It’s the science, stupid!

A warning against scientism and a proposal for science communication focused more on scientific process(es) than scientific facts

About thirty years ago, then-President George H. W. Bush thought he had his ducks in a row and focused his campaign on everything that had been so great during his last term. Only, not everything was going as well as he might have hoped: an economic recession was in full swing, giving Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign team an opportunity. Through the hand of strategist James Carville, the winged words “the economy, stupid” appeared clearly on a whiteboard in the so-called “war room” to keep the team focused on this matter. Although the sentence was never actually spoken by Clinton or his team, the quote (later with the added “it’s”) has taken on a life of its own with regard to American political culture and many words could occupy (and have occupied) the place of ‘the economy’. Science, for example.

I believe science communication is too often focused on “the science”. When questions, skepticism, and pseudoscience arise, we need to do better than “science shows x or y”. The scientific process is important to communicate to give people insight into the workings of different scientific disciplines and their methods. Otherwise, science could become a cliché resting on its status, which, when considered in detail, is nothing more than a mere argument from authority. I have come to believe this more because of a fascination of mine over the last year: pseudoarcheology. Now, I have long had a fondness for pseudoscience and its appeal to the general public (and specifically its debunking—yes, I too am guilty of glorifying scientific facts). 

It was two science communicators who (thanks to the YouTube algorithm) introduced me to Graham Hancock, a former journalist with a background in sociology who has been trying for decades to argue that there was a now-vanished, large-scale, technologically advanced (white) civilization at the end of the last ice age that taught ‘simple hunter-gatherers’ fundamentals like agriculture, technology, art, and engineering. There is simply no evidence for this claim (although Mr. Hancock does like to cherry-pick and cobble together a history while happily profiting from what ‘mainstream’ archaeology doesn’t yet know or supposedly tries to cover up, thereby posing as a canceled freedom fighter for the common people).

It has paid off for the man: several of his books have become bestsellers (sometimes even in the archaeology category), he hosts a successful Netflix series with two seasons (where he can freely spew his pseudoscientific beliefs), he is invited on several popular podcasts, and he is asked as a public speaker to communicate his self-constructed mythology. Being canceled doesn’t look too bad, I must say. After a while it also occurred to me that I knew the man from somewhere and then it dawned on me: I knew him from when I was young(er) and when my father (sorry for exposing you like this, dad) was binge-watching the History Channel (a place where pseudoscience can freely flourish), with Mr. Hancock also making guest appearances every now and then in great series such as Ancient Aliens (read the sarcasm). So, Graham and I go back a while. 

As you can tell from my writing, I can enjoy some schadenfreude about unproven ideas that I consider ridiculous in terms of content, but if I’m honest, this too is somewhat perverse. It is perverse because 1) the content may not make sense, but it does appeal, 2) the man himself attracts a lot of attention (as I must admit that he is a convincing storyteller), 3) archaeology can be threatened by this (among other things by the development of an ‘alternative’ archaeology), 4) it is not an isolated case (as all sciences can be threatened by pseudoscience). Simply refuting all pseudo-facts with what science has or has not found, or bombarding the public with these facts in the hope that they will be resistant to the pseudoscientific realm is simply not enough. This is where explaining the scientific processes comes in. 

I have no background in archaeology at all and I can see how the stories that Hancock and colleagues spread do have their appeal if you do not understand how archaeology does what it does and do not know what the field actually knows. A four-and-a-half hour debate (or better: oratorical spectacle) between archaeologist Dr. Flint Dibble and Graham Hancock on The Joe Rogan Experience convinced me even more of the importance of the whole process explanation (yes, I listened to 4.5 hours of The Joe Rogan Experience). Dr. Dibble had a lot of facts at his disposal, but he also ‘convinced’ me by explaining how for example animal remains, domesticated plants, geological vs. human structures, etc. were studied and how this systematically and incrementally leads to knowledge production. Graham Hancock had a hard time trying to convey his message, with him sometimes having to backpedal (even stating that there is currently no archaeological evidence to support his claims). More so, according to Dr. Dibble there were also a lot of positive reactions from those who did identify as (former) Hancock fans; anecdotal evidence of course, but still a positive signal.

The point is that we must avoid communicating science merely as an authority, because then we can too easily get trapped in a yes-no debate of science versus pseudoscience, alternative science or simply certain beliefs.

What is more, if the attributed authority to science disappears altogether, we are completely in for a dive into the unknown. Let us be wary of scientism, in which we start to treat science as a higher, all-knowing deity with communicators who (need to) act as shamans or gurus to guide the populace on their rational-spiritual journey (whether or not under the influence of statistical ayahuasca). There is danger in the latter, namely by scientists who at a certain point start to see themselves as the mouthpiece of ‘all that is science’, with these ‘experts’ causing harm of their own. More so, if the audience sees someone as a guru this could also pose its problems. I, myself, have to be aware of not seeing Dr. Dibble as he who brings the scientific gospel, showing (for me) how easy it can be to fall into some form of idolatry or scientific fandom. Science is an endeavor by multiple people, through multiple processes and with incremental finetuning of knowledge. Let’s go beyond the mere facts and let’s tell a scientifically sound story with a developed plot. You wouldn’t want to only read the end of a book, would you?