Science Denialism and Pseudoscience

Even though we live in an age where we understand more about the natural and human world than ever, and have taken as much advantage of it as possible to improve our quality of life, there has been and always will be various groups of people who reject what it says. This may be done out of distaste for science and scientists, unwillingness to hear what it says, or simply just refusing to understand it.

Of course our personal desires for the truth don't have any effect on it. While society at large has been gradually moving away from religious thinking, that does not mean we are all becoming more scientifically literate and ready to accept the scientific consensus on issues we don't know enough about to make an informed position. With religion, it's understood to be in the realm of the fantastical and, for lack of a better word, magic. The reason why a lot of educated people in developed countries remain as theists throughout their lives more has to do with them not really taking a lot of time to really think about why they believe in whatever God they were raised to believe in and what the evidence for one would be. They have an intuitive understanding of 'faith' as something that is overtly about just accepting things without evidence, which is obvious as to why it's irrational; If they ever take time to think about and discuss religion, more often than not they'll either shift to becoming deists, or they'll possibly start calling themselves "agnostics," with the occasional atheist here and there.

But religion is fairly easy to see as to why it isn't all that rational to believe in. Faith is a dubious reason to believe in just about anything, and pretty much all of the arguments in favor of the traditional view of a God are either flimsy assertions or flat out uncompelling arguments. The same can not be said for pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience

Science is all about trying to understand and figure out the natural world as objectively as possible, but it's evil counterpart, Pseudoscience, tends to be much more attractive for the majority of people in one way or the other.

Pseudoscience at it's core is nothing more than a heap of nonsensical claims that hides itself under the veil of rigorous sounding terminology in order to come off as legitimate science to the layman, without any of the methodology or evidence that is present in actual science. Those who pedal Pseudoscience either due it out of ignorance, stupidity, greed, evil, apathy, or possibly some combination of the traits therein.

Pseudoscience comes in all forms, and basically all demographics can fall prey to it (yes, even across the political spectrum). There seems to be this idea that people on the right are more likely to fall for pseudoscience with creationism, climate change denial, mental illness denial, and embracing of religious alternative medicines such as faith healing, many on the left fall for pseudoscience too, just different types, with opposition to nuclear energy, opposition to GM technology, Critical Race Theory, and embracing of new-age alternative medicines such as acupuncture.

For just about every field of science, there is a laundry list of pseudosciences that can be found in each, in both natural and social sciences, each competing with the real thing. In the physical sciences there exists astronomy against astrology, in biology there's evolution against creationism.

Real science is hard. It's complicated and hard to understand. It might even make us uncomfortable. We reject and are fearful of what we don't understand. People don't understand nuclear power, GM technology, and vaccines, even though these are technologies that can and have already save millions if not billions of lives.

How people misunderstand how science works

There's a pervasive view in circles for all sorts of pseudoscience supporters (creationists, TFES, Vaccine Denialism) that sees the science that goes against their views as a religion in and of itself (which is a major case of projection). What is meant by this is that they think scientists treat what they think (the scientists) as a religion; They think that scientists have their own quasi-religion where they never question well-established principles. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Science] has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised. -Carl Sagan

(For the record, the quote warns against scientists using arguments from authority to support their position, since it's their jobs to get the evidence for it; When applied to a scientific authority, it has significant value for the layman)

What these pseudoscience endorses fail to realize is that science is all about proving each other wrong. Falsifiability is paramount in science. If something can not be demonstrated to be false, then it's not given consideration.

If you were to say that all the well-established concepts in science, such as e=mc^2, the Earth not being flat, evolution were false, how come not one person who has attempted to debunk these concepts has ever won a Nobel Prize for their amazing discoveries? That's actually one of the main motivators of disproving popular scientific ideas. Imagine for a moment how famous and revered you would be by not only scientists but by the general public for being the person who was able to prove that Einstein or Darwin were wrong about the discoveries that made THEM famous and revered? Why WOULDN'T anyone try to achieve that with THAT level of motivation?

Scientists just don't bother trying to refute these things because they know they can't because they're so well-proven it's impossible to disprove them. If these things were wrong, they would've shown to be as such a long time ago. And similarly, scientists don't really spend any time trying to refute the "evidence" that goes against science, not because they are unable to, but because the arguments that presented are so profoundly idiotic that it's not even worth the time trying to address it, since the pseudoscience promoter in question is obviously not bothering with gaining an understanding of the basics before making their claims on the subject. If someone is going to insist that 2+2=3, would you bother trying to show that person why he or she is wrong, or would you just give up trying to convince them? What hope does this person have of understanding anything in mathematics even slightly more sophisticated than basic addition? That may sound like an unfair comparison, but that's more or less what for example evolutionary biologists think when creationists regurgitate arguments such as "If people came from monkeys, den why are dere still monkeys????" or "There ain't no transitional fossils!!!", as if no scientist has ever considered these questions. These arguments for example are incredibly easy to refute for literally anyone who spends twenty minutes availing themselves of the related scientific literaure. Imagine how frustrating it would be for a person who has dedicated their entire lives to studying and researching evolution.

