We conclude our review of science with an important aside. The day-to-day reality is that science is frequently marred by ethical issues. This should come as no surprise to Christians; the biblical worldview teaches us that every human endeavor, which includes science, will be beset by sin, resulting in problems both moral and intellectual.
The evidence shows that this is the case. Although entire books have been devoted to this topic, for example James Penston’s Stats.con—How We’ve Been Fooled by Statistics-based Research in Medicine,[1] we will summarize elements of the final chapter from McElreath’s Statistical Rethinking. He quotes the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.[2]
If perhaps half of science may be untrue, the problem is determining which half. McElreath continues:
… the history of the sciences is equal parts wonder and blunder … Its story is one of error, ego, fraud, and correction … [Some philosophers of science have concluded since] most science has been wrong, most science is wrong.[3]
McElreath lists various concerns with contemporary science:[4]
- If funding of science projects is determined by those who have been funded in the past, this could lead research in a conservative or even corrupt direction.
- Projects with insufficient sample size or small effects have a high “noise to signal ratio”. These generate unreliable findings.
- Leading academic journals may prioritize new or positive findings over true findings. Replication work is regarded as less publishable than novel work. Over time, this can distort scientific literature.
- Incorrect analysis of data is commonly published. Even if criticized and retracted, these studies are often still cited by scientists unaware of the retraction or criticism.
- Poor peer review does not prevent mistakes being published but might prevent publication of brilliant work. Honesty about the weaknesses of a study may be punished while exaggeration may be rewarded with publication.
One interesting peer-review convention is to maintain the anonymity of reviewers involved. The peer review process, which is ostensibly aimed at improving the quality of the publication and reducing the number of errors, will therefore lack transparency. Hidden peer review has been relatively ineffective in stopping scientific fraud.
On a positive note, secular humanists are beginning to acknowledge that “Yes, science is political”.[5] A guest blog in Scientific American explains that politics decides who can become a scientist, how science is conducted, what topics are funded, and what knowledge is disseminated.[6] Given the level of secular humanist political control, this is an issue that Christians need to understand: origins science has become biased via politicization and other factors. As Feynman concluded, and which the establishment finds convenient to ignore, “we live in an unscientific age in which … there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.”
[1] Penston, 2010.
[2] McElreath, 2020, p. 553.
[3] Ibid., p. 554.
[4] Ibid., pp. 554–555.
[5] Shearer, Jackson, Ahmad, & Paredes, 2020.
[6] Sabbagh, 2017.