Science and False-Hoods in the Modern Age Part 1: Whose turtle is it anyway?

 Today I hope to tackle what is to me a very serious and important issue. America’s relationship with science and how this impacts the debate surrounding so many topics but in particular the validity of Trans identities and Trans rights.

Pictured above is my academic regalia. This is my academic uniform and just like military uniforms; it tells observers everything they need to know about my “rank” and standing in the community. My status as a doctor is denoted by the three velvet stripes on the sleeves and the long ornate hood. The gold and purple are the school colors of my Alma matter and the blue signifies that I was awarded an academic PhD – as opposed to an applied doctoral degree (Psy.D.). Thus, my hood is an immediate symbol of my authority as an academic expert; as well as the institution who authorized me as an expert in my field.

The folklore I learned about this regalia is that it dates back to the middle ages when most arcticians and academics wore hoods to signify their profession and expertise. I have also been told that this is the origin of the word falsehood. In that it used to signify an imposter an individual who claimed to an authority/privilege they did not earn and thereby sought to defraud others by charging a premium price for substandard services.

This year is significant to me in that I have been a licensed practitioner of clinical psychology for as long as I was in graduate school. That’s seven years for those of you counting at home. As I reflect back on my time in school, I have come to believe that the most important thing I learned was how to think like a psychologist – like a social scientist. The first two years of my study were dedicated to “hard science” academics – I took 5 different statistics courses and studied the systems and theory of science.  My professors strove not only to teach the mathematics and theories but to enculturate us into the profession. We weren’t simply learning ideas-we were being taught a worldview and a system for how to approach thinking and problem solving.  I was also simultaneously learning the body of literature (the cannon) that was the summation of over a century of scientific work. I studied human development, cognitive science, neuroscience, social psychology and many other subspecialties in psychology. In these classes I learned the accepted orthodoxy of the field of psychology. We may have discussed and debated the merits of Jean Piaget or B.F Skinner’s theories but no one questioned the fundamental principles of cognitive development or classical conditioning.  It was understood that these fundamentals were settled science supported by at the very least decades of research.

This is an important point to make – science is often settled. There are many widely accepted scientific theories. For the theory of gravity, that the earth is round, or the theory of evolution. Despite this, a quick google search can produce any number of detractors to these theories. Many of whom even use seemingly scientific methods to prove their point. Thirty seconds on Youtube will quickly produce a number of videos showing seemingly scientific experiments narrated by intensely passionate people who are convinced the world is flat. Despite their passion and their claim to be scientific practitioners, these so called “Flat Earthers” are not welcome at scientific conferences. They are not regarded as scientific by the main stream scientific community. Indeed, even lay people regard them as hacks and conspiracy theorists – because the science is indeed settled. Should these people’s claims be validated, it would up-end the entire scientific understanding of the world as we know it. It does not matter how good their methods are or how seemingly sound their logic is, their conclusions fly in the face of everything we have known or seen about our world for centuries. By virtue of this fact alone these people are considered to be outsiders and not true practitioners of science. They wear “false-hoods” primarily because their intent is to subvert the established orthodoxy. The flat earthers will tell you this is the result of a conspiracy and that main stream science is wrong. They will continue to claim that the mainstream scientists have a political agenda they are pushing and seek to deceive us all with their “round earth theory.” I am using an extreme example here to make my point more clear. I could just as easily substitute other issues such as climate change or the effectiveness of social distancing and vaccines. We live in a day and age in which legitimate settled (orthodox) science is often questioned. One of the first thing people say is – “the issue is not settled”, “there is not enough data”, or one of my favorites “science is never settled.” These arguments are made to cast doubt on issues the scientific community feels no doubt on. Good luck convincing a geologist or a meteorologist that scientists are still debating the sphereisity of the earth.  Likewise, you can still find academics working at universities trying to disprove climate change theories --- these academics are not well regarded and mainstream scientist do not feel there is any doubt that humans are causing climate change. Never the less, you can easily find fox news pundits, talk radio host and a whole host of other politically motivated lay people arguing that “the science is not settled” and they will often turn to these “sell out” scientists as expert witnesses. Just because you can find a dissenting voice in the academic community does not eliminate the fact that the vast majority of scientists endorse a given theory. It is also worth noting that in science, theories are more than an idea or philosophy; it is “dogma” created on the foundation of years and years of experimental testing. Disputing the theory of gravity would be considered insane – and yet it still remains a theory. Despite the “theory” label you do not see many people jumping off roofs to falsify the “theory of gravity.”

This is because science is fundamentally different from the philosophy and law. The latter disciplines find truth through logical argument- two opposing sides present their “point of view”, their logical arguments and the most sound or convincing argument is considered “the truth.” Science looks not to the authority of logic but the authority of data and observation. Scientific theories are not disproven by stronger logic they are disproven by a preponderance of evidence – data points that the theory cannot explain.

