War on Science

[[File:Look-at-crag.png|thumb|right|165px|We wish it were this simple. ([http://poorlydrawnlines.com/comic/look-at-crag/ Source])]]
{{pseudosciencenav}}{{denialism}}
{{cquote|One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are—for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable—they just don't believe science|||{{wpl|Dr. Anthony Fauci}}<ref>[https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/anthony-fauci-coronavirus-anti-science-bias/index.html "Fauci warns of 'anti-science bias' being a problem in US"] by Jacqueline Howard and Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN, 2020 June 18</ref>}}
{{cquote|Reason and science you despise,<br>The highest powers of the mind?<br>Hell's willing slave! With others of your kind,<br>you are the profits of my enterprise.|||[[Satan]], quoted in [[Karl Popper]]'s ''In Search of a Better World''<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=m_HjTrerqiAC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=%22reason+and+science+you+despise%22&source=bl&ots=AuMQVVcFt8&sig=HL58rCjztxAjd-DBFWDiR_oeKYs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOmYv6xtbQAhUB0oMKHX5ECLMQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22reason%20and%20science%20you%20despise%22&f=false ''In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years''] by Karl Raimund Popper (1995). Routledge, revised ed. ISBN 0415135486. p. 41.</ref>}}
The '''War on Science''' is an attempt by a vocal '''anti-science''' minority to directly or indirectly attack [[science]] through modified [[school]] curricula, [[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt|uncertainty tactics]], and discrediting of the [[scientific method]]. Any person or organization that promotes their [[ideology]] over [[Science|scientifically]]-verified [[evidence]] is a partisan in favor of the anti-science position in the War on Science. If a position or theory is pro-science (''a.k.a. "science"''), as opposed to anti-science, it will follow the [[scientific method]], be [[Falsifiability|potentially refutable]], [[Peer review|peer-reviewable]], [[Reproducibility|reproducible]], and open to change if the position comes in conflict with [[Empiricism|observed fact]]. An anti-science position will violate one or more of these thresholds, in addition to likely being [[Not even wrong|incoherent]]. In other words &mdash; "is it science?"

Anti-science positions are promoted especially when [[political]] [[ideology]], moneyed interests (e.g. the petroleum industry), and/or [[religious]] [[dogma]] conflict with actual science. While it is highly likely that anti-science positions are the result of ideological positions, it is important to note that [[Composition and division|holding a particular ideological position does not automatically make an individual guilty of being anti-science]], or vice versa. Specific examples include: attempts to ban the teaching of [[evolution]], attempts to insert [[creationism]] into school curriculum, attempts to spread [[denialism]] about [[climate change]] or the negative health effects caused by [[tobacco smoking]], [[Vaccine denialism|attempts to ban vaccines]] or [[GMO]]s, and attempts to promote [[alternative medicine]].

The phrase "A War on Science" is also the title of a ''Horizon'' ([[BBC]]) episode documenting the [[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District|Dover, PA trial]] and the local attempts to discredit evolution and introduce [[intelligent design]] into classrooms.<ref>[http://videosift.com/video/Horizon-A-War-On-Science-BBC-Documentary-49mins A War On Science], ''Horizon''</ref>

==Perpetrators==
{{cquote|There is something even more vital to science than intelligent methods; namely, the sincere desire to discover the [[truth]], whatever it may be.|||Charles Sanders Peirce, pro-science<ref>Peirce, Charles S. 1997. ''Pragmatism as a Principle of Right Thinking.'' State University of New York Press. Lectures originally delivered in 1903.</ref>}}{{cquote|It's [[Bumblebee argument|scientifically impossible for the bumblebee to fly]]; but the bumblebee, being unaware of these scientific facts, flies anyways.|||[[Mike Huckabee]], anti-science<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/06/uselections2008.suzannegoldenberg1 Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Huckabee, the bumblebee, rises to the top on a wing and a prayer." ''Guardian News and Media Limited''. 05 December 2007. Web. 17 May 2014.]</ref>}}
The War on Science is carried out by several different groups, with largely different motives. All these groups feed [[Anti-intellectualism|a growing generic distrust among lay people]] of science and scientists.

