I had lunch with an old friend of mine and happened to mention my unhappiness with the situation involving global climate change. Specifically, I lamented that the United States had at the time opted out of any concerted action to get a handle on the problem. James, my friend, told me not to worry because there is no global climate change; there is no global warming. I was flabbergasted, because I know that there is a major problem that needs attention here and now. James is a pretty savvy person, yet he believes there is no problem and that nothing needs to be done.

A few days ago, my niece Harriet stopped in for tea, and I inquired as to how her little one is doing. She has a six-year-old daughter about to enter first grade. Harriet complained that the school requires vaccinations for polio, smallpox, measles, and some other serious ailments, and she is afraid that the vaccinations may result in autism for her little Alice. I tried to tell her that this is a fairy tale, but Harriet is convinced that her fears are grounded in fact and there isn’t a chance that little Alice will be vaccinated.

I attended a lecture on genetically modified food; the speaker was a recognized authority on food science. He told us that such food holds out several advantages and that it is perfectly safe for human consumption. The young man sitting next to me muttered under his breath: “Absolute nonsense. GM food should not be eaten.”

I have to ask myself: Am I completely out of touch, or is the rest of the world? Admittedly, I have dealt here with a small segment of the population, but it seems to be representative of a much larger one, one with which I am in disagreement. Whether it is the fact that part of the population will not wear protective masks or believes UFOs are evidence of aliens, I find myself in opposition to those holding forth on the subject. I cannot help but wonder: What is wrong here?

The answer I come up with is that there is a common denominator to all this, and that commonality is disbelief in science and the rejection of science and disbelief in scientists on a global scale, but especially in the United States. So that changes the questions that preoccupy me: Why the rejection? Why the disbelief in science?

Over one-quarter of the world says they are suspicious of the role of science, and that number grows to one-third in the Unites States. People are becoming increasingly distrustful of science; they express doubts about the validity of scientific findings. One hears popular slogans, such as that the scientific method doesn’t work; science has an agenda; science is unreliable. Not surprisingly, scientific institutions and journals express their concerns about the public’s increasing distrust in science. They point to a 2012 survey by the National Science Foundation, which found that one-quarter of the American respondents believe that the Sun orbits Earth, or an AP-GFK poll (Medrigal 2014), which noted that half of the population does not believe in the big bang and that four out of ten American adults doubt evolution. And there is a large following of those who believe the earth is flat.

So, again: Why is it that so many Americans reject scientific findings and theories? Once I began to examine this, I noted that there is no single explanation. The underlying causes are, regrettably, manifold.

One basic reason: we tend to believe what we hear or learn when we are young. The girl, told at an early age that sex is a necessary evil, will most likely grow up acting on that belief. In elementary school in Hungary, we were often reminded that the residents of neighboring Romania were dirty peasants whose animals lived with them in their houses; I believed that for a long time. So a child, whose mother had a bad encounter with vaccination (her niece was vaccinated for measles and subsequently developed mumps) and therefore informs everyone in sight, including her children, that vaccination is evil, that child—as an adult—will likely believe someone who proclaims that there are untold evils associated with vaccination, including becoming autistic. And the child growing up in a family where the father proclaims that the earth is flat will probably believe that as well.

The impressionable child believes and acts on what he or she encountered, saw, heard, and was taught during the formative years. If, as part of being opposed to vaccination, that family has developed a distrust for science, that child is likely to become an adult with disbelief in science—and that disbelief can be firm. According to Leon Festinger, a man with a conviction is a hard man to change (Mooney 2011). Tell him you disagree, and he turns away. Show him facts or figures, and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, and he fails to see your point.

Related to the influence of childhood environment is peer pressure. Many people, if not most, crave approval, especially approval by one’s peers. Whether it is a young boy who wants to fit in or an adult whose buddies proclaim that global warning is a hoax, there is a universal desire, conscious or subconscious, to be part of the team, to go along with the group.

