Science is alive and thriving, thank you, and so assertions of its impending demise are noticeably premature. Yes, there are major issues in which people shun findings of science that conflict with their beliefs, but to deal with that problem we first have to properly diagnose it.

Those were the two key themes of science historian and geologist (and CSI Fellow) Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University in her October 28, 2021, online Skeptical Inquirer Presents talk. Oreskes is lead author of Merchants of Doubt (which has sold 100,000 copies) and author of other books such as Why Trust Science? and Plate Tectonics: An Insider’s History of the Modern Theory of the Earth.

“Science is doing well,” she said. “How can I say that?” The quick creation of vaccines “with astonishing levels of efficacy” against COVID-19 is clearly a sign “that our scientific enterprise is working well.”

The data also show the same thing. General Social Survey polls consistently show that Americans still trust science and scientists. In the latest polls, only the military is more trusted than science. Some 71 percent of Americans support government funding of research, and 72 percent support government funding of engineering and technology.

And this trust in science is global.

“Any claim that there is a crisis in science in recent years is not supported by evidence,” Oreskes said. “And I know this is a very evidence-based group.”

“So, what the heck is going on?” she asked. “Why is there this impression that there’s this distrust in science?”

One answer is the media narrative. She showed several articles written about “a crisis in science.” They were not from general newspapers or magazines but from scientific journals and science magazines. So, scientists themselves are pushing the idea.

“We need to go with the collective evidence, not just the narrative,” she said.

One thing we know for sure, though, is that there is a tremendous political polarization in attitudes toward science. People on the left side of the political spectrum trust science much more than do people on the right side. Trust in the military is flipped, left and right. And that’s not just in the United States. “We see the same in other countries,” she said.

“So why are people on the right rejecting vaccines? Vaccines don’t care whether you are Republican or Democrat.”

“Most people don’t reject science across the board. They selectively reject science in specific areas … or they reject the implications. It implies something they don’t like, emotionally or intellectually.”

She analyzed this “implicatory denial” in three areas: evolutionary biology, climate change, and mask mandates.

Opposition to evolution depends a lot on nuances of wording. “Something is going on that has to do not with evolutionary theory but with how we feel about God or some additional power in our lives.”

There is a remedy, she said: Acknowledge that God is not a scientific question.

In fact, scientists would do well in discussing evolution with the public to emphasize three limitations:

1) Science does not disprove the existence of God.

2) Science does not tell us the meaning of life.

3) Science does not tell us that people are “mistakes” (a claim sometimes heard from religious-based evolution opponents).

As for climate change, many scientists think mistakenly that resistance is driven by uncertainty; however, “That’s a misdiagnosis.” Eighty-eight percent of Democrats think climate change is a threat, but only 31 percent of Republicans do. “So, something else is going on; it’s not a matter of scientific facts.”

Political polarization about climate change began around 1990 and has steadily worsened since then. As she showed in Merchants of Doubt, the major factor explaining that is ideology. It is “market fundamentalism, fear of government regulation of business,” plus the assertion that regulation is a gateway to communism (an argument still used today). This was all part of Cold War anxieties. The whole anti–climate science agenda was pushed strongly by fossil fuel interests.

Of course, there is hypocrisy and “misdirection” in that regard, she pointed out: Fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by governments. In fact, she noted that fossil fuels are the second most heavily subsidized industry, after agriculture. Studies a few years back showed that the world spends $5 trillion on energy subsidies, and that figure now is up to $7 trillion.

Mask mandates align with radical individualism. They align with conservative ideology, with fear of big government. It is “standing up for freedom” and “not wanting to be told what to do.”

“It is not driven by lack of trust in science. It is driven by personal, ideological, theological, and political concerns and frameworks.”

So, she asked, what does this mean for those of us concerned about science? We need to remember four things:

1) The vast majority of Americans do trust science.

2) Facts do count to most who do trust science.

3) Scientists need to provide good quality information in formats the public can understand.

4) With those motivated by nonempirical concerns, outreach must acknowledge their concerns.

Scientists, as much as possible, need to communicate findings without telling people what to do. “I don’t like being told what to do,” she acknowledged, so she can understand why others don’t. “Let people figure out for themselves what to do with that information, as much as possible.”

Her take-home points? Not to be afraid to talk about these issues. Think about who the audience is. Don’t just start talking. Acknowledge their concerns. Communicate in a nonaggressive way.

Oreskes got vaccinated in Provo, Utah, a conservative region, last spring. The health workers had arranged for recipients to write messages about why they got the vaccine. Some of them were very moving, recalling relatives lost to COVID-19.

She especially liked one message: “I protect my family in many ways. Why not this?”