Why We March for Science

I am a scientist. I am a scientist not because I have a scientific degree (though I do, in Physics), nor because I work in a laboratory and wear a lab coat (I don't). I don't experiment on animals, don't smash atoms together, don't mix different reagents together in order to see if it explodes, and haven't since my college chemistry classes.

I am a scientist because I subscribe to the scientific method. While there are several aspects to the method, most scientists would argue that it includes the following principles:

• Everything starts with the observation of patterns. Every scientist worth his or her salt has made the observation - "There are patterns here. Why?"
• Hypotheses are advanced that attempt to explain the behavior. Such hypotheses need to be applicable - there must be some way to test the hypothesis.
• Detailed evidence is gathered both for and against the hypothesis.
• Potential sources for errors are also identified, and to the extent possible, controlled for.
• A conclusion is reached, and the experiment is then reviewed and published.
• Others attempt to replicate the results or dispute the conclusion.
• Rinse and repeat.

There are several things worth noting. There are no authoritative texts, no absolute truths in science. Instead, most of science is valid but only within certain, clearly defined domains. The speed of light in a space vacuum is 299,792.458 km/sec - but only in the absence of gravity. It's speed is also (most times) the same regardless of the perspective of the viewer. Every so often someone comes up with a different answer, however, and that means that nothing can be known absolutely - information about the world can only be made in light of the evidence that exists, as compared to the evidence or alternative hypotheses.

This is, in many respects, a very radical perspective for looking at things. Most scientists qualify their statements because they recognize that there may be domains around which those statements may not be completely accurate. The theories of motion that Isaac Newton came up with in the 17th century were not invalidated by Einsteins theories of relativity in the 20th. Rather, Einstein laid out the case (since demonstrably shown) that as you approach the speed of light, the laws of motions change dramatically. In the 17th century, there were simply too few observations about the motion of particles at even 0.1 times the speed of light to determine a pattern, let alone establish a hypothesis.

Many theoretical physicists today will acknowledge that Einstein's theories are also incomplete, because they again deal with domains that are difficult to measure. What's the speed of light within a black hole? How do we know that the speed of light has always been constant? What about quantum entanglement? There are hints that we are at a cusp where the domains that we're dealing with are now edge cases we can observe.

Sometimes, knowledge does get overturned. The theory of plate tectonics is a primary example of this. The idea that there are lithospheric plates that slide over and under one another, causing the continents to move, is a relatively new one. In 1915, Alfred Wegener made a hypothesis that the continents drifted on top of convective currents of magma, rather than remaining in place, in order to explain why so many continental edges looked like they fit together as a jigsaw puzzle. The most obvious of these is how the eastern coast of South America nests clearly within the Western Coast of Africa.

This was a highly controversial theory and it took more than forty years before enough evidence had accrued to suggest overwhelmingly that Wegener was correct (and even there, he would end up refining his own ideas in the face of accumulating evidence). Now the hypothesis is accepted as "likely" - it has become a theory. Unlike in popular usage, a theory is something that scientists see as being sufficiently backed by evidence that it can be taken as being the basis for other hypotheses.

The "Theory of Evolution" is, of course, the same way. There are no biologists today that do not believe that Charles Darwin was wrong in his core hypothesis, though there are a great number who will say that his hypothesis is incomplete. Evolution is complex and messy, and involves not only genetics (which were unknown at the time of Darwin) but also ribonucleic acid folding and epigenetics and the presence of viruses as vectors for plasmid transfer, and a whole host of other effects. None of these invalidate the early theory, but they all refine and clarify the domains where the theory is applicable.

The Danger of Alt Science

Science has long been viewed as a threat by authority. Most religions are based upon the concept of derived wisdom - knowledge that is supplied by an authority and given to be divine (and hence unquestionable) in nature. The Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the holy texts and oral traditions of cultures going back thousands of years, as interpreted by high priests, to this day still make up the bulk of what most people on this planet use as the basis for their belief systems.

