Last month, theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel offered to dissect four pervasive myths about science for us at Big Think.

Naturally wondering which four Siegel would pick, I read the essay over twice. I finally had to accept the fact that he probably, quite sincerely, believes what he is saying, even though it is far removed from the problems faced today.

One can appreciate that he sees science — whatever is actually happening — as a candle in the dark, our bulwark against a demon-haunted world. Glad if this sort of thing gives him comfort but it has little to do with why trust in science has been waning in recent decades. Anyway, let’s look at the myths he points to:

1.) Science is biased by who funds it. “Of course, these claims are completely baseless. Research only gets to be conducted when there’s funding of some type for that research, and the types of research that receive funding frequently depend on whether someone is motivated enough to be willing to pay for it.”

Ethan Siegel“4 pervasive myths that cause us to abandon science,” Big Think, May 16, 2024

I read that one over three times. Obviously, science is going to be biased by who funds it (who is “willing to pay for it”). Our usual followup question is, how badly does the origin of the funds skew the results?

Suppose “Transgender Rights Now!” funds a study showing that Britain and Scandinavia are all wrong in backing away from double mastectomies for teen girls who think they are boys? Does anyone believe that the funding source has no influence on the findings? Siegel assures us piously that other scientists will right the errors. But the reality is that, in controversial situations, the other scientists might be putting themselves in the crosshairs of Cancel Culture if they try to do so. Truth has never had it so easy as Siegel seems to think.

2.) Science is driven by public opinion. “Whenever science begins reaching conclusions that are, shall we say, inconvenient for some people or certain industries, those who would prefer a different outcome take a different tactic than engaging in honest scientific research.”

Siegel, “4 pervasive myths”

Actually, most people who think about the matter are far more concerned with the risk of science being driven by elite opinion. After all, people with good degrees, politically powerful cronies, and funding sources live a world apart from the rest of us.

That fact helps fuel current environment controversies, for example. Case in point: A Canadian cabinet minister warned that summer car trips with the kids would “let the planet burn.” Yet the routine use of jet travel by power brokers in his league is generally politely ignored — most likely by mutual agreement among the brokers. And who would be surprised if scientists focus their attention on research they can get the brokers to fund?

3.) Science is limited to knowing “just the facts” that are uncovered through scientific investigation. “Scientists don’t make recommendations because they have a power-hungry desire to tell us what to do. They make recommendations because they are the ones who both know what needs to be done and also know what interventions will accomplish those ends.”

Siegel, “4 pervasive myths”

No one who lived through the great COVID panic and paid attention to the windmill of conflicting policy would find much reason to believe that “scientists” “know what needs to be done.”

Granted, government scientists had plenty to panic about in 2020. They knew that the United States, for example, was funding gain-of-function virus research at the Wuhan Lab in China, from which it is reasonable to suspect that the virus escaped. Other countries, like Canada, were also involved in what turned into an international disaster. We can empathize with the scientists’ Dr. Frankenstein plight without agreeing that they behaved in a way that should spur trust in science.

4.) Science is immune to even the most legitimate challenges. “Science not only can be challenged, but actually is challenged all the time: most often by the mainstream scientists who study that particular field. Science not only accepts these challenges, but welcomes and thrives on them, with one big caveat: they have to be legitimate challenges on scientific grounds, where the evidence merits challenging the accepted wisdom.”

Siegel, “4 pervasive myths

The devil that lurks in the details is, of course, the question of what evidence “merits challenging the accepted wisdom.” When a given piece of wisdom is accepted by a powerful elite, evidence that challenges it can languish for decades. To take a current example, the lab leak theory of the origin of COVID was a reasonable hypothesis that was branded as a racist conspiracy theory for years, most likely because it was politically inconvenient. In such cases, the truth may eventually begin to come out — after all else fails.

In my comments, I have leaned heavily on the COVID situation because it is recent and widely known. Given the inevitable culture of science, we will surely find similar stories out there. At any rate, Dr. Siegel’s account is a fantasy representation of the science world. At best, it is a comfort to him. At worst, it is the sort of thing that provokes knowledgeable people to trust science less.

You may also wish to read: COVID felled both Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci as heroes. As Wesley J. Smith recounts, more honest researchers were discredited for saying things that Fauci and Collins later admitted to be true. As we find out what really happened, the credibility of our public-health systems has been shattered and “Trust the science!” is becoming a joke.