 2023 and back before the pandemic.

Looking at those that trust science, the numbers are also changing based on political affiliation.

“In 2000, 46 percent of Democrats and, almost equivalently, 47 percent of Republicans expressed a great deal of confidence in scientists. In 2022, these respective percentages were 53 percent and 28 percent. In twenty years, a partisan chasm in trust (a 25-percentage point gap) emerged. “ NY Times, Sep 11 2024, By Thomas B. Edsall. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/11/opinion/republicans-science-denial.html.

Another study, 2018-2021, showed an even greater gap of a 33 point partisan divide with two-thirds of Democrats but only one-third of Republicans report having a great deal of confidence in science. This too I’ve witnessed and experienced. It’s amazing when people pay for a scientist to solve their problem and then argue about all the “other” science and medicine.

A pair of science historians concluded there is indeed a “crisis of conservative trust in science”.

THREE FOURTHS of conservatives in U.S. have little to no confidence in science

One writer suggests this is in relationship to the bad news that science brings to those who traditionally have controlled American industry, finance, and social norms: “white males, economic conservatives, white evangelicals, and social conservative MAGAs) are going to feel more threatened by the bad news for status quo systems.”

They also show the divergence has roots in 1970 with the creation of the EPA and OSHA. Ironically, both were signed into law by the notoriously conservative Republican President Richard M. Nixon. Yet both of those large, science-based agencies tasked with protecting the people, the workers, and the environment of the United States would “soon be seen as adversaries” by Republicans and the U.S. business community.

This makes it very difficult to arrive at bipartisan policy decisions as well as diagnosing and prescribing solutions for environmental problems (pollution, health effects, climate impacts, loss of habitats and species) as well as protecting and improving human health and preventing and curing disease.

If only one fourth of conservatives have confidence in science there remain about THREE FOURTHS of conservatives in America have little to no confidence in science. This means the FACTS that we work from cannot be agreed upon. The data, the observations, the “science” are outright rejected by 4 out of 10 conservatives and another 4 out of 10 conservatives can barely accept the facts as trustworthy.

The population of the U.S. is approximately split 50/50 among liberal and conservative bias. This means 4 out of every 10 people in America are in one way or another rejecting the science we work from - whether it’s the biology, the physics, the geology, the cosmology, the medicine does not matter. Every discipline is impacted.

More than just science is a casualty of science-denialism, so are our careers, respectability, credibility, and lifestyle.

Perhaps half of the time I spend with clients that hire me for environmental and health assessments is spent debunking what “someone else said” or something they “saw on social media”. It could be a sister, a politician, a co-worker or social influencer. It could be the soccer coach, the carpet installer or the naturopath. The input is overwhelming. The choices of “scientific” explanation are seemingly endless. Choose your favorite – it doesn’t even have to be scientifically plausible – just pick one, or two, or more.

If a disagreement on any topic related to “my” science arises before client engagement, I am usually not hired. If that same topic arises after client engagement (making recommendations, advising, etc.), the relationship ends on a rather sour note and a certainty that if any further consulting was needed, they would not return to me for it.

The client pays me handsomely for my science when it serves their purpose. But science is often very threatening to their own belief system and cultural comfort. They simply won’t be bothered with inconvenient truths.

APPENDIX: Definitions, Synonyms, Etymology

DEBUNK

: to expose the sham or falseness of;

to prove false, to correct misinformation and nonsense.

Debunk, in use since 1923, contrasts with synonyms like disprove and rebut by suggesting that something is not merely untrue but is also a sham — a trick meant to deceive. One can simply disprove a myth, but if it is debunked, the implication is that the myth was a grossly exaggerated or foolish claim.

It derives from a word currently out of style originally from the 1820s, bunkum.” (From Merriam-Webster)

e.g., The theory behind the product’s life-saving claim was eventually debunked but not before 100’s of thousands of desperate patients bought it from unscrupulous and willfully ignorant alternative providers. (JSA)

bunkum: insincere or foolish talk: NONSENSE

nonsense (b): language, behavior, or ideas that are absurd and contrary to good sense. (From Merriam-Webster)

“Some words in the English language have more colorful histories than others. In the case of bunkum, you could almost say it was an act of Congress that brought the word into being. Back in 1820, Felix Walker, who represented North Carolina's Buncombe County in the U.S. House of Representatives, was determined that his voice be heard on his constituents' behalf, even though the matter up for debate was irrelevant to Walker's district and he had little of substance to contribute. To the exasperation of his colleagues, Walker insisted on delivering a long and wearisome "speech for Buncombe." His persistent—if insignificant—harangue made buncombe (later respelled bunkum) a synonym for meaningless political claptrap and came later to refer to any kind of nonsense.” from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bunkum

Synonyms

It’s a very long list - so just keep scrolling!

 1.      nonsense

 2.      garbage

 3.      balderdash

 4.      stupidity

 5.      hokum

 6.      hogwash

 7.      claptrap

 8.      twaddle

 9.      piffle

10.      baloney

11.      malarky

12.      bunk

13.      absurdity

14.      guff

15.      hooey

16.      codswallop

17.      tosh

18.      malarkey

19.      rubbish

20.      falderal

21.      boloney

22.      jazz

23.      flapdoodle

24.      silliness

25.      trumpery

26.      crock

27.      humbuggery

28.      tommyrot

29.      bilge

30.      folderol

31.      blah-blah

32.      tarradiddle

33.      insanity

34.      blatherskite

35.      absurdness

36.      fudge

37.      nuts

38.      blither

39.      rot

40.      drivel

41.      blather

42.      foolishness

43.      bosh

44.      madness

45.      humbug

46.      horsefeathers

47.      fiddlesticks

48.      blarney

49.      crapola

50.      punk

51.      taradiddle

52.      folly

53.      fiddle-faddle

54.      fiddle

55.      hoodoo

56.      applesauce

57.      blah

58.      bull

59.      hokeypokey

60.      nerts

61.      moonshine

62.      beans

63.      flannel

64.      drool

65.      idiocy

66.      trash

67.      senselessness

68.      muck

69.      slush

70.      inanity

71.     kookiness

72.      tomfoolery

73.      craziness

74.      imbecility

75.      foolery

76.      lunacy

77.      asininity

78.      fatuity

79.      rigamarole

80.      rigmarole

81.      hocus-pocus

82.      witlessness

83.      monkey business

84.      inaneness

85.      greek

86.      hot air

87.      double-talk

88.      hoity-toity

89.      shenanigan(s)

90.      monkeyshine(s)

91.      gas

And perhaps my favorite, poppycock : empty talk or writing: nonsense (1852). Etymology: Dutch dialect pappekak, literally, soft dung, from Dutch pap pap + kak dung).

Synonym list thanks to https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/bunkum