===Religious fundamentalists===
{{cquote|If somewhere in the [[Bible]], I were to find a passage that said [[Scientific errors in the Bible#Mathematical|two plus two equaled five]], [[Faith|I wouldn’t question what I’m reading in the Bible]]. [[Christianity|I would believe it]], [[Biblical literalism|accept it as true]], [[Creation science|and then try my best to work it out and understand it]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O50jl-nLYVU "Watch Creationists Talking About Creationism"]</ref><ref>[http://www.southernprose.com/tag/pastor-peter-laruffa/ "Questioning Darwin". (Creationist)]</ref>|||Pastor Peter LaRuffa}}
[[Creationism|Creationist]]s often attack science because it contradicts a [[biblical literalism|literal interpretation]] of the Bible on [[young Earth creationism|how old the Earth is]], whether a [[global flood]] or [[Lunar bukkake hypothesis|massive-scale series of comet collisions]] occurred, how modern [[species]] [[Creationism|were created instantaneously]] or [[Intelligent design|designed intelligently]], and [[Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism|pretty much everything else about creationism]], while supporting [[radiometric dating]], the law of conservation of [[Mass (physics)|mass]] and [[energy]], the [[theory of evolution]], the [[fossil record]], the field of [[dendrochronology]], the [[theory of relativity]], and [[Evidence against a recent creation|''many'' other fields of science that blow holes in creationism]]. This includes to divide science into "good science" approved by God (basically the one that they benefit of, knowing it would be ''extremely'' unpopular to advocate to live as in the times in which the Bible was written without the advances in modern medicine and the like and using as proof {{bible|Proverbs|9|10}} and other verses taken out of context), and "bad science" (read: mostly evolution and Big Bang theories) that they consider to come from this world thus Satanic, citing Paul's ramblings in such regard in [[Ephesians]] about Satan ruling the World™. Sometimes {{bible|1 Corinthians|1|19}} is also used to further add threats, even if the one rambling there is just Paul instead of God.

Most [[anti-science]] attacks come from [[Religious Right|conservative Christians]] who believe it is their [[moral]] duty to fight perceived [[evil]]s that often include science researching areas that [[fundamentalist]] faith already has "answers" for. In this respect, the War on Science can be seen as an abusive form of the [[NOMA|non-overlapping magisteria]] position, holding not only that science doesn't overlap with religion, but is actively not allowed to touch anything remotely religious, for fear of actually disproving it. The start of the modern era in this part of the anti-science movement was carried out in large part by [[George W. Bush]], who was the first president to have a whole organization composed of [[Nobel laureate]]s to campaign against him. 
It is possible that, with the installation of an [[Barack Obama|apparently sane president in the US]], many elements of the war will be canceled.
 [[Donald Trump|Yeah, we're not at that point yet]].

In this religious context, the War on Science bears some similarities to the [[War on Christmas]], in that the "[[war]]" term is [[Persecution complex|only used by people fighting ''against'' it]]. [[Atheist]]s and [[Secular humanism|secular humanist]]s have never had a "war on Christmas", despite claims to the contrary by the [[Religious Right]]. Similarly, those fighting science's influence wouldn't call it a "war on science," but rather "[[Psychological projection|defending their rights]]" 
[[Religious freedom|to put their holy texts and beliefs above objective observation]]
. The key difference between the two is the ''actual'' [[evidence]] of a war on science, namely strong opposition to [[medical]] research, climate research, and so on, as well as very active attempts to remove the ability of teachers to teach evolution (and history, and critical thinking, and everything else that interferes with bigoted WASPs achieving complete domination over everything). The War on Christmas, on the other hand, merely consists of an annual spree of blog posts and editorials about events that are either highly exaggerated (such as the "Winterval" festival,<ref>[http://www.thedisinformed.co.uk/2010/12/12/the-winterval-myth/ The Disinformed &mdash; The Winterval Myth]</ref> which mentioned [[Christmas]] many, many times in the press release, and was only named Winterval because it also overlapped the New Year period and most of January) or just plain [[urban legend]].

