The “anti-science” label is like Frankenstein’s monster. Designed by politically correct propagandists to serve their own purposes, namely blackening the reputation of skeptics on evolution and climate change, it has since turned against its inventors. The monster now pursues those creators almost, but not quite, to the exclusion of its originally intended targets.
The aggressive Darwin-lobbying National Center for Science Education, for instance, has beat the drum for years, labeling doubters as “antiscience,” minus the hyphen (which always looks wrong to me from a copyediting perspective, as if it should be pronounced “an-TIS-ience”).
But check out recent headlines and articles that use the term. Judging by Google News, you’ll see the once-pliable beast has gotten quite out of control.
“Global Warming Alarmist Reveals The Anti-Science Con” (Investor’s Business Daily)
“GMO fear-mongering shows anti-science attitudes aren’t limited to the right” (Dallas Morning News)
“Nobelists To Greenpeace: Drop Your Anti-Science Anti-GMO Campaign” (Forbes)
“Look Who’s ‘Anti-Science’ Now” (Investor’s Business Daily, which observes “two-thirds of Democrats are anti-science”)
“Are Anti-Science Obama Administration Policies Fostering Zika?” (CNSNews)
“Neil Degrasse Tyson to Bill Maher: Liberals Are Anti-Science Too” (Christian Post)
“Neil DeGrasse Tyson Tells Bill Maher That Anti-Science Liberals Are Full of S*** Too” (Gizmodo)
“Pro-Abortion Group Complains Newspaper Rejected Ad Calling Pro-Life People ‘Anti-Science’” (LifeNews.com)
Here’s a suggestion. Let everyone swear off the habit of avoiding debate by slapping invidious names and labels on people who disagree with you. That would be more honest. It would also be more in line with mainstream public opinion.
That came out in the new survey data, already noted, that gauged attitudes on academic freedom in science, and related matters. One question asked:
Rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statement: People can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being “anti- science.”
If that sounds like common sense, it is, at least outside precincts where propaganda is the prime currency. A vast majority of respondents — 87 percent — agreed that you can differ with other people on science without being “anti-science.” The agreement crossed all measured demographic divides of age, sex, political and religious belief.
Atheists were the most likely to disagree — that is, evidently to wish to retain the label “anti-science” as a cudgel against dissenters. But even there it was a minority view, with only 27 percent. A solid majority of 73 percent of atheists reject the “anti-science” label.
Click here to download the full survey results, including detailed information about methodology.
Will the NCSE and others accept this piece of free advice? Don’t worry — I’m not holding my breath.
Photo credit: Universal Studios (Dr. Macro) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.
I’m on Twitter. Follow me @d_klinghoffer.
.jpg){kind=link}