Indeed, there’s a sense in which science denial could be considered rational in certain conservative communities, explains Yale’s Dan Kahan (Mooney 2011). Holding certain beliefs is a condition of belonging to cultural groups. Adopting a position contrary to your peer group can threaten your social status while having little effect on the collective opinion. People who say “I think there’s something to climate change” will be marked as a certain kind of person, and their life is going to go less well in their community. A study by Kahan (2015) found that what people say they believe about global warming is not a measure of how much they know or even how worried they are about it; it is instead an expression of their cultural identities. If on top of that a celebrity endorses a belief, that helps seal the deal. Those who believe that vaccination is dangerous are supported in this by environmentalists such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Hollywood celebrities such as Jim Carrey and Jenny McCarthy, and this makes it easy to take a position against vaccination.

Political ideology is seen by many researchers as a significant culprit of science denial. In Russia, biologist Nikolay Vavilov was denounced, persecuted, banned, and starved to death for espousing genetics, which did not fit with the then-accepted politics of the Soviet Union. Sociologist Gordon Gauchat has shown that political conservatives in the United States have become more distrusting of science, a trend that started in the 1970s (Tsipursky 2018). And a swath of recent research conducted by social and political psychologists has consistently shown that climate-change denial in particular is typically found among those on the conservative side of the political spectrum (Dunlap et al. 2016; McCright and Dunlap 2016).

However, there is still more to science denial. Religion can play a role. Throughout history, religion has frequently stood in the way of science to maintain the status quo, so as not to be confronted or accosted. Galileo was accused of heresy because he opposed the teaching of the Church that Earth is at the center of the universe. Where some religions date Earth as a few thousand years old, scientific evidence suggests more like billions of years as its real age. But if your religion taught the former, you might be reluctant to admit to the latter. If religion has taught that humanity began with Adam and Eve, it will be difficult to accept the theory of evolution. If you have moral concern about the naturalness of vaccination, you will reject information about its beneficial effects. Challenging an existing, embedded belief and being confronted with an unwanted truth result in rationalizing disbelief in science.

Having a vested interest in a position has also been a major factor in denying science. The person who denies global warming and the idea that it is largely man-made finds that this science is an inconvenient truth. It is inconvenient for those who own a coal mine or work in one. It is inconvenient for the real estate agent who cannot sell property in an endangered region. It is inconvenient for those who produce or refine oil, ship oil products, or even use any of the fossil fuels. The fossil fuels have worked well and are affordable. Why rock the boat? The change to renewable source fuels will cost money, and that is not just inconvenient but to some unaffordable. It is easier to deny the global warming than to make this major change. Avarice, personal pride, and greed can combine to deny science.

A confirmed smoker has a vested interest in not accepting the science that smoking causes lung cancer because he would have to give up smoking.

While none of this rejection of science makes sense, one of the worst offenders is in the case of Covid-19. Science has pointed to a clear path for control of the pandemic, and there have been understandable, though wrong, reasons for its rejection:

“You must wear masks!” If a political leader rejects that, many followers will do likewise. And if someone thinks that the mask makes them look silly, not only will they not wear the mask but they will conjure up scenarios that the mask is harmful.

“Keep social distance!” A significant number fall back on good old American freedom. Nobody is going to tell them what to do. They proudly proclaim that maybe the masks are okay, but they will not be told whether to wear masks or not and whether to stay far from others. Maybe distancing is beneficial, but don’t tell them what to do or how to behave. After all, this is a free country! Also, most of the participants in the crowded events are relatively young, and they feel invincible; the virus is for others, not for them. To not be able to interact with a bunch of buddies, have a pajama party, or have a beer with the gang is too much to ask. Not only that, but doesn’t the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to assembly? They feel that they have a limited time to “do their thing,” virus and science be damned. There is also another undercurrent: if the leadership does not wear masks, people will demonstrate their support of the leader by also not wearing masks. All these make it easy to ignore the counsel of the scientists.

