The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Orthodoxy in Science

In my article “On the Nature of Scientific Inquiry”, I discuss “Science Branches and Empiricism” and note the Empiricism between Hard Science and Soft Science. Hard Science and Soft Science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. In general, the formal sciences and natural sciences are considered hard sciences, whereas the social sciences and other sciences are described as soft science. This is a difference in Empirical research methods between the hard and soft sciences.

In the Hard Sciences, the Empiricism is rigorous, while in the Soft Sciences, the Empiricism is less rigorous. This is because the Soft Sciences are not conducive to experimentation but are based on observations that can be objective or subjective (and often a mixture of the two) based on the scientist's presumptions and assumptions that are subject to cognitive bias and/or Logical Fallacies. The Soft Sciences often utilize statistical methods that have inherent problems, which I discuss in my article “Oh What a Tangled Web We Weave”. Good scientists will attempt to overcome their cognitive bias and/or Logical Fallacies and ensure their statistical methods are meticulous, but mistakes occur, and disputations are common.

Dissent (a difference of opinion) and Disputation (the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it or a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement) are common in science, especially in the soft sciences. When such dissents and disputations occur, it is acceptable to critique the science, but it is unacceptable to criticize the scientists, as I have explained in my article "Criticism vs. Critique". This is an attitude of tolerance for dissenting and disputing scientific claims and the scientists who assert the claims. This tolerance for dissent and disputations, when based upon the scientific evidence or scientific methodology employed (or that lack thereof), is healthy for the advancement of science and for the betterment of humankind.

However, I have discerned a significant change in this attitude of tolerance for dissent and disputation. This is especially prevalent in the science of Climate Change, COVID-19, and now Transgenderism. Despite the dissenters and disputers having valid scientific points and many times having been proven correct in the long run, they are often initially met with criticism and condemnation by scientists who support the Scientific Consensus and Settled Science. Such criticism and condemnation bespeak of an Orthodoxy in Science resembling Religious Orthodoxy. Much of this Orthodoxy in Science appears to be based on a political progressivism viewpoint. Those scientists that agree with the political progressivism viewpoint are elevated to priesthood, and these priests of the progressive orthodoxy often charge those that disagree with them as spreading heterodoxy.

This Orthodoxy in Science often spills over into the political and social arenas. Progressive ideologues use this Scientific Orthodoxy to advance their political agendas, and at the same time, they utilize "The Three D's (Demonize, Denigrate, Disparage) of Modern Political Debate" to criticize the dissenting and disputing scientists. This is detrimental to science by intimidating into silence those not agreeing with the Scientific Orthodoxy. It can also adversely impact the government funding of science of the dissenting and disputing scientists and the institutions that employ them, which I have termed "Big Bad Science". It is also an assault on the Freedom of Speech of Scientists who dissent and dispute. This is most troubling when it is elected and appointed officials in the government that criticize the dissenting and disputing scientists.

An example of this was in Professor Heriot’s May 24, 2016, testimony to the U.S. Taskforce on Executive Overreach (Testimony of Gail Heriot – On Executive Overreach). California Representative Zoe Lofgren attacked Professor Heriot’s testimony as “offensive.” Lofgren continued, "I think you’re a bigot, lady. I think you are an ignorant bigot." This attack led the National Association of Scholars to respond in a press release, National Association of Scholars (NAS) Defends Gail Heriot in Transgender Controversy.

Such attacks on scientific assertions have become far too common in today’s hyperpartisan political climate. Critiquing all scientific assertions should be encouraged, but criticizing a scientist's assertion (especially those scientists that do not agree with the Scientific Orthodoxy) is deplorable and despicable. This distinction between criticism and critique of scientists should also be remembered in all discourse involving scientific assertions. Otherwise, we endanger the progress of science for the betterment of humankind.