[[Pat Robertson]] spoke up about science in 2014, telling Ken Ham famously to can it. [[Eric Hovind]] and [[Kent Hovind]] saw some similar verbal reaming.<ref>[https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceHumour/comments/8wypnq/a_little_wrapped_in_her_research_visual_joke/ what this looks like] when Col 2:8 is thrown at the educated. The model in the photo said, "religion and controversy sells. Almost as much sex does." The biggest misinformer is Ken Ham. He decided to claim jihad on academia pressing the issue of The Bible in public schools.</ref>

===Conservatives and fossil fuel industries===
{{main|Global warming denialism}}
Some conservatives attack the theory of global warming because it would be an argument for [[government]] regulation. [[Lobbying|Lobbyists]] of industries that would benefit from [[deregulation]] often [[Politicization of science|
ab
use]] [[politics]] to ignore the advice of scientists. For example, business-associated appointees in the [[Food and Drug Administration]], [[Environmental Protection Agency]], and other regulatory agencies have made decisions in conflict with the recommendations of agency scientists.

A second, smaller group is made up of the people around the world who are aligned with the [[fossil fuel]] and manufacturing industries. For these people, [[uncertainty tactic|casting]] [[FUD|doubt]] on science is a double-edged sword, because while they are major benefactors of people that deny [[global warming]] and [[anti-environmentalism|other environmental problems]], they sell products using Science™ to convince buyers that one [[car]] is safer than another, or that new products on the market are better at cleaning, killing, flying, keeping you thin, etc. Plus, if "X" environmental problem becomes a worst-case scenario, there will be a very specific target to blame.

===Liberals and greens===
On the flip side, but still [[political]], is a growing group of participants in the War on Science for reasons of being (supposedly) "green", as [[Nature woo|green is natural, it is healthy, it is better]]. Science is [[technology]], therefore it [[Pollution|pollutes]], it destroys.

Among those groups are the [[anti-nuclear]] types, the anti-[[GMO]] types, the [[anti-vaccination]] types, and the all-around [[Luddite]]s. They attempt to paint science as the enemy to nature, as if science itself is the same as the technology that comes out of it. They publicize situations where scientific experiments got out of hand and caused damage, where science failed to warn the [[consumer]] of dangers associated with new products, or where science is "inhumane" in its treatment of people or [[Animal welfare|animals]].

Some leftists and communists have claimed based on mostly motivated reasoning that certain theories or even fields are a capitalist pseudoscience or other antiscientific right-wing propoganda, while themselves being antiscientific in their outlook. Fields subject to this treatment have included human variation, Darwinian evolution and the (non) heritability of acquired traits, cybernetics, evolutionary psychology, and more. Scientists are fallible and just as capable of being bigoted or having their research misused or falsifying data as anyone else. So the fear that, for example, someone, not necessarily but possibly a scientist, could abuse evolutionary psychology or Darwin's theory of selection for misogynistic, racist, or conservative, capitalistic ends is entirely warranted. This is likely driven by the fact that the leftists making these proclamations [[Horseshoe theory|overcorrect against the biases and abuses they see on the right with their own biases and abuses]], simply denying the validity of whatever legitimate scientific field is being abused instead of debunking the abuse itself.

Then again, much like those on the right-wing, it's a double-edged sword, as they often have to use legitimate scientific claims such as [[global warming]] to claim that government regulation is needed.

