The March for Science

22 April 2017


Science has a political problem, but science as an institution is not prepared to face up to its political problem. Worse, institutionalized science is prepared to dig itself in deeper into its political problem with the March for Science today, which will present scientists to the public as activists.

Science is an institution of western civilization — I would argue the central institution of contemporary western civilization — which latter is, in turn, a macro-institution made up of many other institutions. Big science means institutionalized science; institutionalized science means, in turn, an institution integrated with other institutions, including political institutions. So, as many of the backers of the March for Science have insisted, science cannot avoid being political. But not being able to avoid political entanglements is quite a different matter from consciously and purposefully promoting, in the mind of the public, science as a form of activism and the scientist as an activist.

Lawrence M. Krauss touched on part of the problem in an article for Scientific American, March for Science or March for Reality? Hostility toward the former is troublesome, but hostility toward the latter is the underlying issue, in which he wrote, “The March for Science could then appear as a self-serving political lobbying effort by the scientific community to increase its funding base.” But it is not only the problem of appearing to be self-serving, but the appearance of serving an ideology, that is the problem.

Krauss cited Richard Feynman to the effect that, for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled, and Philip K. Dick to the effect that, Reality is that which continues to exist even when you stop believing in it. Krauss does not cite the also applicable quote from Ayn Rand: “We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” This oversight is understandable; Ayn Rand is quite clearly not the kind of figure that the organizers or supporters of the March for Science would want to invoke. The whole populist movement and its isolationist orientation is far too redolent of Rand’s character John Galt. The fact that Ayn Rand doesn’t fit the March for Science narrative tells us something important about the implicit politics of the March for Science.

Though the organizers of the March for Science have made a point to emphasize the non-partisan nature of the march, this claim in disingenuous, and, indeed, those marchers who insist that science cannot avoid being political are explicitly recognizing the political nature of the march.

Inevitably, the March for Science has become political, despite protestations to the contrary, and it has become political in ways that the organizers would prefer not to recognize. You can read about this in Why the ‘March for Science’ Is in Turmoil: A departure from leadership is highlighting diversity issues less than a week before the march by Tanya Basu, which discusses the departure from the organizers of Jacquelyn Gill, who posted a series of remarks on Twitter explaining the reasons for her departure.

Although institutionalized science has bent over backward to accommodate the hypersensitive contemporary university climate and its sometimes bizarre, sometimes petty, demands that it places upon scholars and researchers, the complaint is that the march has been insufficiently solicitous of those who would play the victim card (and of those who claim to be the representatives of the oppressed and the downtrodden) and whose demands for activism on the part of institutionalized science have not been met to their satisfaction. (Note: these demands cannot be met, and are not intended to be met, but are rather intended to be used as a cudgel against those in positions of power.)

There was an article in Nature (one of the world’s leading science journals), How the March for Science splits researchers: Nature asked members of the scientific community whether or not they plan to march on 22 April — and why by Erin Ross, which included a quote from Nathan Gardner, who put his finger on the problem:

“I am not going to the March for Science, because people in America view science as leftist. Maybe it’s because [former US vice-president] Al Gore launched ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. I’ve seen articles from right-wing outlets that are framing the march as focusing on gender equality and identity politics. I think it could easily politicize science because, even though the march’s mission statement isn’t anti-Trump, the marchers seem anti-Trump.”

This, in a nutshell, is science’s political problem, the problem it does not want to acknowledge, and the problem it is not prepared to address, because to address it head-on would be too painful. There has been a lot of talk about respecting the evidence and the need for a frank recognition of what science tells us, but this commitment is exercised lopsidedly. If you want to talk about hostility to reality, as Krauss would have it, consider the institutional response to scientists who have dared to research “no go” areas of knowledge that contradict the dominant social narrative of our time.

In recent decades, science has largely respected the “no go” areas of the left, and has sometimes enthusiastically embraced the ideological agenda of the left. (Jonathan Haidt and his Heterodox Academy have been particularly effective in pointing out the lack of diversity of opinion in academic science.) While the left has had its “no go” areas largely respected, the “no go” areas of the right and of traditionalists have not been respected, and it is not at all unusual to see their failures gleefully pointed out in the spirit of iconoclasm. Certainly, there was a time in the past when academic institutions slavishly respected the “no go” areas of the traditionalists, but these days are long behind us. And I am certainly not suggesting that anyone’s “no go” areas should be respected. Ideally, scientific research would take place without respect to anyone’s feelings or ideologies, but it is dishonest to carefully avoid offending one side while poking and prodding the other side.