Science does not say that this derived wisdom is wrong. Instead, scientists posit that these cannot be considered scientific unless they can successfully be demonstrated to be empirically demonstrated consistently. Let this sink in. Science is a categorization mechanism, not a value systems. If something cannot be shown to obey the scientific method, it is not science.

The problem here is that science has a remarkably good track record of being valid as a way of describing the world. It's that pesky requirement of needing sufficient evidence, of being defensible from first principles that makes scientific validity something worth seeking. When higher authority asserts that something is true, science can test it and can consequently either provide compelling evidence that the information coming from higher authority is consistent or is not. Science can't prove anything, but it can nonetheless make the case that something is likely true or false much more effective.

This is one of the reasons that one of the first acts of an authoritarian leader is to nullify the scientists. Sometimes this is done via a purge, killing, imprisoning, or removing from positions of power those whose whole role in life is to question. Sometimes this is done by creating "faux" scientists - people who are not scientists but look and sound like they should be - who then are given complex titles and put into think tanks, institutes and foundations to give them authoritarian legitimacy. Sometimes this involves pumping out enough fake science as to overwhelm most people's ability to compare and analyze. And sometimes this involves reducing the venues by which scientists receive education and training - eliminating schools, reducing funding for critical scientific programs, de-credentializing teachers and casting into doubt the scientific method itself.

If this sounds familiar in today's political environment, this is no accident.

The problem with the war on science is that contrary to the assertions of its critics the universe has no political agenda. Geologists, meteorologists and biologists have been observing numerous patterns that have taken place in the last hundred years that are outside verifiable norms - everything from ocean pH balances and salinity to the destruction of coral and abnormal heating patterns, accelerated ice melting in most of the world, the increase in the power of storms and shift in weather patterns, the rise of invasive species and the shift in the timing of biological activity, the increasing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and so forth and so on.

Any one of these things, taken in isolation, is a data point, a blip that could simply be random noise. Taken together, they spell out a clear hypothesis - that the planet is demonstrably warming taken as a system, and that human based activity is a significant contributing factor to that warming. Climate skeptics are scientists - they are raising legitimate questions about the hypothesis and are proposing tests that may be used to prove or disprove that hypothesis. One by one those skeptics are becoming convinced that the evidence is strong enough to warrant re-examination. This is a healthy process.

Climate deniers, on the other hand, are not scientists. They are not interested in proving or disproving a hypothesis, but rather are attempting to assert an alternate reality because they profit by people not accepting the science as legitimate. Sometimes the attacks are ad-hominem (scientists don't want to lose their precious grant money, laughable when you consider how minimal most such grants really are) or attacking their personal or professional credentials. Sometimes the attacks utilize "fake" non-peer-reviewed publication venues to claim legitimacy for their views, and sometimes the attacks become direct threats to the livelihoods of these researchers.

It is very likely that, even in the absence of funding, people will continue to do science, because the are legitimately concerned about the longer term consequences facing us. What changes is the degree to which they can conduct experiments. Satellites for getting data at different wavelengths are expensive to put into orbits, submersibles to measure temperature, pressure and salinity at depth are expensive as well, and this is before accommodating the very real human involvement. This is not a matter of cutting back on funding because of legitimate budgetary concerns - every scientist has to deals with that reality and always has. Rather, it is the deliberate shuttering of what is already in place to promote an authoritarian agenda.

This is ultimately what the March for Science, taking place globally on this Earth Day, is all about. Scientists are deliberately being blinded, hobbled and attacked because their science contradicts the fabricated narrative of certain groups in power. This will make us less prepared for the next hurricane, the next earthquake, the next droughts or floods, and may ultimately end up costing tens of trillions of dollars in destruction to infrastructure over the next decade. This is why we March.

Kurt Cagle is a scientist, writer and futurist living in Issaquah, Washington.