The War On Science

By Shawn Otto (Milkweed Editions 2016), 514 pages; ISBN: 978-1571313539, $20

In The War on Science Shawn Otto argues that humanity stands at a critical crossroads with the survival of our species contingent on which path we choose moving forward. Unfortunately for us, the optimal path is currently obfuscated by the fog of a war being waged perniciously on scientific ideals and the very foundations of democratic society. The forces of antiscience are attacking these hallowed ideals from multiple fronts without a preferred political persuasion. Left-leaning postmodernist academics elevating subjectivity; journalists overly concerned with preserving a false sense of balance; conservative religious fundamentalists proselytizing their ideologies; and myopic political lobbyists concerned only for their return on investment are amongst the forces Otto describes broadly as antiscientific. As their influence continues to grow the Jeffersonian ideal of a well-informed electorate capable of self-governance and a government guided by rational policy decisions becomes ever more unlikely. We have been left with a fractured society in which most citizens, including our political leaders, are incapable of discerning fact from opinion and evidence based arguments from rhetorical propaganda. According to Otto our current trajectory is wholly unsustainable and has us quickly approaching a catastrophic precipice.

As it weaves its way through 426 pages of history, social commentary, and analysis, Otto’s book frames and then unpacks this war on science leaving us with his proposed battle plan to defeat antiscience and reestablish the Jeffersonian ideal. In “Part I: Democracy’s Science Problem,” the author immediately presents us with the dilemma we are facing. “Vast areas of scientific knowledge and the people that work in them are under daily attack in a fierce worldwide war on science.” Furthermore, “political and religious institutions are pushing back against science and reason in a way that is threatening social and economic stability.” Implicitly invoking the ideals of science as being universal and inherently antiauthoritarian, Otto explains that while the forces of antiscience come from diverse social groups they share a common political end. By undercutting science’s legitimacy, these antiscientists cripple its natural capacity to challenge authoritarianism and tyranny, thereby putting democracy and modernity in peril.

In “Part II: The History of Modern Science Politics” Otto traces the entangled history of democracy and science. While many believe that the United States was founded on a core framework of religious ideals, Otto reminds us that the founding fathers were explicit about creating a separation of church and state and insisted on making scientific ideals the DNA of our democracy. In this relatively short yet grand narrative of the history of modern science, Otto gives us many examples of how science is inherently political, claiming that the process of science continuously questions established authority by developing theories and experiments that can be rigorously tested by anyone. Inevitably, this process leads us to knowledge that is independent of personal belief, independently verifiable, universal, and fundamentally objective.

Time and again, Otto weaves in historical anecdotes of scientific accomplishments like the theories of evolution, relativity, and the big bang, in each case showing how science ended up on opposing battle lines from religious and ideological authoritarians. Then during World War II, science became a literal weapon against fascism and tyranny as scientists harnessed and weaponized scientific concepts like nuclear energy and radar. As science became indispensable to democratic freedom, it became part of a military-industrial complex that placed it on the front lines of the Cold War. While this made science indispensable and well-funded it also made it politically partially complicit as a key cog in the grand machinery of Cold War technological development and ideological propaganda. As a result of science’s changing political status, scientists began to retreat from wider society, deepening the chasm between C.P. Snow’s two cultures. Today, those that inform the public about science (journalists) and those that make public policy decisions (politicians) are guided by a way of thinking that is antithetical to science. Like lawyers in a courtroom, they begin with a particular worldview or goal and selectively use evidence to build a corroborating narrative. It shouldn’t surprise us then that this argumentative rhetorical style has resulted in a polarized and controversial view of science.