Are scientists biased?

All human beings are inherently biased. Almost all of us are unwilling to admit it, but it's an undeniable fact of our nature. We are all prone to different biases; negativity bias, self-serving bias, anchoring, but the one that is universal and is regarded as likely the most dangerous bias that affects humanity is the confirmation bias.

Recognizing these limitations on human ability, there exists an incredibly reliable and intricate system within science, which is what relieves us of these biases; we have our observations peer-reviewed, and follow a very rigorous process in order to minimize any potential flaws in our way of thinking. You need to follow the scientific method in order to make sure you have the most objective results possible, and this all comes down to just observing and hypothesizing about what you currently know. In science, if you are seeking to prove a particular thing, you've already lost (see confirmation bias). That's how science used to operate in antiquity, which pretty much just consisted of a bunch of bearded gentlemen having observational musings of the world around them and then proceeded to find evidence to fit those preconceived notions. They weren't stupid, mind you; They did the best they could with what little they had, and by the standards of their day, they were highly knowlegable and overall great thinkers, and were almost definitley geniuses. But they lived in a time where even their great yet flawed minds could not be kept in check.

Scientists of all ages are prone to biases too; They, like the rest of us, WANT to believe in things like the supernatural or the afterlife. There seems to be this idea that scientists are too practical-minded and are biased against ideas of the fantastical, but historically, it can't be further from the truth.

Scientific Consensus

It'd be difficult for the average person to deduce the real science from the bullshit, but a rule of thumb is to just go along with the scientific consensus.

When people say you should “trust the science,” they’re saying that YOU, as a lay person who has little or no formal education on the topic, aren’t in any position to question it. The scientists on the other hand are in a position to make claims because I dunno they dedicated their whole lives to understanding and researching their field? So what the hell would they know, huh?

This is why it makes sense to defer to the scientific consensus when you don’t know anything about a subject; Admitting you don’t know and that there are people smarter and more learned than you on many subjects is one of the most basic principles of epistemology.

And before you say any bullshit about how “science is always changing” lemme just say that that’s a very widely believed myth. It’s always changing insofar as we’re learning new things.

Of course, yes, we should alter our views if we discover evidence that goes against what we previously believed, but, at least in the natural sciences, this doesn’t really happen that much. A lot of people might point to relativity and say how that replaced the theory of gravity. What they don’t know about that is the fact that the theory of gravity isn’t wrong; it’s still true at lower velocities. Relativity deals with much higher velocities that classical physics wasn’t able to account for.

So gravity is not going anywhere. Relativity is not going anywhere. Evolution is not going anywhere. Germ theory is not going anywhere. Atomic theory is not going anywhere.

And you know what? Even IF science were always changing, you know who would have the authority to change it? Not you. The only people who would be qualified to change science would be scientists.

So no, when you rebel against mainstream scientific authority and say dumb shit like “I ain’t gonna trust what no SCIENTIST has to say!” you aren’t being a free thinker, you’re being a moron. A very arrogant and ignorant moron.

And don’t accuse me of making an appeal to authority fallacy; That’s only a fallacy when the authority in question is not reliable, such as a celebrity or internet influencer. In fact, if you go to the Wikipedia article, it even says “Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.” It does go on to say that ‘others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument,” but it actually didn’t use to say that. I guess since some moron was losing an argument he had to edit it to give himself some validity. I am not necessarily saying that the consensus is guaranteed to be right, just that it’s the best heuristic to use.

Now, if we’re talking softer sciences, psychology, sociology or linguistics, you’d be right in saying that the consensus is always changing, since scientific methodology is pretty lacking, but I still wouldn’t use that as ground to dismiss consensus in these fields, just that we should take these them with more of a grain of salt compared to hard sciences, physics, chemistry.

So while it may seem harmless and in fact helpful to promote the idea that you should “question everything,” when you apply this idea to the scientific consensus, this is extremely harmful ignorance, and it stands in the way of human flourishing.

