Anti-science Is Not A State Of Mind. (And it does matter.)

[Igel]

13. So ...

Does that mean we can't call (R) "anti-science" any more?

How about anti-vaxxers?

I don't. Because "anti-science" isn't anti all of science any more than pro-science means pro "all of science." Those words with those meanings are pure hyperbole. They essentially have no meaning and all but constitute straw men.

To be "anti-science" is to be anti the general application of the same standards of fact, data analysis, and hypothesis confirmation/falsification that most people apply to those areas of science they like and accept. We love us some of that hyperbole because it lets us broadbrush those whose views we dislike for whatever reason.

Most (R) aren't "anti-science": some are anti-evolution, some anti-vaccine, some anti-GMO, some are anti-AGW/climate change. Most (D) aren't anti-science: some are anti-vaccine, some anti-GMO, some are anti-pesticide or anti-plastic, no matter how many studies may show that something doesn't cause any detectable damage.

Most of us have internalized that "Science doesn't prove things, it's a methodology for producing hypotheses and if it finds no evidence to contrary to a hypothesis and the hypothesis makes reasonable, falsifiable predictions based on causal mechanisms, usually assumes they're true." Then, a minute later, "Science hasn't proven this plastic absolutely safe." Flip. Flop.

Mostly this is just a case of unchallenged confirmation bias and an unwillingness to engage in critical thinking either when we're challenged and stand to lose a fight that might bruise our egos or when it would damage our own self-identity.