The 'Threat' of Science

When the eclipse came and went on August 21st, 2017, social media blew up about the unity of the human race, pausing to view this spectacular event as one. In a time of division and discord, many praised this event as a sign that we should be moving towards peace. But interestingly, others brought up the irony that those same eclipse-viewers were sometimes also in denial of climate change, vaccines, and other scientifically-proven phenomenon.

The scientific community has had a long and strenuous relationship with the general public throughout the course of history. Often times, the attitude of the public towards science is largely determined by cultural and social trends.

Since ancient times, humans have questioned the nature of our world. Thales of Miletus is considered the father of modern science, for he was the first Greek philosopher to explain the world in physical terms, rather than in supernatural causes ( http://www.crystalinks.com/greekscience.html). While art was critical in representing modern life, the Greeks were also interested in learning more about their world and about themselves, which led to a focus on philosophy and science. Back then, there was not a clear distinction between science and other fields, which led to controversy over the development of their ideas. Some argue that this combination led to a misrepresentation of science, but most agree that this lack of distinction actually led to a new problem-solving mindset, one which found creative solutions through interdisciplinary thought ( http://www.ancient.eu/Greek_Science/).

Thales of Miletus (https://www.famousscientists.org/thales/)

This study led to an incredible amount of research and findings, most of which built the foundation for modern day medicine, botany, and other scientific disciplines. But these inventions came about because philosophers found that science served as a bridge between them and the public, for their inventions and findings would allow Greece to flourish. Science touched every part of their civilization, from military to transportation, and thus the public knew the importance of the scientific process.

The Romans were avid students of the Greeks, and they built upon the scientific ideas that the Greeks had developed. Romans were also more focused on the direct applications of scientific research than the Greeks were, and this led to vast improvements in agriculture, architecture, medicine, and a number of other fields. This research was mostly funded by wealthy patrons who wanted to build a reputation with the public. Interestingly enough, when Christianity grew to become the official Roman religion in the later days of the empire, science and religion coexisted. While they sometimes offered opposing views, religion did not impede the progress of scientific research, and many importance scientists at the time were also Christians ( http://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Science/).

Let’s fast-forward to the 18th century and the Age of Enlightenment. Inspired by the findings of Copernicus, Galileo, and Isaac Newton, the new thinkers of the time began to advocate for a reason-based view, one that was meant to fight against the religious authoritarianism that had ruled the world. Scientifically, most of the astronomical discoveries were made during this time, but main social impact was felt through the progress in political thought. Political thinkers all over the world built off of the works of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, advocating for a new type of government that acknowledged the will of its people. Ideas born from this time led to revolutions all over the world, including the French Revolution (which ended the Age of Enlightenment) and ultimately, the American Revolution ( http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_Enlightenment)

But as we progressed to modern day, tension grew between conservative Christian groups and the teachings from the Enlightenment era. Unlike in Roman times, religious groups felt threatened by these new inquiries into understanding, and this led to a divide in the public. Now, in the United States, there are two major groups of people that are thought of in connection with the two primary political parties: Rural, religious Republicans and scientific, secular Democrats. This is obviously a generalization, but there is no denying the divide in culture; just look at this New York Times article on TV preferences. This divide often comes up during major national debates on issues such as climate change, gun control, and immigration.

And this brings us back to the beginning. The complex relationship between culture, media, and science have led to a polarization of opinions that continues to divide our country. So as scientists, what can we do? We have ethics and codes that we are responsible for upholding, but are we not also just as responsible for representing and fighting for the truth? This doesn’t necessarily mean that all scientists are responsible for getting involved with every social media debate, but it’s more about how we come together as a community and fight for evidence-based rationale. Data has helped a lot with this, but there is still a great need for more education and outreach, and that is our responsibility as scientists. Just as doctors are meant to be leaders in their community’s health, scientists should be leaders in their community’s understanding of science. That’s the whole reason that we have domain experts: so that we as communities can grow and learn from the expertise of its residents. If we as scientists act as advocates for the truth, then slowly, piece by piece, community by community, we can not only push for action on climate change, but we can infuse evidence into our entire decision making process.

Originally published at http://datainallthings.wordpress.com on October 13, 2017.