===Alties===
{{main|Alternative medicine}}
Promoters of "[[alternative medicine]]" often [[Anti-vaccination movement|attack]] [[vaccine]]s, "[[Big Pharma]]", "[[allopathic]]s", and generally [[evidence-based medicine]], in order to support the idea that their [[Placebo effect|placebos]] are more effective.<ref>[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/alternative-medicine-is-a-34-billion-industry-but-only-one-third-of-the-treatments-have-been-tested-879411/?no-ist Smithsonian Magazine: "Alternative Medicine is a $34 Billion Industry, But Only One-Third of The Treatments Have Been Tested"]</ref>

===Bigots===
{{main|Bigotry}}
[[Racists]], especially [[racialist]]s, often attack science because science shows that race is a [[social constructionism|societal construct]] rather than the product of "[[Racialism|human biodiversity]]" and shows racialist pseudosciences such as [[phrenology]] to be flawed. Similarly, [[sexist]]s, [[MRA]]s, and [[TERF]]s attack science for showing widespread similarity between the [[gender]]s. Often these groups tend to have a view of the opposing gender that is so wrong that it ends up describing an actual mental disorder.

==Methods and efficacy==
{{cquote|Get your facts first, and then you can distort them at your leisure.|20px|20px|[[Mark Twain]]<ref>[http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/k/kipling/rudyard/seatosea/chapter37.html Kipling, Rudyard. ''From Sea to Sea'', Chapter 37.]</ref>}}

In a sense, the methods don't matter much when there is widespread [[ignorance]] of science. In an interview in 1996, [[Carl Sagan]] said:<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJs5oTN60iw Carl Sagan's LAST Interview (1996)] Sagan Repository (Aug 12, 2024) ''YouTube''. t=3:21-4:22.</ref>
{{cquote|…there's two kinds of dangers. One is what I just what I've just talked about, that we've arranged a society on science and technology in which nobody understands anything about science and technology, and this combustible mixture of ignorance and power sooner or later is going to blow up in our faces. I mean, who is running the science and technology in a democracy if the people don't know anything about it. And the second reason that I'm worried about this is that science is more than a body of knowledge. It's a [[Scientific method|way of thinking]]. A way of skeptically interrogating the [[universe]] with a fine understanding of human fallibility. If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next [[charlatan]] political or religious who comes ambling along.}}
The most effective methods used by the War on Science crowd are not the direct attacks against science, such as open debates, or changing out textbooks. Rather, the most effective methods are subtle writing, almost indistinguishable from actual quality science writing, which casts slight seeds of doubt. For example, stating that "[[Only a theory|evolution is a theory]]", which is technically correct (as it is a ''scientific'' theory, which is different from the usual meaning of the term), and then reminding the reader that all [[Scientific theory|theories]] should be [[peer review|challenged]], for this is how science works (except that challenges must be evaluated by experts based on the evidence, not by the general public using [[Intuition|intuitive]] or emotional reasoning). Or casting science as [[Scientism|unfeeling]], and scientists as [[Mad scientist|ruthless]], especially when dealing with [[human]]ity. Or, "Science tries to tell us we are just [[animals]]; [[Human exceptionalism|we are more than animals]]." This is simply a type of [[appeal to emotion]]. They exaggerate all the mistakes science has ever made, and remind readers endlessly of the most recent frauds in science, attempting to [[Stereotype|paint all science with the same brush of doubt]].

One of the reasons that attacks on science, especially of the more subtle kind, are so effective is that science is complex, hard to understand, and therefore scary for many people.<ref>[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MeasuringTheMarigolds Measuring the Marigolds], TV Tropes</ref> In a sense, building on the fact that many kids simply dreaded their science classes, there is the very human tendency to fear what you cannot understand. And when you look out into the world, things that are dangerous seem to start and end with "science". Most humans are able to deal with that (slight) fear, but the fact that it is there at all leaves a breeding ground for anti-science types to jump in, especially when [[Preaching to the choir|you have a captive audience that will accept your words without questioning it]], being as knowable of science or even less than you.

