Chapter 1: The Role of Science

Recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before a House committee to discuss the Covid-19 pandemic. Throughout this period, he has become a target for conservative critics. Many have accused him of sending mixed signals regarding health guidelines. For instance, he initially emphasized the need for masks, only to later suggest they might not be necessary, while still advocating for social distancing. The narrative shifted frequently, leading to accusations of inconsistency regarding the virus's transmission methods.

Critics have also portrayed Fauci as a proponent of governmental overreach, linking him to policies such as business closures, remote work mandates, quarantines, and mask enforcement. In the eyes of many conservatives, he embodies the push for vaccinations. Fueled by personal beliefs and conspiracy theories, some have developed a strong aversion to vaccines and mandates.

Fauci's testimony has provided an opportunity for key Republican figures to capitalize on public discontent. Take Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), for instance, who caused a stir by refusing to acknowledge Fauci's medical credentials during the hearings. Her behavior wasn't surprising, given her previous antics.

While I find Taylor Greene and others who mock Fauci to be rather distasteful, this discussion is not solely about his testimony. Instead, I aim to explain my understanding of science, especially as it relates to public perception.

There are individuals who will vilify Fauci and other scientific representatives regardless of the circumstances. However, many people are genuinely perplexed by the messages from "experts" on various topics, including the economy, climate change, social justice, and, of course, the COVID-19 crisis. For these individuals, adopting my perspective on science might reduce confusion and foster empathy.

Section 1.1: Defining Science as a Sociologist

In my view, modern science is rooted in a community that shares specific values about knowledge production. During my lectures, I often reference a diagram from W. Lawrence Neumann's textbook, where he outlines various norms. I prefer to think of these as values—evaluating research based on its quality (universalism), encouraging skepticism (organized skepticism), remaining open to new ideas (disinterestedness), sharing insights (communalism), and upholding honesty.

Furthermore, modern science relies on established processes and institutions that have evolved over time to generate knowledge. This includes annual conferences for presenting research findings and the peer review process for scholarly publications. Key institutions consist of professional organizations and educational establishments.

In summary, I define science as:

a system of institutions, processes, and values embraced by a community to generate beneficial knowledge.

This straightforward definition may lack certain elements that some readers might expect. Notably, it does not mention numbers, instruments, or technology—the typical symbols of scientific inquiry. While these components can enhance the perception of "science," they are not essential. Remarkably insightful research can emerge from simply recording people's thoughts and feelings using just pen and paper, which I frequently highlight in my discussions.

There is also no reference to specific job titles or roles. Science cannot be confined to the outputs of designated professionals like scientists, professors, or researchers. In fact, anyone can engage in scientific thinking, regardless of their occupation or even in their leisure time.

The scientific method, often viewed as a core element of scientific inquiry, is not explicitly included in this definition either. While it offers a valid approach to knowledge acquisition, it is not the sole pathway to scientific understanding.

The essence of contemporary science, as I see it, lies in its community of practitioners who uphold shared values, which are further utilized within established processes and institutions.

Chapter 2: Implications for Public Discourse on Science

The first video titled "What is Science?" explores foundational concepts in scientific inquiry and its relevance to societal issues.

The second video, also titled "What is Science?" delves deeper into the significance of science in contemporary debates and public policy.

When discussing public discourse, it is important to recognize that directing anger toward a single individual relaying the collective insights of a community is misguided. When an academic or scientist shares their findings, those insights are often the result of extensive collaboration and numerous studies that have undergone rigorous peer evaluation.

Even original research is a collective endeavor, shaped by feedback from peers and conference discussions. The epidemiologists commenting on COVID-19, meteorologists addressing climate change, and sociologists analyzing systemic racism are all representatives of a larger community, conveying the collective knowledge of their fields.

Moreover, I do not anticipate permanent answers from science, as it is inherently a dynamic process. It was understandably frustrating during the pandemic when experts, including Dr. Fauci, seemed to adjust their recommendations frequently. However, this adaptability demonstrated the scientific community's commitment to understanding a rapidly evolving situation.

In fact, these shifts in guidance reinforced my trust in the scientific community's response to COVID-19. The willingness to reconsider original ideas and adapt based on emerging evidence is a hallmark of scientific inquiry.

However, I believe Fauci and others in similar roles could improve their communication regarding the nature of scientific knowledge. While it is unrealistic to expect them to clarify the collective and provisional nature of their insights with every statement, it would be beneficial for them to occasionally remind the public that their perspectives reflect the current understanding, which may evolve.

In conclusion, the scientific community faces real challenges. The pressure to publish can lead to subpar research, and decreasing government investment in science may force researchers to cater to private interests. The era of pursuing scientific discovery for its own sake appears to be diminishing.

My understanding of modern science suggests that we should be scrutinizing systemic issues rather than demonizing individuals. We must consider whether we are equipping future researchers with the appropriate values to foster genuine scientific inquiry and whether the institutions and processes we rely on are still effective in producing knowledge. These are crucial questions for the future.