The leadership, e.g., the government, has some of the world’s best medical scientists who have been very direct with advice: wear masks and observe social distancing. Why then did the leaders of the previous administration choose to ignore this advice? To reject the science regarding the correct course of action?

Initially, the Trump administration underestimated the pandemic. The first proclamations were to the effect that it is a minor inconvenience and that just a few people were getting the virus. When it turned out that large numbers were getting the virus, the government proclaimed that it will all soon blow over. With that kind of a record, how could the officials then acknowledge the magnitude of the pandemic by observing the cautioning of the medical scientists? The only thing a self-confident official could do was to minimize it and proclaim that no special steps are needed to protect either self or others. The result: rejection of wearing masks and social distancing. The reason: a case of the president trying to save face.

The internet has enabled anyone to be a publisher of content, connecting people around the world with any and all sources of information. On the one hand, this freedom is empowering and liberating. Wikipedia is an example of an accurate source of information on a vast number of subjects. On the other hand, anyone can publish a blog or post on Twitter to make false claims about links between vaccines and autism, claim that the earth is flat, or deny global warming. If they are skilled at search engine optimization or have money to invest in advertising, they can get their message spread widely and rapidly—whether true or false or even evil.

Then we have those who can profit from contradicting the scientists. Environmental regulations can be seen as economically harmful restrictions on industry, although they can be the driving force behind new products and processes that help in complying with those regulations. In a more sinister form, the person who selects a major ongoing issue and takes a position contrary to that given by science can gain an immense following of believers (and contributors) and is aided in this by the relatively new social media that make it easy to disseminate information, whether true or false. Individuals are able to point to a personal experience, provide false testimony, create stories, or form a nonbeliever group in pursuit of financial gain. Even the news media can be participants here: they have a natural tendency to give attention to mavericks, naysayers, and professional controversialists, and some would also have you believe that science is full of shocking discoveries made by lone geniuses.

There is at least one more factor to consider: the scientists themselves. One of the most worrying causes of disbelief in science is Americans’ lack of trust in the scientists. The scientists do contribute to the disbelief, though unintentionally. For one thing, some are prickly, and some are difficult to understand, because they talk the language of science rather than the language of the public. This is a major problem. Another issue is that the source of funding of their studies may have a seeming conflict of interest—indeed sometimes a real conflict—and the public may conclude that all studies entail conflicts of interest. The news media, to gain readership, will emphasize these conflicts, and this will result in further erosion of the scientists’ credibility. The result: when someone is unable to attack the scientific finding, they will attack the scientist.

There are numerous reasons for disbelief in scientific findings. Some reasons are inherent in human behavior and human psychology; some in vested interests, greed, and pride; some in political ideology or religion. And if none of that works, one can always attack the messenger.

Understanding why people distrust science will go a long way toward understanding what needs to be done for people to take science seriously. Several sociologists have recommended at least one way of ameliorating this problem: Do not try to out-argue the disbelievers, present “the truth,” or present citations for one’s scientifically correct position. Instead, engage the other party in genuine dialogue. To explore their position and genuinely attempt to understand it, discuss it and attempt to show why perhaps it is not scientifically correct.

Maybe there is hope. Maybe.

References

Dunlap, Riley, et al. 2016. The political divide on climate change. Environment: Science Policy for Sustainable Development 58.

Kahan, Dan. 2015. Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36: Suppl. 1.

McCright, Aaron, and Riley Dunlap. 2011. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s view of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly 52(2): 155–194.

Medrigal, Alexis. 2014. A majority of Americans still aren’t sure about the big bang. The Atlantic (April 21).

Mooney, Chris. 2011. The science of why we don’t believe in science. Mother Jones (May/June). Tsipursky, Gleb. 2018. (Dis)trust in science. Scientific American Blog Network (July 5).