Sadly, their methods are working. In another ''Horizon'' special, "Science Under Attack",<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00y4yql Science Under Attack], ''Horizon''</ref> Paul Nurse, the President of the Royal Society, shows that the trend to generally distrust science and think they are "[[Release the data|trying to get something past you]]" has managed to grow in the [[UK]]. He speculates that it's equally high or much higher in the US, and he's probably right. Nuclear energy, genetically-modified foods, and global warming are all targets in the UK, where religion and evolution itself are less of an issue. But the War on Science is in full swing there.

===Examples of antiscience tactics===
Antiscience proponents often attack science through:
*Attempts to [[ad hominem|discredit the scientists themselves]]. Examples include claims that [[Galileo]] was a [[heretic]] and that [[Charles Darwin]] was a [[Racism|racist]].
*Attempts to discredit [[scientific objectivity]] by claiming that the motivation to research a subject is biased. Examples include claims that [[evolution]] is a [[religion]]<ref>For an example, see [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/the-lie/chapter2.asp ''Evolution is Religion''] by Ken Ham.</ref> and that [[global warming]]/[[COVID-19]] research is motivated by a desire for more [[government]] regulation/control.
*Attempts to discredit scientific results because it's imagined that [[Argument from adverse consequences|they have or will have bad consequences]]. Examples include claims that the [[Relativity|theory of relativity]] will lead to [[moral relativism]]<ref>[[Conservapedia:Conservapedian relativity]]</ref> and that [[Darwinism]] led to [[Social Darwinism]] and [[Hitler and evolution|Hitler]].
*Attempts to use [[Fallacy|flawed arguments]], such as ''[[argumentum ad populum]]'', to "prove" a position correct or incorrect regardless of its scientific basis or lack therof.<ref>[http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2006/09/global-warming-denialists-have-no.html Tim Ball]</ref> Examples include the [[Oregon Petition]] and [[A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism]]. This also includes [[PRATT|all-time classics]] as that [[Big Bang#Creationists|nothing comes from nothing]], so the Big Bang theory is nonsense, or claiming that the [[Piltdown Man]] (and other unspecified examples) disproves evolution.
*Attempts to replace science backed by evidence (a.k.a. "science") with [[pseudoscience]]. Examples include [[creation science]] and [[Lysenkoism]].
*Attempts to label scientific ideas as [[Conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]. An example is the idea that [[global warming]] [[Global warming conspiracy theory|is a conspiracy theory]] or that the concept of global warming is ''motivating'' a conspiracy (such as "the 
environmentalists
 wicked cult of Gaia want to [[Genocide conspiracy|sterilize/kill all the (insert demographic here)]] and [[Depopulation conspiracy theory|crash the global population]]!").
*Attempts to couch antiscience positions in reassuring [[code word]]s in order to appear less distortive of science. Examples include "[[intelligent design]]" or "[[alternative medicine]]".
*Attempts to cut funding to science agencies so they lack resources to fight against the antiscience proponents.
*Outright [[Denialism|denial]] &mdash; because if you can't disprove something, just deny that it exists. Examples include [[germ theory denialism]], [[HIV denial]], or discounting [[transitional forms]].
*And the all-time favorite, [[Bullshit|attempts to obfuscate observed facts]].

==Tangible consequences of the War on Science in the United States==
{{main|Impact of science}}
Science is pretty damn great. Antiscience attitudes and policies actively hurt science's ability to do great things. This obstruction can and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people who otherwise could have been saved.

