People who “believe science” don’t really believe in science. They believe in the promiscuous use of the word science.
Etymologically, the word “science,” from the Latin scio, for “I know,” or scire, for “to know,” just means knowledge. That’s why you find such words as “prescience” (to know in advance). It’s why patriots really ought to honor and legitimate the outcome of a “plebiscite” (the knowledge of the people).
We have all had a crash course in the glories and also the limits of science this year. We saw the World Health Organization using its authority to deny the sovereignty of Taiwan while never noting that China failed to report the novel virus. We saw the advice against meeting in large groups change based on whether the congregations were protests or congregations.
Big picture, through this crisis, were the public health authorities always wrong? Absolutely not. They were right often, or they did their best with the information available at the time. But what they weren’t was scientific. They are authorities, but they are political ones who think they are scientific ones. Epidemiologists and public health officials forgot to factor in what we know about the behavior and society of human beings, one pretty important species that hosts the transmissible microbe under study.
Meanwhile, the hard sciences fared very well. There are ways the vaccine testing and authorization and distribution processes have been too slow. But ultimately, it was an accomplishment for science how quickly the whole process went. Virology and immunology have proved their mettle almost as much as the various “sciences” of human management have proved their worthlessness.
Making these distinctions within “science” is important, because we should keep respecting science but kick out the free riders who append the word to themselves when really they are politicians and managerial professionals.
But our language is getting fuzzier, not more precise, with “science.” For example, over 2020, I noticed a certain yard sign achieving near-ubiquity:
“In this house, we believe:
Black lives matter
Women’s rights are human rights
No human is illegal
Science is real
Love is love
Kindness is everything”
The Washington Post called it a “concise summary of allyship.” One of the activists who made and marketed the signs noted brightly that “no matter what the protest is, you can yank this out of your lawn and you’re good to go.”
I find the whole sign twee, shallow, and smug. Phrasing your own beliefs in glib tautologies implies the views you see yourself as set against must come from the most monstrous or stupid sort of error, such as believing kindness is bad. I am deeply opposed to immigration restrictionism, for example, but I would never play word games to accuse those who disagree with me of calling human lives illegal. It’s too serious a matter to argue via pun. Nobody thinks the category “essential workers” means other human beings are being declared “unessential.”
Which is why it makes me so despondent to see the word “science” dragged deeper into the universe of the cheap slogan. This year was dominated by the idea that “science is real,” as a sort of political meme meant to imply that science is settled, and its findings disbelieved only by one’s moral lessers. The belief that “nobody would disagree with me politically if only everyone believed science” is the orbital center of this geocentric worldview. It’s time for a Copernican turn in the way we talk science in our culture. Science may be knowledge in Latin, but being scientific isn’t about knowledge. It’s about how we handle not knowing.
