My initial goal for this series was to explore the various meaning of “antiscience”, decide on the best definition, and then provide a bunch of examples. But as I delved into the matter, it became increasingly clear that the concept of antiscience has become little more than a slur to make one’s political adversaries look bad. First, some definitions:
“Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge...Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments…for some, rejecting scientific consensus or public health guidance serves as an expression of political allegiance or skepticism towards perceived authority figures.” - Wikipedia Accessed April 20, 2024
“Anti-science is a set of attitudes, an ideology, and a movement that involve a complete rejection of science and the scientific method”. -Recognizing and Responding to Anti-Science in Environmental and Public Health Research and Practice International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, by John Øvretveit, 2023
“Antiscience is the rejection of mainstream scientific views and methods or their replacement with unproven or deliberately misleading theories, often for nefarious and political gains. It targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them.” - Scientific American The Antiscience Movement Is Escalating, Going Global and Killing Thousands by Peter J. Hotez, March 29, 2021
Note how all-encompassing the above definitions are: antiscience rejects science and the scientific method. However, the exemplars given for these definitions aren’t against science in general, or even “mainstream” science in general; rather they doubt a narrow range of scientific claims, mostly in relation to climate change and Covid-19 vaccines - and mostly people on the right side of the political equation. But is it actually the case that vaccine and climate-change skeptics reject science in general? I found no evidence of this in my reading, and in my personal experience, such skeptics tend to be focused on a narrow set of concerns; they’re not broadly antiscience, though many have an anti-establishment streak.
That used to be considered a good thing. Remember “question authority”? Which doesn’t mean “reject everything an authority says”. More like ask questions and don’t take claims of authoritative knowledge on faith. But one can question authority and still accept authority’s guidance - with the understanding that one is doing so out of caution and convenience, not having the time, inclination or skill set to verify everything for oneself.
There actually have been people and movements that were more broadly antiscience than today’s this-or-that skeptics: what we used to call “new age” types, e.g., members of religious cults and believers in the occult. In his oft-cited 1993 book Science and Anti-Science, Gerald Holton mentions “interest in astrology” as indicative of antiscience beliefs, as least as “conventionally” understood (his word). And that word usage is important; it reveals a certain skepticism about the very concept of antiscience. To quote:
“The term anti-science can lump together too many, quite different things that have in common only that they tend to annoy or threaten those who regard themselves as more enlightened.” - Harvard University Press Science and Anti-Science by GJ Holton, 1993
Ain’t that the truth.
The concept of antiscience serves little purpose except to stigmatize dissenters and shut down debate. It assumes an authoritative stance when in many cases, the matter at hand is not settled science but an ongoing research project. What we get from this project is an evolving “best evidence to date”, which may be sufficiently robust to guide actions and decisions for the time being, as long as we’re open to changing our minds when better evidence comes in.
Thanks to the Enlightenment, questioning authority is very much in our blood. So is trying to change hearts and minds through argument and discussion. Let’s keep both these American traditions alive, ideally with a minimum of name-calling. With that in mind…
“While we may all agree that reference to specialist knowledge is increasingly important in public discourse, we disagree profoundly about questions of access and evaluation. We disagree about what kinds of knowledge ought to be promoted and how they ought to be legitimated. Finally and most seriously, we disagree about whether there is a position, external to this disagreement, from which it can be adjudicated, mediated, or ordered away.” - American Anthropologist Anti Anti “Anti-Science" by Rena Lederman, 1996