Thinker, writer, and independent scholar Shawn Otto has written an important book called “The War on Science: Who’s Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It” (Milkweed Editions, publisher)
Read this book now, and act on what you learn from it, for the sake of your own future and the future of our children and their children.
The rise of modern civilization, from the Enlightenment onward for hundreds of years, was the same thing as the rise of modern science. The rise of science was a cultural novelty with only vague foreshadowing. It was a revolution in the way humans think.
People come to believe what they believe in a way that rarely involves scientific thinking. The human mind is not inherently rational in the sense we usually use the term today. The process of learning things, of inference, and developing habits that guide our reactions to the world around us, evolved to function well enough given our usual cultural, social, and ecological context. But the modern world presents challenges that are better addressed, and problems that are only solvable, with a scientific approach. Science is something we willfully impose on our own process of thought and, at the level of society, formation of policy and law.
You have heard of the concept of “diseases of civilization.” For example, we evolved to seek and love sugars and fats, and then we developed methods of obtaining seemingly unlimited quantities of said nutrients. The success of our system of feeding ourselves solves the problem of uncertainty in the food supply and creates the problems of atherosclerosis, widespread obesity, and all too common diabetes.
Self damaging stupidity also seems to be a disease of civilization. One would think that with the rise of science, the opposite would happen, and it has to some extent.
People spend a great deal of time and energy, and other resources, acting on beliefs about food production and personal health that are contrary to their own best interests. Had a fraction of that energy been spent on trying to understand the relevant science of food production and health, those individuals would be much better off, as would the rest of society. The same pattern can be seen in all other aspects of life, from energy production and use to systems of transportation to diplomacy and warfare. Again and again, great ideas emerge that may become excellent new laws or common best practices, only to be watered down and compromised because of this self damaging stupidity. How, when, and why did we get here?
Today, increasingly and powerfully, anti-science forces are strong and shape the way people think and act to our collective detriment. This is the problem Otto addresses.
How is it that humans invented science, used science for all sorts of improvements (and, admittedly, a number of unintended negative consequences), and then came to new ways of developing policy and practice that hobble the use of this important cultural and social resource?
Shawn Otto’s book is a careful and detailed scholarly examination of this question. I struggled for a time with whether or not I should make the following statement about The War on Science, because I want this statement to be taken in a positive way, though it might be seen as a criticism. Otto’s book is similar to, and at the level of, an excellent PhD thesis. I very quickly add, however, that since this is the work of a very talented writer and communicator, it does not read like a PhD thesis. It reads like a page turner. But the substance of the book is truly scholarly, contributes new thinking, and is abundantly and clearly documented and backed up. I can’t think of too many books that do all of this.
The Enlightenment and the early rise of scientific thinking was a self conscious effort by a small number of individuals to rethink the way we think, and it was a very effective one. Almost every advance in technology, economy, and society – from vehicles and energy to the invention of money and markets, to new or modified forms of government – arose from the self conscious application of scientific thinking. The same great mind that contributed so much to the invention of modern physics and mathematics, that of Sir Isaac Newton, modernized the production of coinage and regulation of international exchange of money (as well as modern systems of engaging and neutralizing counterfeiting). The invention of the American system of government was the intentional and thoughtful product of individuals who called themselves and their actions scientific.
But, as Newton would say, for each and every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Science is not only a powerful tool for doing new things and improving old approaches, but it is also very inconvenient. For some, under certain conditions.
It isn’t that science itself is bad for powerful entities that make up the political and industrial status quo. Science is as essential today as it has ever been, or more so, to the owners of energy companies, the producers of military gear, the growers and purveyors of food, and so on. But there are times when the best available scientific evidence suggests that the best decisions that society or government should make are contrary to the vested self interest of those power brokers. So, really, the best method, from the point of view of stockholders in major corporations or the owners of vast energy or agricultural resources, or others, is to use science but also to control the interface between scientific action and public policy.
In other words, the scientifically derived answer to a question is different when the premise is different. What is the best way to increase profits from making and selling energy? What is the best way to protect the public health while making and selling energy? These are two valid questions that, at least in the short and medium term, can produce dramatically different answers.
In 2012, Shawn Otto posed the conundrum, “It is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be antiscience.” One could ask the same question about leaders of industry. The answer may be fairly obvious. This became acceptable the moment the interests being served by those politicians shifted from the populous to the smaller subset of owners and investors of business and industry. The money trail, which one is often advised to follow to find a truth, leads pretty directly to that answer.
A harder question is, how did large portions of the academic world also decide to be anti-science? For this, one needs to take a more fine grained cultural approach, looking at self interest in the context of scholarship.
How does religion fit in here? The modern, mainly social network-bound, conversation about religion science, secularism, etc. is over-simplistic and mostly wrong. It is not the case that religion and science are opposite things. Rather, the rise of science was part of revolutionary changes in European religious institutions, culture, and politics. There are ironies in that story and the details are fascinating and important. Otto covers this.
Otto also identifies and discusses at length something I’ve been talking and writing about for some time. The nature of the conversation itself. If a conversation proceeds among those with distinctly different self interest, it quickly goes pedantic. If, on the other hand, a conversation proceeds among those with the common goal of understanding something better, or solving a particular problem, then it progresses and discovery and learning happen. On all of the different fronts of the “war on science” we see the honest conversation breaking down, or even, not happening to begin with, and from this nothing good happens.
Otto identifies a three-front war on science: The identity politics war on science, the ideological warn on science, and the industrial war on science. Conflate or ignore the differences at your peril. Postmodernism problemtizes the very concept of truth. Much of what you think of as the war on science is part of the ideological war on science, often with strong religious connections. The industrial war on science is in some ways the most important because it is the best funded, and the anti-science generals have a lot at stake. When cornered, they tend to be the most dangerous.