Sadly, the [[United States]] has seen a very tangible effect of the War on Science, which goes far beyond the classrooms.<ref>[http://chronicle.com/article/Federal-Spending-on-Academic/41523 Federal Spending on Academic Research Continued Downward Trend in 2007], ''Chronicle of Higher Education''</ref>
*[[NASA]]'s budget has been cut consistently over the last 40 years<ref>The numbers are based on the percentage of the federal budget their dollars represent. See {{wpl|Budget of NASA|Budget of NASA}} for the OEOB numbers.</ref> with few far-reaching projects planned and financed. That's why the Shuttle stopped flying without plans to replace it (directly, or with something totally new) while the [[Privatization|private sector]] has begun to catch up.
*The Tevatron at Fermilab, partially [[government]]-sponsored, shut its doors in 2011, unable to compete with the [[LHC]]. In and of itself not an issue, except that the plans to replace it have come across issues with federal funding in the "do we really want to pay [[money]] for something we don't understand" era of modern [[politics]].<ref>[http://www.npr.org/2011/09/30/140959773/fermilabs-particle-accelerator-shuts-down Tevatron Machine Will Smash Particles No More], NPR</ref> In the 1980s, construction began in [[Texas]] on a particle accelerator even larger than the LHC, called the ''Superconducting Supercollider''; it, too, lost funding and was never completed. ([[Tax cut]]s, dear boy.<ref group=note>Apparently {{wpl|Superconducting Super Collider|Reagan really wanted it.}} You reap what you sow.</ref>)
*The top telescopes on land<ref>Both in terms of size, and in terms of new technologies</ref> no longer belong to the US.
*Fermilab's new project, NOνA had its budget slashed by 52 million dollars (1/3 of the cost of building it), putting the project almost 2 years behind schedule, and pushing other projects off Fermilab's "to do" list.<ref>{{wpa|NOνA}}</ref> It is now up and running.
Other nations have similar funding issues. While individual scientists have always had to beg for money for their pet studies, the idea that heads of science institutes at large were having to go out of their way to convince their governments to fund science is a recent development.<ref group=note>The same "Science Under Attack" episode shows several prominent UK scientists attempting to both explain and justify why projects like John Southerland's research into [[amino acid]]s were worth funding.</ref> In 2011, the UK [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]]-[[Liberal Democrats|Liberal]] coalition government demanded a 25% cut to science funding.<ref group=note>This is part of a general trend in which research is viewed in short-term cost/benefit and commodification terms. Witness the former [[Danish]] Minister of Science, Technology and Development, {{wpl|Helge Sander||,}} who invented this pithy slogan during his time in charge of Danish research policy: ''"From research to receipt"'' or ''"From idea to invoice"'' (''"Fra forskning til faktura"'', literally: "From research to invoice"). This approach tends to favour applied (especially technical and biomedical) research, conducted in partnership with private businesses which can then sell the results (products, techniques etc.). F U {{wpl|Jonas Salk}} or [[Albert Einstein]]</ref>

==Examples==
*The blind support of [[abstinence programs]] for [[sex education]], even though they have been proven to be a dismal failure compared to conventional teaching methods, and it has a measurable effect on teen pregnancy rates (guess which direction).
*Until recently, ''complete'' disregard for worldwide concern and efforts to reduce anthropogenic components of global warming.
*[[Demonization]] of [[evolutionary biology]] and the teaching of evolution in [[public school]]s. Advocating [[Creationism in schools|teaching creationism]] alongside, or in place of, evolution. Stickers placed in [[Texas Board of Education|Texas school books]] that remind [[children]] "Evolution is only a theory" and "All of science should be 
denied
 questioned."

==How to fight back==
This all leaves a question about how one will fight this war, and keep (or return) science in its place as "the primary way to find answers for natural phenomena," and those answers as "worthwhile just for the sake of knowledge."

One of the best answers was started by [[Carl Sagan]] and continued by [[David Attenborough]], [[Brian Cox]], Jim Al-Khalili, Marcus Du Sautoy as well as [[Michio Kaku]], [[Bill Nye]], and [[Neil deGrasse Tyson]] in the US: make [[Popular science|science popular]] by making it fun, exciting, and understandable. Modern [[computer]] graphics, which help to bring scientific concepts to life visually, are a great help.

On a more pedantic but no less critical front, the [[National Center for Science Education]], along with plenty of parents and concerned citizens, needs to remain diligent in school districts, taking measures to ensure that science is important, highlighted, and taught well.

It is also important to remind people that investment in science, be it financial or the personal choice to become a scientist, can lead one to unknown places; and yes, it really can lead to amazing and ''profitable'' inventions like, for example, the [[MRI]] as an offshoot of the study of [[quantum physics]] (specifically of [[nuclear magnetic resonance]]).

