The Utter Fallacy of The Science Argument

I am both amused and bemused when someone uses the “science” argument against me.??They might say something like “well, according to science…”.

Before I continue, maybe I should explain a bit more about how I think.

I am a life-long learner and somewhat of an obsessive reader.??I read every single day on a wide range of topics and have literally read hundreds of books, with probably 99% being non-fiction.??The topics range from the various fields of business to leadership to science to religion.?

I also consider myself an?evidence-based critical thinker.??I think independently and objectively (to the degree that this is humanly possible), keep an open mind and attempt to remove preconceived notions or biases before making a judgement (again, to the degree that this is humanly possible).??I do this based on the evidence I can find. Evidence could mean scientific research findings, independent data, facts, and observable occurrences.??It could even be based on anecdotal evidence.??

One thing I’ve learnt is that there is no such thing as science.

Okay, that sounds a bit extreme.??What I mean is that science is not a unified body of knowledge that agrees with itself.?

There are different types or branches of science like Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Formal Sciences, and Applied Sciences.??These are further divided into many other branches of science.??For example, Natural Sciences include Physics, Chemistry, Earth Science, Space Science, Biology, Zoology, Botany and Molecular Biology. Formal Sciences are divided into Mathematics, Logic, Statistics and Decisions, and so on.??Each of these is further divided into deeper and deeper sub-specialisations.

Each field of science has thousands and thousands of practitioners around the world.??They conduct experiments, make observations, and then come to conclusions. These conclusions often clash with the conclusions other scientists have made in the same field, or in other fields.??In fact, these differences can become quite pronounced, even leading to feuds.??One of the most interesting and illuminating books that highlights this is?A History of Nearly Everything?by Bill Bryce.??This book is a must-have in everyone’s library.?

I love what long time lawyer and activist says about science in one of his books:

“Science is dynamic. “Experts” frequently differ on scientific questions and their opinions can vary in accordance with the demands of politics, power and financial self-interest. Nearly every lawsuit I have ever litigated pitted highly credentialed experts from opposite side against each other, with all of them under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. Telling people to “trust the experts” is either na?ve or manipulative – or both

I remember decades ago watching a documentary about space.??There was a fierce debate among the scientists at the time about the atmosphere of one of the planets in our solar system (I think it was Jupiter).??It was agreed that the only way to see who was right was to wait until a space probe orbited the planet and took certain measurements.??When this finally happened, both sides claimed victory!??The probe took certain measurements, but each side interpreted those differently, presumably biased by their preconceived notions.??It was a very educational documentary.

My point is that the?“well, according to science…”?argument is absolutely useless, not to mention na?ve.??Do not be intimidated by the science argument and do not surrender your critical thinking.??You do not need to “trust the experts” blindly. There are many experts with different credentials and different views.??When in doubt, try to find out where each expert’s funding comes from.??This is often very revealing.

Trust me, I’m an expert…