While I think that the March for Science will do more harm than good, it is not likely to have much of an impact, so if it makes people feel good about themselves to go marching and waving signs and chanting call-and-response rituals, it probably doesn’t matter much. The loss to science will be only incremental. But if it is followed by more incremental politicization of science, then our entire civilization will be threatened by the death of a thousand cuts to the ideal of an objective, disinterested, and dispassionate science that tells us as much as we are capable of understanding at present, whether we want to hear it or not. There is no tonic for the soul quite like an unwelcome truth, and science has been masterful at administering these draughts in the past. I hope that science does not lose this talent.

. . . . .


. . . . .

Grand Strategy Annex

. . . . .


6 Responses to “The March for Science”

  1. xcalibur said

    Leftist ideology has been pervasive in society. The populist uprising, along with the alt-right, must be understood as a response to leftism as well as to neoliberal globalization.

    I too have noticed that conservative taboos (family values, decency, etc.) have been mocked for their pretensions and violated on a regular basis. But I think progressive taboos have gone further than the “staunch, uptight conservatives” ever have. These include apologetic accommodation for minorities of all kinds, as well as a form of environmentalism that has taken on religious overtones. And as the alt-right and populists violate leftist taboos, they are met with furious indignation (even though they’re playing the same game the left once played against the conservatives).

    The religious aspect of environmentalism is important, because it ties directly into the current state of institutionalized science. According to this religion, anthropogenic global warming is an infallible truth, and it will bring about the end of the world; unless we do penance by paying indulgences and self-flagellating for carbon dioxide emissions. I wish I were saying this in the spirit of satire, but it’s an accurate description of the current state of affairs.

    But science is not an ideology, it’s an empirical and rational tool for understanding reality. Distorting the scientific method with ideological convictions is a threat to the integrity of science as an institution, which in turn poses a threat to the West as a whole. And the left has proven its willingness to disregard reality, whether in the name of global warming, diversity & tolerance, or myriad gender identities. These absurdities have played no small role in the rise of populism and the alt-right, who combat the real consequences of imagined ideals.

    • geopolicraticus said

      I agree that this account of environmentalism sounds like satire, but it is painfully accurate. It also discredits the real science behind environmentalism and ecology, which is then viewed as suspect by those who have not had a conversion experience.

      Interestingly, Jordan Peterson in some of his lectures has discussed some of the research he and his students have been doing on contemporary social attitudes, and they have found that the social justice ideology is distinct from traditional left/liberal ideology. I strongly suspect that the alt-right is similarly distinct from traditional right/conservative ideology. We are witnessing the emergence of two ideologies loosely affiliated with traditions deriving from the French Revolution and inculcated into western societies as the Enlightenment Project, but now which are nearing the end of their effective lifespans and are incrementally being replaced.

      As someone who cares about the fate of civilization, this concerns me. The rise of extreme ideologies is a threat to the rationalist core of the western tradition, perhaps an existential threat. Those nation-states that have gone the farthest in enacting ideological legislation with no scientific basis — I am thinking of Canada and Sweden — will be the petri dishes for these ideologies.

      I am working on a post about the potential for ideological conflict emerging from this milieu.

      Best Wishes,


      • xcalibur said

        I think there are genuine issues vis a vis ecology and the environment, but they’re obscured by the environmentalist religion.

        I agree with that assessment. I believe that these new ideologies are a significant force, and will be influential in the years to come. I think they’re still in their growth phase and have not even reached full expression just yet.

        I’d like to conclude with an excerpt I ran across while reading/researching, which is highly relevant:


        Unfortunately, far too many misguided people now believe in industrial science, in the sense that if a scientist says something, then it must be true. The key word is believe; which means accepting the truth of something not known to be true from direct or verifiable knowledge, or practical experience.

        Crafts, trade and business people do not believe in their tools, they know and use them with skill and discrimination. Scientists verify and validate knowledge, by systematic research and development and objective measurement. It is difficult for some people to understand that science is a knowledge-based methodology, not a belief system.

        Industrially based, colonial societies tend to believe in concrete and steel in much the same way the economic rationalists believe in the abstract market place. They are implicit beliefs and assumptions that have grown to become industrial and colonial myths.

      • geopolicraticus said

        Just to supply the reference for your quote, it is from, “Colonial Myths — Cultural Realities: Sustainable Development in the South Pacific” by Haikai Tane.

        I skimmed Tane’s essay, and it seems to me to be very much of two minds about science. Selectively reading it, I could agree with it or condemn it; taking it all together, there is a lot of cognitive dissonance here.

        Best wishes,


      • xcalibur said

        Indeed, that’s why I didn’t post the link. It’s not the overall paper that stands out, it’s that particular passage — it captures what science is, and how it is misunderstood and misused.

      • geopolicraticus said

        Agreed. There is a pervasive confusion between science as a knowledge-based methodology and science as a belief system. It sounds really petty at times (or maybe silly), but I go out of my way to employ locutions that do not involve saying that I “believe” in a scientific theory. I also avoid saying that scientific theories are true (or false), but try to restrict myself to degree of confirmation.

        Best wishes,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: