[The following was co-written with Jim Crump, long-time science and nursing professor at North Central Texas College. Over the years, his friendship has led me to read beyond my own field (history), but I have only read science; he has done science. I claim no expertise in the scientific method, so I relied on one who did.]
Many of us are hoping that something good will come out of these difficult times. A friend of tells me that in Chinese, his native tongue, the word for “crisis” is also the word for “opportunity.” With this in mind, perhaps we can find the silver lining to this dark cloud.
Recently we have seen a frightening erosion of public confidence in science and fact-based reasoning. Our president built his political career on doubting the conclusions of the experts, the “elite,” as he likes to call them. He even claimed that his own intuition was superior to science and dismissed scientists as partisan hacks who wanted to undermine his administration. Facts inconsistent with his agenda were declared fake.
Unfortunately, the absolute certainty with which he and his followers asserted their views contrasted with the way the scientific method works. Since the age of the Enlightenment, fact-driven reasoning has been based on the best evidence available at the time. Conclusions change as more evidence becomes available. Knowledge is constantly shifting and growing, as every science-based theory is continuously subjected to new evidence and open to proof or disproof. What seems established wisdom today may be rejected tomorrow. What remains constant is that understanding derives from facts.
Science deniers can contrast these historic shifts with their own absolute certainty—“knowledge” based on dogma. Because people prefer certainty, it becomes easy to sow doubt and distrust, especially since for many people understanding of science ended with a required course in high school or college. When it comes to issues such as modification of human health and behavior through genetic expression, the impact of carbon production on climate change, and the spread of disease from population density, public knowledge lags far behind scientific advancements.
For years scientists have warned that when we concentrate people (large cities and migrant camps), our food animals and plants (factory farms and monocrop agriculture), and military personnel (USS Theodore Roosevelt), we open the door to pandemics of catastrophic consequences. Until scientists have the time and data to develop other alternatives, our only defense will be “social distancing.” Just try to apply that principle to our food supply!
Businesses cannot sustain their profit margins without using drugs (i.e. antibiotics, hormones) and chemicals (i.e. fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides) and without concentrating their production. They understand only the short-term consequence (profits), not the long-term problems that may result (environmental degradation and disease spread.)
We can no longer afford ignorance or complacency. Our problems require scientific solutions, not blind acceptance. Even the president now has to defer to those who have the data on their side. Science can be wrong, but it is self-correcting with new data. Dogma, by contrast, has no avenue for change. Science explains only the natural world, but it provides for predictions that rely on data, not intuition. No other form of understanding gives us a range of certainties for tomorrow.
Now for the silver lining: Every model of climate change predicts an increase in infectious diseases, along with a long list of other potential catastrophes. If this current crisis restores our confidence in the experts, we will surely be better prepared for future catastrophes. We may even seize the opportunity to heed their warnings and take steps mitigating the damage we have done to the earth.
