Antiscience
“Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge...Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism and distrust in medical treatments…for some, rejecting scientific consensus or public health guidance serves as an expression of political allegiance or skepticism towards perceived authority figures.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
Objectivity
“Objectivity in science is an attempt to uncover truths about the natural world by eliminating personal biases, emotions, and false beliefs.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)
This is the definition Wikipedia linked in its page on antiscience. Note that it defines objectivity as an aspirational process (pursuit of truth by eliminating the influence of subjectivity). Interesting that this definition only applies to the “natural” world.
Bias
“Bias is a disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is inaccurate, closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias
Universality
“In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)
Odd that this link from Wikipedia’s Antiscience page provides a definition from logic and not the philosophy of science. What would be “true in all possible contexts” for a scientific finding? Scientific truths tend to be expressed in terms of conditional probabilities, complicated causal pathways, thresholds, dose effects, contributions to variability, mathematical equations, etc. Scientific truths are often particular; they’re all about context: ‘x’ is true, given a, b, c, d, e, and probably f. Where’s the universality in that?
Scientific Method
“The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism…Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypothetical explanations), deriving predictions from the hypotheses as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions…The scientific method is not a single recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity. In this sense, it is not a mindless set of standards and procedures to follow but is rather an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate, and comprehensive models and methods.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific methods improve over time, the better to get closer to the truth - that is, a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the world. This process may be asymptotic, meaning there’s always more to understand. If so, the truths of science are more the best evidence so far than the final word, though the best evidence is often enough to act on, with a reminder to keep questioning, observing, fine-tuning.
Scientific Consensus
“Scientific consensus is the generally held judgment, position, and opinion of the majority or the supermajority of scientists in a particular field of study at any particular time.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus
Supermajority
“A supermajority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of more than one-half used for a simple majority.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
The Wikipedia link is to supermajority as a concept in government, mostly thresholds for winning votes. These thresholds can be quite low, e.g., 2/3 or even lower. That’s much too low for a scientific consensus. Also, scientific opinions tend to be more nuanced than ayes and nays.
—
Next: How the word “antiscience” is used in academia and the news media.