Science! Yay!

A few years ago, a friend of mine denied the legitimacy of climate change science. “The science isn’t in yet,” he declared, as if the science of anything is ever completely “in.” To a science skeptic, guys in lab coats come up with elaborate theories and then stop what they’re doing, declaring victory with the pop of a champagne cork and the acrid smoke of wet-tipped cigars.

Years later, these scientists continue to rigorously test theories, collect data, and adjust their prognostications accordingly – consistent with an evolving, and improving, understanding of the natural world. The ones who specialize in climate science continue to discover that, not only were their original assertions correct, but things are progressing more quickly than previously thought. They base these assertions on evidence, and if you need non-math-based evidence that’s grounded in simple observation, take a trip to northern Canada and ask a polar bear what the real estate market is like in his corner of the world. If you can find one who’s not struggling for purchase on a melting sheaf of ice, then you get a golden ticket, and can watch Willy Wonka make chocolate bars.

I’m not a scientist, but I play one on a blog. And it’s distressing to me that enough people are anti-science that it now qualifies as an actual movement. Where did this sentiment come from? Do people bristle at the idea of a smarty-pants telling them about the intricacies of the world around them? It’s healthy to maintain a certain level of skepticism, and no sane person would argue that one should just accept what they’re told at face value. But theory, research, experiment and data collection are all public endeavors; it’s not like there’s a mysterious Grand Science Pooh-bah that periodically wanders into the town square, steps up to a podium, bellows “The earth is round!” and then walks away without further explanation. Although that would have made for a great Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon.

Perhaps the problem is a lack of public humility. People can’t stand the possibility that they’re not the experts – it’s schoolboy rebellion writ large, and has all the charm of a bare-knuckle noogie.

A sad fact is that many of those who dump on fields like biology and physics reap the benefits of those sciences daily – without ever knowing it.

I’ll give you an example of the kind of thing I mean. In the early part of the 20th century, a German patent clerk named Albert Einstein – he of the electric-socket hair-do – stumbled upon the theory of special relativity, which established that no object with mass can move faster than the speed of light. Like all theories, the scientific community had to rigorously test it before accepting it as true, and in order to do that, they had to figure out how to manipulate photons, those wave-like particles that carry light. They were successful, and through decades of testing, they were able to confirm the veracity of Einstein’s predictions. But in learning to control photons, they also paved the way forward for a little technological innovation. They called it the television.

And where would we be without that ubiquitous invention?

Again, nothing should be taken at face value, and everything should be questioned. But hard-line science doubters continuously benefit from silicon-chip technology that keeps them glued to their phone apps, satellite technology that keeps them from getting lost, and medical technology that keeps them alive. They only reject science when it flies in the face of previously held beliefs – that the earth isn’t warming, for instance. Meanwhile, penguins in sandals and floral-print shirts are scoping out condos in Honduras.

Perhaps the most oft-used anti-science argument is that theories are constantly fluid and evolving, subject to change from the latest batch of information. What they fail to understand is that this is science’s great strength. Look at it this way: Say something or someone who claims to never be wrong – like Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly – tells you the sky is green. They claim to be infallible, and you’ve never seen the sky, so you take their word for it. But then one day you walk outside. Nothing but blue skies. Do you continue to believe O’Reilly, who remains steadfast in his claim, or do you adjust your belief based on what you’ve now seen with your own eyes? Consistency has value, but when it becomes stubbornness, it can obfuscate what’s real. If our understanding of what’s real seemingly evolves from week to week, it’s because we always know a little bit more than we knew the week prior. Like a prediction emerging from the murky innards of a Magic 8 ball, our understanding of the universe surfaces slowly, its secrets revealed bit by tantalizing bit. That’s what makes it so fun to follow.

It’s a nerdy interest, and a nerdy defense of it. But a lot hinges on the state of the public’s trust in these nerds. Just go to the zoo and ask a polar bear. Soon enough, it’ll be the only place you can find one.