Nowadays
the term “anti-science” is being used in some fairly ridiculous
ways. The term should rightfully be reserved for those who are
opposed to the scientific method, or who reject the majority of
scientific findings established by some large branch of science. But
nowadays I read many people abusing the term “anti-science.”
Writers nowadays are often throwing around the term “anti-science”
as a term of abuse used against those who reject particular
technological choices. Such charges are usually absurd, because
technological choices should not be confused with science.
Let's
consider the case of GMO's – genetically modified organisms. A GMO
is usually created when some scientist plays around with the genes of
some organism that is used for food, in hopes of doing something like increasing crop yields.
Whether it is a good idea to do such a thing is actually a very
complicated issue, involving lots of related issues such as subtle
potential side effects. But GMO proponents want to make the matter
nice and simple – if you oppose GMOs, or want your food to have
labels indicating whether it has a genetically modified organism,
then you're “anti-science.”
Such
reasoning is absurd, because a GMO is not science. It is a
technological product made using some scientific knowledge. So is a
Justin Bieber CD, which is a product made using scientific knowledge
involving electromagnetism. If you decide not to consume GMO's, this
would be no more “anti-science” than choosing not to purchase a
Justin Bieber CD. Genetics is a science, but genetically modified
organisms are not science. They are a technological product.
It
is also an abuse of language to be using the term “anti-science”
against people who choose not to use particular medical products,
even vaccinations. Now let me make it clear: I believe in vaccinations,
and I have made sure that my children have all the required
vaccinations. If a person chooses not to get vaccinations for
himself or his children, that is a decision that may be rightfully
criticized in several sound ways. But a charge of being
“anti-science” is not one of them. An injection is not science;
it is a technological product. A person should never be charged with
being “anti-science” because he chooses not to consume a
particular technological product.
A
particularly ridiculous use of the term “anti-science” is made by
proponents of fracking, a messy process for getting natural gas by
injecting water into underground rocks. There are many serious
reasons why reasonable people might wish to urge caution about such
activity. One is environmental, such as the concern that fracking in
upstate New York might affect the water supplies that New York City
relies on. Recently a new concern arose: the concern that fracking
may be causing increased radon levels. A story in yesterday's
Washington Post was labeled “Rise of deadly radon gas in
Pennsylvania buildings linked to fracking industry.”
But
proponents of fracking sometimes try to make the issue real simple:
fracking uses science, so if you oppose fracking, you're
anti-science.
Some argue like this
When
I read reasoning this absurd, it makes me wonder how an impartial
person can make an accusation like that. Then I remember that the
people who make these kinds of accusations are often taking money
from some corporation that is making money from the technological
product that is misrepresented as being “science.”
During
the 1950's the government started to test nuclear bombs in Nevada,
blowing up more than 100 A-bombs in the atmosphere. The health
effects for people living downwind of the tests were often
devastating. Those who complained about potential health risks were
labeled as “anti-science,” "anti-American,” and “anti-progress.” We were assured by
numerous authorities that nuclear fallout was pretty harmless. This
is something to remember the next time you hear someone being
labeled “anti-science” for expressing reservations about some
product or activity.
No comments:
Post a Comment