My father once told me, “Physics and mathematics are the only legitimate branches of science. There’s too much uncertainty and there are too many exceptions when it comes to biology, chemistry, and other fields that aren’t bound by laws.”
At first, I thought this claim to be ludicrous, and frankly, I still disagree with his statement. However, after learning of an equally concerning perspective of science that some people unfortunately possess, I’m starting to think my father actually deserves a little bit of credit.
(Disclaimer: I am not claiming to be an expert in any scientific field. This article is mainly a discussion about what I believe to be a misguided lens through which some view science from a largely philosophical perspective.)
One crucial factor in this topic is the fact that science has never just been a massive conglomerate of facts. When simplified to its essence, science is the discovery of how the world works. But rarely does the evidence uncovered by scientific research directly lead to any definitive conclusions or the establishment of an absolute law or fact.
What too many fail to realize is that the science throughout history has always been rooted in uncertainty. In early human history, it was actually much rarer for the science of the time to accurately explain how the world works.
For example, many people with even a slight interest in scientific history will have heard of Democritus’s atomic theory–the idea that all matter is composed of “uniform, solid, hard, incompressible, and indestructible” particles known as atoms.
However, despite the fact that all modern scientists are in agreement with (at least the fundamental ideas of) his theory, the majority of the scientific community during his time, including Aristotle, disagreed with him, arguing that matter ought to be composed of the “elements Fire, Water, Air, and Earth.” It wasn’t until 1803 when English chemist and physicist John Dalton revitalized the idea of the atom.
Even after Dalton’s discoveries, the atomic theory would evolve in order to adapt to the uncovering of newer evidence. Humanity’s conception of the structure of the atom has changed multiple times with each new discovery. There was never a single point in time where humanity was able to flawlessly explain the structure of an atom up until Erwin Schrödinger’s electron cloud model in 1926. Even still, there is nothing to confirm that this is the final, definitive model that perfectly describes the structure of an atom. Future discoveries are bound to be made.
For instance, even though the structure of the atom has gone largely unchanged since 1926, new discoveries of the composition of its parts have been made. In 1964, the existence of a quark–a subatomic particle that was even smaller than the other established subatomic particles at the time, protons, electrons, and neutrons–was confirmed.
The so-called “reality” of the atom that scientists have discovered is not really reality, but rather, an explanation of what they perceived to be reality based on a combination of the theories, observations, experiments, and mathematics of the time. Science, for the most part, was, is, and always will be just that, because nature will always act independently of human-made theory.
But is this distinction really that important? Why can society not just equate science with absolute reality for simplicity?
If society is truly meant to continue evolving on an intellectual level, then we have to make sure that we are expanding our knowledge of the world through a lens of openness and discovery, rather than one of absolutes and certainty. If humanity only continues to push the latter perspective for not only future scientists but also for the average person, it is likely that such a narrow-minded viewpoint may negatively affect how they see and interact with the world going forward.
A 2018 article on The Heritage Foundation titled Transgender Ideology Is Riddled With Contradictions. Here Are the Big Ones, written by Ryan T. Anderson, demonstrates this unfortunate phenomenon.
Ignoring the fact that Anderson’s own ideology is riddled with logical fallacies, there are many instances where Anderson mentions certain contradictions made by both scientists and activists as a means to delegitimize the existence of transgender people due to a supposed lack of an explanation for “the matter of reality.”
Andersen furthers, “They say there are no meaningful differences between man and woman, yet they rely on rigid sex stereotypes to argue that ‘gender identity’ is real, while human embodiment is not.”
However, what the article fails to address is that trying to discover an explanation for why people are transgender has only recently become a prevalent point of scientific study. With any new point of study will come a plethora of theories, experimentations and discovery, and most of the time, one scientist or activist’s claim is not going to line up with another’s; this isn’t just some weird form of doublethink. But even if their explanations for why transgender people exist may contradict with another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people cannot “naturally” be transgender.
The matter of reality is that an estimated 1.6 million transgender people exist in the United States alone, so just because scientists are not in total agreement on an explanation for why a person who is assumed to be female at conception or birth is actually male in gender does not mean there does not exist some factor that explains why that person is transgender.
The problem with perspectives such as Andersen’s is that they cling to certain scientific studies or explanations that were always assumed to be the truth, without sufficient openness to the idea that perhaps there is some nuance to biology that simply hasn’t found a conclusive explanation.
Anderson often implies the idea that being transgender is purely “metaphysical,” and that “many of those who feel distress over their bodily sex know that they aren’t really the opposite sex, and do not wish to ‘transition.”
The asserted implication, as well as the fact that the only source to back up the statistic listed above is a book that Anderson wrote himself, is very telling. Subscribing to certain scientific studies while ignoring opposing studies is ironically very unscientific. As it stands now, there is no conclusive evidence that gender and sex are different, one and the same, or merely slightly intertwined with one another–all three are possible explanations, but none are necessarily absolute fact.
Of course, this is not to say that science is to be dismissed if it is not conclusive, or that science should not play a part in how a government should make decisions. When push comes to shove, scientific studies can certainly help guide a society in finding ways to improve the lives of the people despite the fact that said studies may not be completely conclusive.
For example, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists began to rapidly increase their efforts in developing a vaccine. By December 11th of 2020, the vaccine began to be distributed across America. The effectiveness of the vaccine was immediately apparent, as millions of deaths, hospitalizations and infections were prevented, based on a plethora of different studies.
In these situations where lives are on the line, scientific developments can be used to push out the treatments necessary to save lives despite what some opposing studies may claim.
However, it is also crucial to consider just how impactful a certain phenomenon is to society before trying to use scientific claims to back an action. Returning to Anderson’s article, while he claims that “transgender ideology” is a series of “harmful ideas” that will “take real work to prevent the spread of,” reality shows that a majority of transgender people and their allies just want to live their lives. So even if Anderson’s own perception of science turned out to be perfectly reflective of reality, it still wouldn’t justify the need to delegitimize people’s identities in the name of a false crisis.
Finally, it must be established that I am in no way arguing that science cannot or will never be conclusive. For instance, outside of the realm of quantum physics, Newton’s Laws–with a few potential exceptions–are always true. Those scientific laws are absolute (unless an outlandishly revolutionary discovery is made). What I am mainly addressing is the fact that inconclusive science can show strong correlations or patterns that may not be absolutely true, so it should not purely equated with reality.
Additionally, I must also establish the fact that the inconclusiveness of science should not discourage curiosity about the natural world. All I wish to argue is that it is important not to become too married to the information we obtain from scientific study–especially if we are receiving it second-hand–if we cannot confirm said information with absolute certainty.
Thus, while my father was wrong in his attempt to claim that biology and chemistry were not “legitimate branches of science,” he did have a point regarding the alarmingly restrictive perspective some have concerning the study of the physical and natural world.
_______________________________
Editors’ note: All opinions expressed on The Uproar are a reflection solely of the beliefs of the bylined author and not the journalism program at NASH. We continue to welcome school-appropriate comments and guest articles.
