In my recent posts, I have used the term “institutional science” in connection with those who spuriously disagree with the evidence of reincarnation. This is a term that will repeatedly appear in my writings, so I wanted to dedicate a post to a discussion of the idea.
Today, people have certain ideas of what is scientific and what is not. If I discuss ideas like the Big Bang theory, evolution, or abiogenesis, people automatically think that these are authoritative ideas, almost on the level of fact. Even in more prosaic endeavors, people borrow the prestige of science to bolster their claims. Traditional exercise routines have given way to “evidence-based training.” Productivity hacks are backed by neuroscience research. These terms make us picture groups of smart people in lab coats, interrogating nature for her secrets in a dispassionate way, and clear, level-headed rationality.
But pinning down exactly what science is can be a bit tricky. Philosophers have been trying to do it for a while, and none have succeeded. Popper thought that falsifiability was the hallmark of scientific statements. The positivists sought to ground science in strict empirical observations. The ever-iconoclastic Paul Feyerabend said that no definition of science can be made that encompasses all of what we want to call science and excludes the things that we wish to keep out. But even without strict definition, both laypeople and scientists have an intuitive picture of what they mean when they say science. Usually it involves mathematical relationships, technical mechanisms, and reductionistic explanations, along with other ideas and stereotypes.
This inability to properly define science is known as the demarcation problem. Philosophers of science have been twisting themselves into knots for centuries trying to solve it. A large part is that both the layperson and the experts get confused about what question they are actually asking. This is succinctly explained by philosopher of science Larry Laudan:
Through certain vagaries of history, some of which I have alluded to here, we have managed to conflate two quite distinct questions: What makes a belief well founded (or heuristically fertile)? And what makes a belief scientific? The first set of questions is philosophically interesting and possibly even tractable; the second question is both uninteresting and, judging by its checkered past, intractable.
The conflation of these two questions—what is true vs what is scientific—is one of the key causes of the dominance of institutional science. Certain people, scientists in particular, like to treat science as if it has a special role in thought, history and society. But what is important is whether a belief is true, not if it fits inside a particular conceptual box. We can use this methodology—the use of sound epistemological methods to attempt to come to true beliefs—as a definition of true science
However, there is something else out there that looks a lot like true science, but is a far more complicated endeavor. For example, a lot of ink has been spilled concerning the influence of funding on research endeavors. Even challenging the institutional orthodoxy can make you a persona non grata in scientific society—just ask the likes of Daniel Shechtman and Stanley Prusiner. Scientists are people, and social pressures affect them just as much as anyone else. Not to mention the dangerous effects of ideology not just on what results are acceptable, but even on what questions may be asked. I call this form of science—where economic, ideological and other pressures pervert the impartial search for the truth—institutional science.
Institutional science is related to, although distinct from, scientism. The latter refers to a belief that science is the best, or maybe only, game in town when it comes to gaining knowledge. Of course, many people who ascribe to this belief are not concerned with, or even aware of, the demarcation problem. Thus it is not entirely clear what exactly those who hold this view are claiming, but usually by science they mean something close to the intuitive view that I mentioned earlier. And it is logically consistent to hold such views and still be dedicated to true science. It is also logically consistent to think there are many ways of knowing, but still be fully bought in to institutional science.
This is because scientism is an epistemological stance, while institutional science is a social phenomenon. But it is not that the two are unrelated. Institutional science promotes an implicit kind of scientism, even if it doesn’t get into the details of the philosophy. Likewise, the intuitive view of science that the proponents of scientism hold is the picture of institutional science. One is intimately tied up with the other.
To give an analogy, scientism is like one tenant of a religious belief, while institutional science is like the church. One can hold the belief without trusting the church, but the church is made to promote the belief.
And so, people see institutional science and assume that it is true science. As all misdirections do, this allows those who hold the social capital within its world to influence both the institution itself and the wider culture in line with their own personal or ideological agendas. And when challenged, there will be a myriad defenders that rise to protect it.
And don’t mistake such defenders as being only PhDs holed away in research labs. Science communicators, from YouTube to bookshelves, are as well. So are teachers, from kindergarten all the way to graduate programs. School administrator and politicians defend it, as do funding agencies. Journalists are some of its most sycophantic supporters, although television shows are far more influential. As one of the dominant social systems, it has defenders in almost every element of society.
This is why science has a reputation of neutrality, although it is anything but. Unless it is specifically brought to our attention, we don’t consciously think of the fact that the air is around us. We are so used to its presence that it is considered the default status. Likewise, the ideology of institutional science surrounds us so completely that few even notice it. But this ideology has caused an unimaginable amount of suffering by promoting a wrong view of human life and the means of fulfillment in that life.
In many ways, the main mission of this blog is to combat the spread of this dangerous ideology, and maybe help give people a more sane point of view. This is obviously against the dominant message that society pushes. Many will view these ideas as anti-scientific or even anti-rational.
But if you are interested in the truth, stick around, and see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Leave a Reply