We march for science, but who will march with us?: A call for inclusiveness and focus.
We scientists are marching in support of empirical science and its role in setting government policies. We are motivated to do so by the current administration’s complete rejection of empirical science. However, we scientists are not alone in supporting the scientific method’s importance in setting good policy. Indeed, the belief that empiricism has value in setting government policy is so widespread, it raises the question of who we should invite to join us? I assert that how we answer this question will largely determine the success of our endeavor.
I have observed many digressions regarding the motivations of popular science personalities, their legitimacy and, specifically, the question of who should be involved with the March for Science. I have seen these exchanges devolve into debates about should we include science teachers, research librarians, science writers and even engineers. I have observed these comments in many posts on r/MarchForScience/, in other platforms and in private conversations with colleagues. These are distractions. We need to be very vigilant in avoiding the fallacy of “No true Scotsman” arguments. These distractions will undoubtedly undermine why we are here — to show support for empirical science and its role in making government policy.
We should make every effort to be an inclusive movement for everyone that recognizes the danger of policy completely unmoored from data describing reality. Our energy should be focused on the current administration, which does not believe in empirical science, or that it has a role in making policy, or even that science can verify simple facts. Facts as verifiable as the number of people standing on the national mall at two different points in time (1), for example. The Women’s March was largely seen a success because it was inclusive of all women that felt marginalized by the current administration and that inclusivity increased participation. We should seek to emulate this strategy. We paint the starkest contrast between us and the current administration if we can acknowledge that our subtle differences do not prevent us from being focused on our commonalities as empiricists.
The March for Science is a political act in support of empirical science. Therefore, we would be foolish to forego the aid of science popularizers with proven track records of public outreach, all for the sake of maintaining some mistaken convention of purity that ultimately makes us less effective at supporting science. After all, rejecting those with demonstrated success in scientific outreach because of some tangential disagreement would not be very empirical. In this context, it is worth mentioning that Carl Sagan — now widely considered one of the most successful science popularizers of modern time — was once subject to this exact same criticism by his contemporaries (2). Even with these past criticisms in hindsight, it would be difficult to name one of his critics that has done more than Sagan to cement in the popular consciousness the importance of empirical science. As such, I think we can be confident in saying that what matters most in the long term is that the current cohort of science popularizers agrees with our primary assertion: that empirical science is critical in setting successful governmental policy. We maintain the broadest base of support if we converge on this as our primary message. By maintaining focus, we can leverage the existing followings of popular science personalities to quickly spread our concern that opposition to empirical science is why the Trump administration is uniquely dangerous.
I understand the concerns that involvement of these personalities opens us to critique. However, it is important that we maintain inclusivity and welcome the support of like-minded individuals with a talent for addressing the public. While this may open us up to several lines of criticism (e.g. that we are not a movement of “real scientists”, that we are not a grassroots movement) these are secondary concerns to getting our message out, minimizing infighting, and keeping the media focused on our common support of empirical science. Furthermore, it is worth considering that we will face these criticisms regardless since we stand in opposition to an administration and a propaganda apparatus completely unencumbered by our commitment to empirical truth. There is a real danger for us, as with all political movements, that “No true Scotsman” arguments spread discontent and our attempts to maintain ideological purity cause damage to our goal of promoting the important role of empirical science in governmental policy. It would be a tragic thing if we allowed minor differences to divide us, making us fodder for humorists to trot out the same old tropes about teachers & academics, and ultimately undermine the very thing we are here to protect.
The only way we can inoculate ourselves against this danger is to maintain focus on our fundamental commonality: We believe in empirical science and that it should play a fundamental role in determining governmental policy. We cannot let this commonality be undermined by our tendency to disagree with each other over nuance. We have this tendency because our authority as scientists comes from a consensus built on adversarial examination of hard earned data. It is in our nature to disagree and we are more resilient for it. However, we need to acknowledge that while this habit strengthens our empirical arguments, it can devolve into infighting and be taken advantage of in the political realm. The best way to avoid this outcome is to maintain our focus on the role of empirical science has in setting governmental policy and build as board a basis of support for this belief as possible. As such, I think we can take our inspiration from a cautionary aphorism attributed to a scientist who once successfully navigated the treacherous waters of politics: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. “
This essay started as a reddit post which tremendously benefited from the editorial advice of Dianne Bartel, PhD.
(2)http://www.csicop.org/si/show/carl_sagans_life_and_legacy_as_scientist_teacher_and_skeptic
