“[T]here are all kinds of sources of our knowledge; but none has authority.”

— Karl Popper, On The Sources of Knowledge and of Ignorance

In today’s society, the label “scientific” has become a shield of sorts, allowing individuals to protect their ideas from criticism by capitalizing on the widely respected status of science. Such a trend is ironic because a theory is scientific to the extent it makes itself vulnerable to criticism and testing.

Perhaps Peter Thiel described the contemporary situation best¹:

“In the name of science, we’ve done these rather unscientific things. I often think that when people use the word ‘science’, it’s to tell of the opposite. The things that are actual science, like physics and chemistry—you don’t need to call them ‘physical science’ or ‘chemical science’ because you don’t need to protest that much, like Lady Macbeth. But when you call things ‘climate science’ or ‘political science’, that’s sort of a tell that they’re not quite scientific, and there is this very strange derangement that’s happened in science.”

Politicians often use the phrase “follow the science” as a powerful rhetorical tool. This phrase suggests that their policy positions are not mere opinions or preferences but are based on objective, indisputable facts. By invoking the authority of science, they seek to bolster their own credibility and silence debate, insinuating that those who disagree are “anti-science”.

However, such dogmatic moralizing runs counter to the very essence of scientific inquiry and is no different from religious zealotry. Science is about questioning, testing, and refining our understanding of the world; it is not a shield behind which to hide when faced with tough questions.

Furthermore, science cannot prescribe policy. Science can—always fallibly—inform us about how the world works, but it can’t tell us what we ought to do. That’s a matter of values, priorities, and trade-offs. For instance, science can explain that burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide, but it can’t tell us whether the benefits of using these fuels outweigh the negative impacts. Such decisions are ours to make and are not within the scope of what science can determine for us.

Scientific predictions stem from scientific explanations. They are reliable only to the extent that they are accompanied by a good explanation of why future human knowledge and choices will not impact them. Otherwise, it is more appropriate to label them as prophecies rather than predictions.

The modern religion casts man as the devil and offers no God or savior. However, the reality is that humans possess the unique ability to generate knowledge. This capability enables us to transform an indifferent—often brutal—natural world to our own advantage. Far from being mere consumers, people are fundamentally creators. Recognizing and celebrating human ingenuity, rather than demonizing it, is essential. We should be proud of our achievements and continue to strive for progress and error-correction ad infinitum.

Further Reading

Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less by Alex Epstein

Follow me on X: @arjunkhemani

Click here to support my work.