No Skepticism, No Science

There is no science without skepticism. Let me explain what I mean.

Epistemology is the study of knowing, how we come to think we know anything, the foundations of knowing anything, and the mechanisms whereby people assess the extent and validity of various types of knowledge. All science, and definitionally all knowing, navigates the epistemological domain in efforts to move from ignorance to correct understanding. What we know evolves over time, and the scientific method is nothing more than a formally articulated process by which we can test and improve what think we know today.

For this reason, remaining skeptical is a prerequisite of science. In a very real sense, skepticism expects all claims to be ultimately false. It sits upon what might be thought of as an epistemological continuum with skepticism on one side and faith on the other. In this context, by "faith" I mean only that something is accepted without need for empirical substantiation.

I am not implying that something accepted on faith indicates falsity in itself, but there is a difference between rational constructs and faith-based systems of thought. Rational scientists might "act as if" a theory is so, at least to the extent it has predicted or controlled observable events in the past, but they do not conflate their theory with the universe itself.  

When scientists cease to be skeptical, they cease doing science, and this is not anything noteworthy or surprising, because "being a scientist" is mere roleplay. They are people, and people can neither be science nor technically represent it, except in a roleplay. Science is merely the ongoing process whereby we methodically seek to improve our understanding of existence, to update our maps of the world.

There is a tendency among those incapable of science to say crazy things like, "According to science..." and "The science says...", but these are irrational utterances. Science says nothing, for it has no mouth. In my experience, only those who play-act at science, who foster appearances as a substitute for substance, are prone to statements such as these.

Rather, if it is truly about advancing empirical knowledge, quote specific studies. Describe how variables were operationalized, what the assumptions were, and what was done to validate the statistical methods. Debate how generalizable the findings were and how they relate to other studies' findings, perhaps those done in the last 50 years. Define differences in methods, populations, processes, and assumptions. Debate generalizability and look for contrary indications in peer-reviewed journals. If you're doing all of these things, then maybe you're doing the "scientist" roleplay well.

But who has the time?

This can be tricky, because the inordinate complexity our technologies have unlocked requires specialization — certainly I do not know more about the physiology of the cardiovascular system than all cardiologists. But might I know more about the cardiovascular system than the globally-worst cardiologist? Does a 14-year-old armed solely with Wikipedia know more about how mammalian brains work than humanity’s most intelligent, highly educated scientists who practiced medicine 200 years ago?

This is not to equivocate expertise with ignorance. However, only by maintaining a healthy skepticism can we scientists tell the difference and retain our ability to question the Emperor’s New Clothes. The practice of science involves remaining curious and questioning everything, regardless of where the claims originate. Moreover, organizations cannot "say" or "think" anything, anymore than "science" does. The National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United States Department of Health and Human Services, and Food and Drug Administration cannot say or believe anything, because they do not have lips. However, if a highly-respected "expert" from such an organization stated something as fact, I would argue the discipline of science requires us to question that as well.  

From what I've seen, one of the greatest threats to scientific endeavors is the willful conflation of credentials, years of service, and/or degrees with functional competence. Credentials, years of service, and degrees may be predictive of competence, but I have yet to find any credible data on that.

And so, in my younger days, when the world was dark and full of terrors, for the sake of simplicity and in the absence of sufficient time, I abdicated my responsibility to experts and governmental authorities. But now? Now, I have become skeptical again, for I am a scientist.

If you wish to dig beneath the superficial, you must be willing to question what you are told, and even if you “act as if” some cadre of academics or government experts are reliable sources of knowledge, ensure that, when you are ready, you question their originations as well. 

Such vigilance is a necessary condition of the scientific endeavor.