In “Part III: The Three-Front War on Science” Otto takes aim at what he considers the primary agents of antiscience. The first front is made up of the postmodern academic intellectuals and activists that sparked the science wars during the 1990s. Using Thomas Kuhn as a framework, they began launching attacks on scientific authority, objectivity, and the scientific method as early as the mid 1960s. These attacks coincided with scientists’ retreat from society thereby allowing relativists and social constructivists plenty of room to discredit science, distort journalism, and give authoritarians ammunition on the other two battle fronts. The second front consists of ideologues from various religious and political persuasions that have latched onto the postmodern ideals of subjectivity and relativism thereby renouncing scientific objectivity and calling into question any scientific fact or theory that challenges their deep-seeded value system. Finally, Otto takes aim at industrial lobbyists and public-relations campaigns funded by corporations that are intent on leveraging scientific non-literacy by disseminating misinformation and deception, shaping public opinion, and ensuring public policy decisions that favor their bottom line. As a prime example, Otto presents a thorough analysis of the deception and public manipulation that surrounds the denial of anthropogenic climate change.

In the final section of the book, “Part IV: Winning the War,” Otto lays out a plan to defeat the antiscientists on all fronts. The crux of his plan begins by resetting how we measure economic reality. Otto claims that the tension between individual freedom and a responsibility for the “commons” is at the center of all our political strife. The myopic accounting practices that fail to recognize externalities like environmental resources as real measurable capital are completely unsustainable. As Otto points out, the threat to our survival is very real and we are running out of time. As a result, he suggests fourteen explicit battle plans. These range in specificity from a general plea to all citizens to get involved and “Do Something” to the creation of a “National Center for Science and Self-Governance” that would explicitly address the eight most pressing vulnerabilities that Otto sees as threatening voters’ ability to be properly informed and self-govern.

My graduate training and subsequent teaching experience in physics, the history of science, and Science, Technology, and Society (STS) studies affords me a perspective that leaves me a bit torn in reading Shawn Otto’s book. On the one hand, I agree with much of Otto’s commentary on our current sociopolitical dilemma and greatly appreciate the thoughtful case studies and analytical insights he brings to our understanding of science and its place in our social fabric. For me, the strength of this book comes after chapter 8. In particular Otto’s analysis of the “controversy” surrounding anthropomorphic climate change is an excellent case study that helps to support his argument. Unfortunately, the framing and setup of this argument is too sprawling and often feels a bit haphazard and superficial. For example, in chapter 8, Otto unpacks the rise of postmodernism and the deepening of the chasm between C.P. Snow’s two cultures. He seems to take particular issue with Kuhn’s work in the history and philosophy of science, yet he significantly misreads Kuhn. Kuhn was trained as a theoretical physicist and absolutely believed in scientific progress and an objective reality. Some subsequent interpretations of Kuhn have extrapolated his paradigmatic concepts and rejected objective reality altogether, but for the most part these are extreme stances. By and large science studies, as a diverse and multidisciplinary field, should not be conflated with extreme forms of relativism.

This speaks to a more fundamental issue I have with The War on Science. At times throughout this book it feels as though Otto stretches and contorts his narrative to overstate intentional conflicts between science and the outside forces of antiscience. While I don’t doubt that conflicts exist, by grouping people into oversimplified categories, we have no choice but to count them as enemies of science. On the other hand, a more nuanced understanding of science studies, for example, might allow science to gain important allies. Finally, while Otto acknowledges that science sometimes fails to live up to its ideals, he avoids holding it accountable for our current predicament. The framing of Otto’s analysis is ‘us against them’ and from that overly-simplified and polarized perspective, we shouldn’t be surprised that the view of science presented is not at all self-critical. Taking a closer look at scientific practice might reveal that some of the responsibility for today’s “War on Science” is rooted in its own internal rhetoric. Einstein once observed that: “science as something existing and complete is the most objective thing known to man. But science in the making, science as an end to be pursued, is as subjective and psychologically conditioned as any other branch of human endeavor.” If we learn to grapple with this difficult dissonance in the very DNA of science, we might take important strides towards a lasting peace.

Jose Perillan
Assistant Professor of Physics & Science, Technology & Society
Vassar College
joperillan@vassar.edu

These contributions have not been peer-refereed. They represent solely the view(s) of the author(s) and not necessarily the view of APS.