Science Revisited

I see the "scientists" are at it again. Mask mandates, boosters, shots for infants and toddlers. And, of course, the convincing factor provided (and accepted by most people) is "The science is settled." I've written about this before, but I think it might be time to revisit this idea, that "The science is settled." How often have we heard that in the past few decades, more recently in dealing with Covid? "The science is settled." The statement, for a variety of reasons (political, nefarious, economic), has been summarily used to push agendas. It has been successful to discourage challenge and debate, especially when challenges and open discussion are feared. It has succeeded in swaying people who don't really know, but think the scientific community is always right. (You can read "medical community" into that, too.) How easy it has been to disarm (or at least try to disarm) opponents of certain agendas by tossing out, "The science is settled." Who, it has been asserted, but the most ignorant of people would argue with "science?" In recent decades the best example has been "global warming," er, "climate change"--or whatever it's called now. I'm old enough to remember the Newsweek magazine cover in the '70s that proclaimed "A New Ice Age?" Then there was the assurance that, due to acid rain, all of our lakes would soon be destroyed. Of course, now (the past couple of years) it's how we deal with the Corona virus. "The science is settled." It's distressing enough to hear politicians, even Presidents themselves, echo this. But when scientists do likewise, it seems to me they have forgotten a basic principle of what they have studied. No, the science is not settled. It never is. That is the essence of science, that there are unknowns and there is always something new, more to learn. But the phrase, "The science is settled," has been politicized to further agendas, to stifle debate (however compelling that debate may be), dissent, and challenges. It lends a legitimacy, perhaps undeserved, and a sense of credibility to a viewpoint. Worse, it sways and even convinces people who don't know much about an issue, but, well, if the science is settled, that's good enough for them. That the science is never settled is one of the important lessons I learned in my Physics courses at Amherst. I admit to not recognizing that at the time; it took some years before it "clicked," before I could rejoice, "I get it!" Consider..... For centuries, literally hundreds of years, the Western world believed that there were four elements in nature--earth, water, air, and fire (and sometimes something called "ether"). This was not disputed, not by anyone credible. People, even scientists, accepted this because Aristotle (and Empedocles and other Greek scientists) said so. Other cultures, Chinese, Indian/Buddhist among them, had similar beliefs. The science had been settled. No challenges allowed! In 1633, if I recall correctly, the most famous European scientist of the day, Galileo Galilei, was put on trial--with the very real possibility of losing his life and soul (excommunication, the death penalty of the soul). His crime was to challenge the accepted scientific and Church beliefs regarding the geocentric theory of Ptolemy, another of those Greeks. He postulated that the sun, stars, and entire universe moved around a stationary earth. Galileo's observations led him to agree, at least in part, with the heliocentric theory of the Polish scientist Copernicus and other. The earth was not stationary, but in fact revolved around the sun. (Copernicus didn't get it exactly right, but he was headed in the right direction.) Such blasphemy/heresy (What did the Church know about science? How many "heretics" were killed because of the Church's scientific ignorance?) almost cost Galileo his life--and his soul. The science had been settle. No challenges allowed! More than two and a half centuries after Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein said this about the greatest of British scientists. "To Newton, nature was an open book whose letters he could read without effort. Newton stands before us, strong, certain, and alone." Einstein was hardly the only one to recognize this "most genius" of scientists. Alexander Pope, a contemporary of Newton, penned this. "Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in the night. God said, 'Let Newton Be' and all was light." There was only one universe, physicists once said, and Newton had discovered all of its laws--optics, gravity, planetary orbits, wave motion, calculus, and, of course, his three laws of motion. I think Newton would have disagreed with much of this. To him, the entire universe was open for continued scrutiny. 20th Century science has, if not disproved, at least modified many of Newton's theories. These include Einstein's work with relativity and the quantum mechanics of Max Planck and others. But for 250 years, the science was settled. No challenges allowed! The 20th Century astronomer/astrophysicist Carl Sagan once wrote, "In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know, that's a really good argument. My position is mistaken.' And then they would actually change their minds." So, the science isn't really settled. But apparently only scientists, well, some of them who haven't sold out to politicization, sources of funding, and their own arrogance, know that. This is something we should all think about the next time, whether it's climate change, how do deal with the virus, or whatever, we hear, "The science is settled." It's not and it never is.