There is an old story often used in debating the existence of God. As far as I know the origins are unknown. In brief the story follows two philosophers debating the nature of the world. One posited that the world was flat and rested on the back of a turtle. The other philosopher asked “well what does that turtle rest on.” The first replied “well another bigger turtle of course,” The second asked again “and that turtle” – “another larger turtle” --- on this went until the first philosopher exasperated exclaimed “Don’t you know it is turtle’s all the way down.”   David Hume argued that there must be a “bottom most turtle” – an “unmoved mover.” For Hume this “unmoved mover” was the fundamental being that set the universe in motion - God. Bertrand Russel pointed out that if there can be anything without a cause than it may as well be the universe or the big bang as any given deity. His point was that any ideology must start with an assumption. There must be a “bottom most turtle.” In geometry we call this the axiom. It is a self-evident truth upon which we will begin to prove all other things. For Descartes it was “I think therefore I am”, for science it is the idea of empiricism. I trust what I can touch, taste, see, hear, and smell.

Scientific method/theory begins by examining what is readily apparent to the senses. A scientist analyzes the data that is readily available to their senses and formulates a theory to explain their observations. They then test and refine this theory through a structured observation method we call experimentation. This is a key characteristic of science – theories are derived from observation and tested with observation. The data is the ultimate authority – theories do not come from other authorities such as the decree of God or Church. The fundamental difference between science and other disciplines arises out of the starting point, the bottom most turtle. For philosophy and law it is logic. For theologians it is “the word of God” or the official exegesis of “The Church.” For science it is data.  The tension between these two world views has been felt from the time of Copernicus. Copernicus’ crime was trusting his data and theory over “The Church’s” interpretation of “The word of God.” Many of these fights between conclusions reached by different ways of knowing continue on today. One need only watch how evolution is handled in public schools to understand that “The word of God” remains the bottom most turtle for many Americans. Interestingly enough, all these years later the Catholic church finds itself in agreement with Copernicus and no one considers a heliocentric model of the universe heretical. Rather most people assume that this is the “Truth” simply the way things are – despite the fact that it too, like gravity, is simply a theory – ‘unsettled science” I could find internet article disputing.

Perhaps one of the most confusing and difficult things for lay people to understand about science is the way in which science progresses. Most other major disciplines, including philosophy, theology and law, rely on logic and debate. Science does not. Your differing opinion in the face of my data amounts to a pile of beans. You can quote as many bible verses as you want or build the most fascinating and unique logical arguments but you will never convince a biologist that adaptation, speciation and evolution do not exist. First, you are using the wrong methods. Second, what you are arguing for flies in the face of the orthodoxy they have dedicated their life to, an orthodoxy and scientific cannon resting on over a century of empirical observation and experimentation. Your attempts to disprove evolution with bible/logic are equivalent to attempts to disprove the existence of God with science/data. Both arguments fall on deaf ears. Because neither side trusts the other’s authority. What is data when you have the divine word of God?  Truth be told the real issue is that two people are fighting an argument about one thing but taking sniper shots at each other’s turtle stacks.

Science can and does change through its own process. This process was best explained by Thomas Kuhn in his seminal book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” I highly recommend this masterpiece to anyone interested in the philosophy of science. In brief, Dr. Kuhn argues that science is an iterative process in which successive theories progress away from error. Science tends to operate and grow under conditions of stability when a broadly accepted theory tends to be consistent with the data. Science then begins to become unstable when the prevailing theory stops explaining enough data points. At this point, science experiences a revolution and undergoes a paradigm shift (yes Thomas Kuhn coined that term), where the old theory is replaced by a new one that explains the data better. We cannot necessarily say that the new theory is a better approximation of Truth. We can only say that it more accurately describes the data we currently have. Thus, science progresses away from error, not necessarily towards truth.  Kuhn illustrates this with the history of theories of atomic structure. If we recall from our high school chemistry classes we started with Dalton’s theory of atoms, and progressed on through the plumb pudding model, Bohr’s model and ultimately arrived at modern quantum mechanics. Here is a brief write up if you need a refresher https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-atomic-theory-4129185#:~:text=Atomic%20theory%20originated%20as%20a,t%20based%20on%20empirical%20data. 

