Science: Not Everyone’s Cup of Tea

“It bears to repeat, however, that our genes do not directly decide the actions we take in life—as fatalism would like one to believe. They are not the means to our destiny but, rather, are the keys to our hypothetical reality.”

The late Renaissance period meant the beginning of the Scientific Revolution for the Western world. People began to obtain scientific knowledge, and interest in science steadily grew over time . Criticism by religious fundamentalists aside, being a scientist came to be considered—in most circles—an admirable occupation. But, as is the case with any interest, science is not everyone’s cup of tea. We have seen this with postmodernists from the Left, who argue that objective knowledge is non-existent. All the while, some right-wing fundamentalists today, like in centuries past, deny scientific findings on the basis of faith. Then, there are populists who exhibit a general unease with science and, even more, scientists themselves.

The act of maligning science will, unfortunately, likely continue. This concern is shared by the authors of the recently released book Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity — and Why This Harms Everybody, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. In their book, Pluckrose and Lindsay argue that “attacks on science from the religious right and the postmodern left are strong influences on society that always have to be struggled against.” In an earlier essay at Merion West, I called the former group of people — though postmodernists would equally fit this label — ”empty skeptics.”

With that said, we continue to observe great admiration for scientists. Their relative rarity in the population may, indeed, account for some of this admiration. I wonder, however, if the relative scarcity of scientists in our society, though, is unnecessary. To put it differently, if there truly are representation gaps in science related to gender or personality, perhaps they can be bridged. Gaps might stem from, say, latent gender preferences or biases against the less wealthy. Some, on the other hand, would argue that our immutable traits, which are typically considered the source of said gaps, do not affect outcomes — that is, the person we could become.