A Healthy Dose of Doubt?

Doubt is a fundamental part of the scientific process. Ideal science, in the philosophy of Karl Popper, is rare, perhaps unattainable. Nevertheless, we are instructed as students of science that "good science" is falsifiable science, and although Science seeks to identify truths, the term "prove" is a naughty word. Indeed, doubt has been a critical component of some of the most historically significant discoveries and controversies: the earth is round, the sun is the center of the solar system, germs cause disease. And doubt is a crucial part of the scientific community today -- for example, discrediting the work which concluded that vaccines cause autism.

Conversely, some doubt (which interestingly is not generated from those with scientific backgrounds) is counter-productive to scientific policy, and misleading to millions of less-educated Americans. On my drive to school this morning, NPR's Morning Edition ("In GOP Presidential Field, Science Finds Skeptics") covered the growing phenomenon of Republican presidential candidates voicing doubt about the accepted scientific conclusions on evolution, climate change, and even epidemilogical trends:

"At the time, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, who started her political career fighting for creationism to be taught in schools alongside evolution, said at a campaign rally that perhaps God was sending signals to politicians in Washington.

"You'd think by now they'd get the message," Bachmann said. "An earthquake, a hurricane ... are you listening?"

When asked about that by reporters, Bachmann said clearly she was joking. But she's made similar comments before. In April 2009, she talked to a conservative news website about the recent outbreak of swine flu.

"I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then, under another [Democratic] president, Jimmy Carter," she said. "And I'm not blaming this on President Obama; I just think it's an interesting [coincidence].""

Goodness gracious. And although Michele Bachmann seems exceptionally skilled at producing heretical soundbites, she is hardly alone in her beliefs.

I think this editorial sums up my concerns for the rejection of rational scientific conclusions (i.e. global warming, evolution) by presidential contenders. (An editorial in the New York Times makes some of the same points with some poilicy-specific details.) Mr. Timmer's conclusion is most apt: votes will likely be placed by merit of economic viewpoints, not necessarily scientific policy. Nevertheless, once November is over and the ballots are counted, it is the entire elected offical who takes office, not just his or her economic policy. The situation sets up a void for independent voters who value both fiscal conservatism and fact-over-faith-based scientific/technology/education/health care policies. Perhaps, and hopefully, Jon Huntsman will use this to his advantage (but to be honest, I didn't know anything about him until today).