The key understanding is that science frequently settles on well accepted theories and that these theories do change. Note the method of change here – it is not that someone came up with a theory that is more compelling or has a nicer argument. The old theory is discarded because it fails to account for the current data and it is then replaced by another theory that is better at explaining the data. If you want to replace the current scientific theory you then have to show two things. 1: The current theory fails to explain the current data 2: Your theory is better at explaining the data. If flat earthers want to convince us all that the earth is flat, they have to show us that current scientific models based on spherical earths fail to have predictive value and that new models based on a flat earth do have better predictive value. Same thing for anything – you hate masks or vaccines, show that they are ineffective and give us a better solution to the problem. Your “research” has no valid basis in true science --- youtube videos and conspiracy theories, no matter how convincing or seemingly authoritative, cannot refute science. They are a false-hood sold to you by politically or economically motivated hacks who have departed from the safe haven of mainstream science. Sometimes these people are even academics

I think of the well-respected engineering professor at BYU who published research and toured the nation hawking his 9/11 conspiracy theories. – Steven E. Jones                                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones. After a short time, Dr. Jones and the university agreed he would retire. Many people in fringe communities cite this as academic discrimination. Indeed it is discrimination but the real question ought to be is it bad discrimination. One of the primary functions of academic institutions – and their hoods – is to bestow authority and propagate science. Implied in this is an essential gatekeeping function. Anything that is not considered legitimate mainstream science is disavowed in order to preserve the integrity of the field. This highlights the fact that science is resistant to change. The primary motive of the field is to preserve its integrity – scientific revolution only comes under extreme conditions and the burden of proof will always be on the outside as they are fighting against the established orthodoxy established by years of science and evidence. 

 Don’t get me wrong. I know the appeal of these theories. There was a time during my studies that I was pursuing a second master’s degree, this one in theology with an emphasis on science and religion. This brought me in contact with brilliant theologians, leaders in their fields, whom I respect to this day. During this time, I was in a workgroup consisting of scientists throughout the university who were similarly working to combine science and Christian theology. My time here was exhilarating. We were academic rebels bringing the Word of God to all those heathen Godless scientists. At that time, I was so deeply immersed in my Christian faith – and self-denial - everything I did and said needed to fit into my theological box. No matter what the new data was I had to find a way to make it work with my preexisting world view. Changing my worldview was in no way an option. I had the word of God which was impregnable-anything else was subordinate and needed to be ignored or made to fit with what I knew was Truth as laid down by God’s word-be that scripture or the voice of the prophet.

One of my colleagues from this time stands out in my mind. He was a biologist who was working on the tree of life project (http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/popular.html), the goal of which is to map out an evolutionary tree of species based on the assumption that multiple forms of life sprung into existence simultaneously and fully evolved, rather than evolving from a single common ancestor. This is one of the most pernicious types of false-hoods. For starters, it is a very convincing counterfeit supported by a legitimate academic institution, all be it in the theology department NOT a scientific one. This is exactly the point – despite having all the trappings of legitimate science it remains a counterfeit that lacks true scientific authority. You will recall science starts with a theory developed from observable data which is then tested in a process based on the assumption of empiricism. Even though this appears to be science, it is theology under the guise of science. It certainly uses the methodology of science but it starts with all the wrong assumptions. The intent is not to test a theory based on observation but to prove a theology utilizing scientific methodology. We have shifted from an exploratory system to a confirmatory one and insisted to have the authority of science while jettisoning the actual theoretical foundations of science. Worse yet, this approach weaponized the methodology of science to attack both the theoretical underpinnings and the cumulated knowledge of the field. This type of falsehood is particularly malignant as the aim is not to find the next iteration of theory that is the least erroneous, but to supplant settled scientific wisdom with theology. These practitioners seek rebellion not revolution. I believe that what we can call this is empirically validated theology. Similarly, we might argue for empirically validated philosophy ect. I would not call it science if it does not start from empiricism and coincide with established scientific cannon.     

I have great sympathy for the theologically motivated perpetrators of false-hoods. They are sincere and genuinely believe they are improving the world and doing “God’s work.” Unfortunately, not everyone’s motives are as pure. In their book “Merchants of Doubt” (https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/), historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway lay out the long history of a small number of scientists employed by chemical companies and the tobacco industry. These scientists intentionally and knowingly produced research with the intent of obscuring scientific consensus and creating doubt about well-established science such as the harms of DDT, tobacco’s link to cancer and human causes of climate change. They detail a clear strategy that they call “The Tobacco Strategy”, in which well-paid scientists publish dissenting opinions and challenge well established science in order to make it seem as if “there is not enough data” and “the issue is not settled.”  The sad truth of the world we live in is that whether it is financially or ideologically motivated, there is no shortage of scientists and other experts willing to dawn false-hoods and work to discredit consensus based mainstream science. Sadder yet is the truth that the American public remains largely over-informed and under-educated; such that they have proven incapable of distinguishing these imposters from genuine scientific experts. Unfortunately for us, this has had very real life and death consequences – as demonstrated during the COVID pandemic and the broader anti-vaxxer movement which has led to the resurgence of illnesses like measles.

This is part one of what I hope will be a three part series. In the next part I will be applying these ideas to an analysis various written arguments for and against gender affirming care. In part three I plan to discuss why this issues is so important to me by outlining my personal involvement with false-hoods and the ways in which they have impacted my life.