The last part of Otto’s book is on how to win this war. He is detailed and explicit in his suggestions, producing a virtual handbook of action and activism. Recognizing how the system works, how to marshal resources to reshape the conversation, what scientists need to do, what communicators need to do, are part of a coherent plan. He ends with a “Science Pledge” which is “a renewed commitment to civic leadership based on the principles of freedom, science, and evidence.” And there is nothing new in this pledge. It is, essentially, a fundamentalist approach to science, society, and policy, going back to the beginnings of the coeval rise of science and civilization. There is little in Otto’s pledge that would not have been said by Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, or Francis Bacon.
You will enjoy Otto’s “The War on Science” and it will enrich and advance your understanding of the key, existential, issue of the day. And, it won’t just inform you and rile you up, but it will also help you define goals and give you tools to meet them.
The War on Science is an essential work, a game changer, and probably the most important book you’ll read this year.
Here's an interview with Shawn Otto on Ikonokast Podcast.
Lawrence Kraus was also interviewed on BBC Radio 4's "The Life Scientific"
he too talks about the current challenges facing science
Sounds good I'll order it. Amazon, or the publisher (more likely) is ripping us off here in Canada - If I buy it from amazon.com after $ conversion it's about $17.60. If I buy it from amazon.ca it's $21.89, if I buy it from the onluine store of a local bookseller it's $20.94 ($26.50 instore). Well even though it costs me more I'll order locally as I like to support local businesses and Bezos doesn't need my money.
It sounds like a very interesting book. I will check it out.
In the meantime, and perhaps somewhat related - did you see this correction?
Quote "Specifically, in the original manuscript, the descriptive analyses report that those higher in Eysenck's psychoticism are more conservative, but they are actually more liberal; and where the original manuscript reports those higher in neuroticism and social desirability are more liberal, they are, in fact, more conservative."
Perhaps conservative people aren't crazy after all? Or even all anti-science? Something to think about.
Whenever anyone asserts that science started with the (European) Enlightenment with only "vague foreshadowings" beforehand or elsewhere, I interpret the following glorification of Science as really a glorification of the West. Other great civilizations had small-s science long before we did; we differ only in that they nonetheless collapsed, and we haven't. Yet.
Jane, you need to read this more carefully, and perhaps I could have added a few words to clarify, but the focus of this post was the book, not comparative cultures. I'm talking here about modern western science, not other things. I say nothing whatsoever about other things. Also, don't add words. I do not refer to vague foreshadowings "elsewhere." There could have been entirely developed scientific traditions (and there were) elsewhere, and this is not referred to here. Foreshadowings I refer to are part of that circumscribed, specific conditions.
Great topic! Here is a modern day tragic story -- Formal Axiology: Another Victim in Religion's War on Science
William J. Kelleher, PhD
Greg, firstly, this is a remarkably thorough and well-written review. The result is that I'm excited about this book and will order a copy immediately.
Thanks Greg Laden. Excellent review and looks like a really good one. I'll add this to my list of books I want to find and read.
Excellent commentary. Thank you for highlighting this book. I had not heard of it previously.
When you write,
..."Otto identifies a three-front war on science: The identify politics war on science, the ideological warn on science, and the industrial war on science." ...
I suppose you mean "identity politics," and "war ", right?
Otto identifies a three-front war on science: The identify politics war on science, the ideological warn on science, and the industrial war on science. Conflate or ignore the differences at your peril. Postmodernism problemtizes the very concept of truth. Much of what you think of as the war on science is part of the ideological war on science, often with strong religious connections. The industrial war on science is in some ways the most important because it is the best funded, and the anti-science generals have a lot at stake. When cornered, they tend to be the most dangerous.
Obviously not read the text yet, but this struck me as problematic.
Assuming we are talking about identity politics, ideology and vested interest, the sharp tripartite distinction is perhaps overstated. Surely there is a substantial blurring between identity politics and vested interest? Perhaps complete overlap in many cases. The same goes for the godless capitalist and the Dominionist theocrat, ostensibly different but in fact brothers beneath the skin united by identity protective behaviour.
I'd also argue that postmodernism becomes increasingly irrelevant on a spectrum that moves from cultural analysis towards the hard sciences.
Way to bury the lead Greg...Christianity and the desire to understand God's Creation has lead scientific progress throughout history.
BBD: Yes, all good points, not very far off from what Shawn is saying in his book.
Ron: That's wasn't the lede!
Sounds like a book i want to read. Will see if our library has it, and if not, will request it.
Thanks for reviewing it.
I'm tempted to buy this book but I'm concerned about a balanced treatment. If Otto does not attack the anti-science within the environmental movement but only targets corporate and government anti-science he will lose me. I'll likely buy it anyway though, to find out for myself.
Doug, you will not be disappointed.
Doug, I recently heard very similar from a car driver. When the car drivers were being proposed a safety measure because of a recent crash and death in the UK, one driver said "Well, OK, as long as we make the cyclists stop cutting in and out of traffic!".
I really rather fail to see how either of your wishes actually helps anyone, other than to give you "satisfaction" that some evil other group you hate and cast into a negative mould (much like Boku Haram do to westerners) are getting kicked.
From the review, I can say I do not agree with Otto on everything. First, yes science is anti-religious and there is no peaceful coexistence. I applaud science for that. But the politics of science knows funding comes from the populace and they do not want to rock the boat with superstitious religious fruit cakes.
The other laughable part is that Otto thinks he lives in a Democracy! The US is a polyarchy which means power is concentrated with a ruling class. This class includes many leaders in business which means the fossil fuel industry.
So the call to action on sciences part is important but let's get straight what the playing field really looks like.
I think if you read the book you would change your comment!
I think I should buy this book, as the reviews are making me very desperate tread what is written in it.