==What it is not==
The phrase "War on science" does ''not'' mean:
*'''Being anti-consensus''' - having a scientifically testable and potentially [[Falsifiability |falsifiable]] [[hypothesis]] at odds with some paradigm currently [[Scientific consensus |dominant in the scientific community]]. Otherwise, [[Albert Einstein| Einstein]], [[Ignaz Semmelweis | Semmelweis]] [[Charles Darwin| Darwin]], [[Louis Pasteur| Pasteur]], [[Galileo Galilei| Galileo]], and [[Nicolaus Copernicus| Copernicus]] would also meet the definition of fighting smaller wars on science.
*'''[[Science was wrong before| Science getting things wrong]]''': If so, every [[hypothesis]] that is ultimately proven false would meet the definition of having warred on science. It is simply the nature of scientific theories to be overturned or updated once new evidence is found, often with technologies not present previously. On the other hand, even pseudoscientific or non-scientific claims can [[Stopped clock | accidentally go right]].
*'''Being anti-realist''': Scientific realism and anti-realism are epistemological positions which by definition don't make scientific claims. The question whether or not scientific entities such as atoms actually exist does not have an impact on science itself. So don't just assume that someone is anti-science just for expressing the idea that atoms don't exist.

==Past wars on science==
===Hippie antiscience===
This modern usage of the term "antiscience" should not be confused with the antiscience movement in the 1960s and 1970s, which, similar to but less violent than the [[Luddite]]s, was mostly concerned with the potential dehumanization that uncontrolled scientific and technological advancement could cause.<ref>[http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/AntiSci70.HTM "Antiscience of the 1960s and 1970s."]</ref> While this [[skepticism]] of unchecked change meets the dictionary definition of classic [[conservatism]], it falls far short of the [[Anti-intellectualism|anti-intellectual]] thrust of modern political conservatism.

===Postmodernist relativism===
{{main|Postmodernism}}
During the 1980-1990s, the ideology of postmodernism became popular among some left-wing academics. This postmodernism denied (unrealistic) assertions that science could determine objective [[reality]].{{fact}} Instead, these postmodernists argued in favor of very relativist positions. While an argument can be made that these relativist positions themselves aren't necessarily wrong, it is very easy to use them to deny scientific legitimacy altogether. Scientist and leftist [[Alan Sokal]] — creator of the well-known [[Postmodernism#Sokal_affair|Sokal affair]] — instead argued that the "one-to-one correspondence between [[Epistemology|epistemological]] and political views is a gross misrepresentation" and that [[Balance fallacy|there weren't just two sides to the issue]].<ref>[http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/noretta.html What the Social Text Affair Does and Does Not Prove], Alan Sokal, 1997</ref>

==See also==
{{collist|2|
*[[Anti-intellectualism]]
*[[Chemophobia]]
*[[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt]]
*[[Mike Pence]]<ref name=levitan>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/03/24/obamas-science-diaspora-prepares-for-a-fight/ Obama’s science diaspora prepares for a fight] by Dave Levitan (March 24, 2017) ''The Washington Post''.</ref>
*[[Policy-based evidence making]]
*[[Scientism]]
*[[Donald Trump]]<ref name=levitan/>
*[[Sound science]]
}}

==External links==
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e1XX-ngJcc The War on Science], AsapScience
*[https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4495 Top 10 Worst Antiscience Websites]
*[http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/americans-and-scientists-agree-more-on-vaccines-than-on-other-hot-button-issues/ Americans And Scientists Agree More On Vaccines Than On Other Hot Button Issues], [[538]]
*[https://www.cracked.com/article_16896_7-stupid-people-who-sued-scientific-method.html 7 (Stupid) People Who Sued the Scientific Method], [[Cracked.com]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Culture wars]]
[[Category:Political terms]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:War on science| ]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Culture wars, Political terms, Pseudoscience, Science, War on science