Pandemic, Populism and the Creep of Scientism
Recently, there have been several articles and books written in response to the alarming trend of indifference some segments of our population have towards seemingly uncontestable facts. Most of the work take a dismissive tone towards those “populist masses” who seem incorrigible in the face of irrefutable data. The solution often proposed to address these reckless renegades is a combination of technocratic censorship, authoritarian travel bans, and the institution of new mechanisms of oversight and social pressure based on China’s social credit system.
In some ways, the panic is understandable. After all, we live in a time of absurdity with wholesale acceptance of positions that would have seemed incompatible with reason and logic twenty years ago. We witness the questioning of basic epidemiology, ballot counting and climate change. We have seen norms of political decorum turned upside down, journalists attacked at rallies, violence incited against peaceful protests, and the list goes on. We also see the stifling of scientific inquiry out of fear that it will be politically weaponized and increased pressure to affirm and promote unscientific and incoherent social positions in the name of inclusivity. Understanding why these things are happening and how we can move forward to create a society where every individual is valued and can flourish should be something we all grapple with.
However, the idea that society will be saved by doubling down on science and logic, as recent articles and opinions have proposed, highlights a flawed philosophical approach increasingly commonplace in STEM-focused academia. First, in an effort to dismiss beliefs unrooted in evidence, the proponents of this view themselves assert certain beliefs without evidence. Take for example, the often cited example that “humans are incapable of reliably deciphering truth from fiction.” On first glance, this would seem to be self-referentially incoherent — since the author and the reader are presumably internal to the set ‘humans’, and therefore, would both be susceptible to mistaking fiction — even the fiction of their constructed epistemology — as fact. Not surprisingly, advocates of this view move to define a ‘type’ of human that is terrible at deciphering truth from fiction and in need of a “common-sense” framework or technocratic approach offered by the proponent. How this ‘type’ is constructed is arbitrary and therefore, begs the question. Increasingly, and perhaps accelerated by the current COVID-19 pandemic, the individuals whose discernment is hopelessly unreliable are those who lack an education and affinity for science. In other words, those who lack scientific education or who look outside of the scientific method for wisdom are the type of people who are unable to decipher truth from fiction and must be illumined. This is a subtle yet important distinction, because not only does it axiomatically equate the concept ‘truth’ with ‘scientific or empirical truth’ without any justification for this belief, it makes the scientist a modern-day prophet.
It is necessary to challenge this idea for its core presupposition: that all truth is scientific truth and is explainable by empirical evidence. As widespread as functional evidentialism is in the scientific community, few have taken the time to fully consider this self-refuting epistemology. For example, since scientific experimentation cannot itself prove this assertion that all truth worth believing is derivable from empirical evidence, the only way to appeal to such a view is to do so axiomatically. Furthermore, truth is understandable only through perception — even empirical evidence, which requires interpretation to be incorporated into a larger construct — and perception itself is contingent on a hierarchy of meaning and values dependent on individual- and societal-level consciousness that cannot be reduced to material causality. Therefore, it begs the question, why are some people maligned as unscientific and intellectually credulous unless they accept this sort of empiricism in faith?
An often cited reason for the seemingly endemic cognitive dissonance among the (especially, non-college educated) populus is that we are wired in this way. The appeal to our neurobiology asserts that “people feel good when they process information that supports their beliefs, even if that information is false” and that “human brains (even very smart ones) are wired to accept inaccurate information.” This circular reasoning effectively side-steps the burden of proof required of the physicalist to explain the causal relationship between matter and consciousness. Of course, Dostoyevsky articulated this neuroessentialism through his character Dmitri in The Brothers Karamazov:
Imagine: inside, in the nerves, in the head―that is, these nerves are there in the brain… (damn them!) there are sort of little tails, the little tails of those nerves, and as soon as they begin quivering… that is, you see, I took at something with my eyes and begin quivering, those little tails… and when they quiver, then an image appears… it doesn’t appear at once, but an instant, a second, passes… and then something like a moment appears; that is, not a moment―devil take the moment!―but an image; that is, an object, or an action, damn it! That’s why I see and then think, because of those tails, not because I’ve got a soul, and that I am some sort of image and likeness. All that is nonsense! Rakitin explained it all to me yesterday, brother, and it simply bowled me over. It’s magnificent, Alyosha, this science! A new man’s arising―that I understand… And yet I am sorry to lose God!.
