The strange paradox of the denial of modern science

“It’s hilarious what these astrophysicists have to say about the Universe.” This is a sentence (and not verbatim) which appeared in the comments under a video of my recent 3.5 hour interview with Lex Fridman. Fridman is a popular podcaster with a keen interest in the “big questions” of science and philosophy. Our discussion explored a wide range of topics: planet formation; astrobiology (the study of life in the Universe); information and the fundamental nature of life; experience and consciousness; and the blind spots of the philosophy of science. It was, as the Canadians say, “Big Fun”.

However, despite my better judgment, I occasionally looked at the social media reaction to our discussion. Most people were asking questions with some really interesting takes. But alongside some positive reactions, there was, as always, a current of scientific denial embodied by the quote at the top of this article. After years of science communication, I am no stranger to denial in all its forms. I have received my share of threats based on my writing on climate science. My work on technosignatures (e.g. detecting technological civilizations on exoplanets) has also earned me the ire of many true UFO supporters. But the type of denial embodied in this quote is different. This is worth exploring for a moment because it reveals an important feature of the saturated, science-denying age in which we live.

The paradox of the denial of modern science

The person who wrote this “hilarious” comment was not denying that science was possible. He or she was not saying there was a hoax intended to deceive the public. And they also did not pretend to conceal existing data, as can happen with UFO enthusiasts. Instead, they claimed that even if a science describing the Universe East It is possible that the scientists who do this science are completely wrong. To the author of this comment (and others I found like them), astrophysicists are idiots. When I followed their rabbit holes, I saw scientists portrayed as narrow-minded fools, too conservative or preoccupied with their own status to consider alternative ideas (i.e. the ones these people advocate).

I’m old enough to remember the pre-social media era, when there was a name for people like this: “cranks.” At that time, every scientist received an occasional letter from someone claiming that they had solved quantum gravity or proven that the “plasma universe” could explain everything that the Big Bang couldn’t explain. Most of these letters were friendly. Sometimes no.

In the realm of social media, however, what was once a loner has become an account with 100,000 angry followers. While I might be offended by the way these people describe researchers in my field (and I’m sure I must be included in their criticism), what interests me about this current of science denialism is the strange contradiction that lies at the heart of the enterprise.

Claiming that what these astrophysicists have to say about the Universe is “hilarious” simultaneously undermines what he wants to say. These deniers admit that there are astrophysicists who spend decades training in mathematics, computer science, and technology. And with this training, these astrophysicists are clearly building incredibly powerful telescopes that collect data across the galaxy or Universe. This training also gives astrophysicists the ability to transform raw instrument data into precise cosmic images, maps or spectra, or anything else. The important point is that no one has a problem admitting that this process is how we see the Universe for which we then want to develop theories.

It is precisely at this point that a remarkable contradiction appears. Somehow, even if these astrophysicists have the skills to provide all this data, they cannot be trusted to come up with useful theories to explain this data. This task, according to these kinds of denialists, is best left to some random dude in his mother’s basement. And if this guy has amassed a few hundred thousand followers, that’s further proof that he’s the one to listen to. The back and forth I find between accounts of people who take this kind of position is fascinating because they use the fruits of science to deny science. They use images taken by Mars Rovers or data from the James Webb Space Telescope to claim that existing scientific narratives are all stupidly false. But they do so without acknowledging the science (and scientists) it took to obtain the content (i.e. data) on which their denial is based.

You might say none of this matters: Of course there are weirdos on the internet and we don’t need to pay attention to them. There is truth in this position. But if you look deeper, I think you’ll discover an important paradox that has been apparent for over a decade. Never has human society been so dependent and closely linked to the fruits of science. Without it, billions of people would have died. And yet, somehow, trust in science as an institution is declining. The type of denial I’m talking about here is a manifestation of this. The highly publicized incident with actor Terrence Howard doing crazy claims about math and science on Joe Rogan’s podcast is another example. For too large a fraction of the population, the science they are surrounded by – science that requires years of training to understand; the science on which their lives depend – can be considered suspect. For what? Well… just because.

Science absolutely needs skepticism to progress. But have skepticism about For any particular scientific result, you must first understand how skepticism works. In science. This means having a thorough knowledge of the science toward which you direct your skepticism. This is not what is happening now in the age of social media science denial, computer propaganda, and other “large-scale” information (or disinformation) distribution systems.

And this is the real paradox at the heart of science denial. It is the tools developed by science that make this possible.