People have a really bad misunderstanding of what science really is, even. I notice this a lot amongst creationists but it’s pervasive in all pseudoscientific circles, in that they always view beliefs in science as a religion, with sacred truths that must never be questioned. I have quite a bit to say about that, but I’ll keep it bried here.

Science, at it’s core, is an investigation, and it’s our key to understanding the world. If you take time to read some scientific literature, at least when it comes to things that haven’t been studied very extensively, you’ll notice terms such as this may mean, or this suggests, or this implies, because unlike in pseudoscience and religion, scientists don’t like to make bold claims about what they can’t know for certain. So, if you see a consensus that uses certain language such as “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and if the consensus is like 99%, then you know they aren't fucking around.

As applied to Veganism

As meta-activists, we are unfortunately all too well aware of all the bad science that comes from both Vegans and anti-Vegans alike, and both tend to be equally frustrating. Vegan pseudoscience is frustrating because it undermines the animal-rights movement when people make claims that can easily be shown as false with a simple Google search. This makes the movement seem as though it's full of crazy hippie New Age lunatics who live in a deluded world of idealism, or worse yet, a dishonest bunch of charlatans who have some sort of shady ulterior motivations for promoting animal rights. Anti-Vegan pseudoscience is frustrating because it undermines the animal-rights movement when people make claims that can easily be shown as false with a simple Google search. Almost every one of these claims goes against well-established mainstream scientific consensus in various fields, and just delays progress further by not only pedaling pseudoscience that people want to hear, but also since it takes even more time for educated Vegan activists to refute the claims being made, which distracts from the goal of convincing people to go vegan.

The specifics of the pseudosciences won't be discussed here, just a summary of a few of the majors ones will be provided.

Pseudoscience in favor of Veganism

Environment

The documentary "Cowspiracy" presents the environmental argument in favor of veganism. It's one of the strongest arguments in favor of Veganism, since animal agriculture is one of the largest contributers of greenhouse gases which will result in the catastrophic ecological disaster of climate change, which will significantly harm human beings and civilization, particularly in the third world.

The documentary does a good job explaining how this is the case, but the issue arises when they assert that animal agriculture accounts for a little more than half of all global manmade greenhouse gas emissions. This is an absurd claim, and is the result of some serious double-counting. They cite a (apparantly not peer-reviewed) report written by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, which makes the aforementioned claim of animal agriculture causing more emissions than all other sources combined.

More accurate global estimates range from about 16-30% of all global emissions. Even on the lower end, that's still a huge part of our emissions, and there doesn't need to be any outrageous claim to demonstrate the urgency of Vegan diets in the average person's lifestyle if we want to help slow down climate change.

It is true that as far as optional emissions are concerned, that is, emissions not needed to maintain our health, quality of life and economy, they are our largest source unquestionably. We NEED things like heating, transportation, power grids, running water, refrigeration, and a whole bunch of other things to make sure we can provide food and comfort to our population, as well as develop our economy more to increase prosperity and scientific progress. Now, if you're an anarcho-primitivist you'd think that this is fantastic for all parties involved, even if it means that billions will suffer and die terribly and life for the survivors will be nothing misery and struggle, but that's besides the point. But all anthropogenic emissions? Not a chance buddy.

The directors of the movie and the writers of the paper undoubtedly had the best of intentions, but we're very confident that they knew what they were doing with these numbers. Now, MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE, the argument can be made that, if we account for opportunity cost, animal agriculture is (from a technical standpoint), the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, or at least comes much closer to that 50% threshold. Animal agriculture, especially when it comes to beef (which is the largest contributer to emissions from animal agriculture; sheep and lamb are even worse for the environment, but they aren't farmed as extensively as cattle) requires cutting down forests to not only grow the majority of our crops (which COULD be fed to humans) to livestock, but also to have cattle graze. Now, cutting down forests isn't all that bad for the environment if you're going to let them grow back naturally (which would be a major carbon sink), but if you're going to cut down forests just do replace it with something that does even more damage to the environment, yeah, that's where the opportunity cost lies.

Even with that though, it's still a bit of a stretch to assert that it's responsible for more than say a quarter of all emissions; The environmental argument is still incredibly strong either way, but it isn't even the strongest argument in favor of veganism, which would be animal ethics. It is hypothetically possible to live in an eco-modernist society that consumes meat and has a much smaller carbon footprint (which would require switching to Nuclear power and renewables for energy, and GM technology for crops), it would just be much harder. Though if we do reach that point, we'd be advanced enough to develop in-vitro meat at that point in time, which would eliminate our agriculture footprint, but you get what we're trying to say.