Dostoyevsky, like his contemporary Nietzsche, understood with great insight the consequence of this physicalist worldview. It has become so pervasive in our modern age to almost be unquestionable. We are merely the sum of our parts (predetermined from our neurobiology none-the-less!), and the only thing standing in the way of our scientific and political progress is our failure to accept this fact, to do away with traditions (the current modern obsession with ridding academia of the ‘sage on the stage’), character-building processes like delayed gratification, perseverance and suffering (these rote approaches are dismissed as too ‘boring’ and stifling creativity), and to set about properly wiring “our students’ brains from an early age to think logically and analytically”, opening the door to a future Electrician’s Code of Requirements by which we submit the wiring of our children’s brains to inspection by the state. One could even imagine our future children, not having been wired according to code but rather by homeschooling or religious education, being declared unfit and condemned. This will strike many as alarmist, but I’m not so sure. After all, the stakes are unimaginably high, since “skeptics and fraudulent people who ignore sound scientific data…puts our society at untold, unnecessary risk”. When the ‘disease’ is this severe, who will question whether the medication might itself be toxic?
A Rational, Noetic and Communal Vision for Humanity
The problem with this Great Scientific Vision is that — in addition to appealing to axioms not properly basic and circular arguments highlighted above — it is also predicated on a false dichotomy, setting up a strawman (the unscientific fool) to blame for the ills of society. Innate curiosity, the ability to think logically, these are part of what makes us human— but they are not exclusively what makes us human. We are more than a collection of neurons controlling a bag of flesh and bones. We are rational, noetic and communal beings, an expression of unique and transcendent personhood. Human knowledge represents a much broader and richer category than mere scientific analysis. It reflects a continual organic integration and appropriation of meaning, experience (including empirical), intuition, deductive and inductive reason, revelation and relational wisdom, anchored within a community sharing in an interconnected process over centuries of time.
Some will argue that human knowledge — even described using some of these terms above — reflects a process of evolutionary psychology undertaken by humans as a species to survive in a world where social cohesion and tribal identity are paramount. They assert that we merely need to prune, graft and harvest the fruits of this process within a modern framework. But putting aside for a moment the self-referential nature of that argument, at least as cogent and coherent an alternative explanation is that this process of conscious acquisition and integration, even if understood mechanically as a ground-up evolutionary emergence, is itself the manifestation of a transcendent Nous. These patterns of existing and interacting with the world reflect a rational, noetic and communal First Cause; when we approach this metaphysical reality with a merely materialist approach — shoehorning things like consciousness and transcendence into phenomenon caused by matter, and not the other way around — we should not be surprised when persistent and intractable epistemological tension results.
Teleologically, the Grand Challenges faced by our civilization cannot be addressed by a purely materialistic or physicalist framework, because this view of reality does not leave room for the profound and inexhaustible kenosis (self-emptying) required for long-term solutions. Put in a different way, materialism renders terms like meaning and value noncoherent. Even when we try to rationalize kenotic behavior as a necessary bug in the wiring of our neurobiology, eventually the runway of evolutionary psychology runs out, or we get to big for our breaches and decide “we can prune out these things with no unintended consequences”. When we place ourselves in the epistemological position as Scientist-Prophet to determine which kenosis and for whom is needed to accomplish our material teleology. Transcendent Truth unites our neurobiology and psychology with our desire for meaning and greater purpose. It places matter as the manifestation of Conscious Mind or Nous and not its precondition. It transforms our existential tomb into a multigenerational womb. And most importantly, it elevates the essence of our personhood to attain the energy of the Divine Nature.
For this reason, we must recognize that the Scientific Savior narrative, while on an individual level, might be motivated by genuine altruism and concern for society — is ultimately based on faulty reasoning and arrogant utopian empiricism that will lead to the dehumanization of persons (especially those on the fringes) and an ever-deepening scientocratic absolutism. Traditional civilizations have long recognized the folly of imposing a hierarchical structure that is all-encompassing, even when intended for good. Individuals at the boundary provide a counterbalance to the structure itself, and can invigorate it as a source of rebirth and regeneration if they have a stake in it as a member of that society. Making space for these elements is absolutely necessary, but requires kenosis. It requires recognition of the personhood of these individuals — even those whose ignorance leads to suffering and obstructs progress and might even result in personal harm — and create space for the ‘holy fools’ as a safeguard against hubris, a fundamental instrument of creativity and a means of being centered within a greater ontological reality. Bringing to bear all that humanity can offer — and not simply a robotic substitute — to solve the grand challenges of climate change, infectious disease, racial inequality, and political strife, is the only path towards lasting change. But it isn’t just the grand challenges, but the everyday lived experiences and realities shaped by our humanity, that necessitates it.
