The recent “closure” of the 2016 presidential election season — the installment of President Donald Trump into the White House — could be regarded, and justifiably so, as the showy capstone of what some people would call the triumph of the “post-fact” era of politics in not only the United States, but throughout the world. Quite rapidly (and alarmingly), throughout our daily life, new buzz terms such as “alternative facts” and “fake news” have emerged. This is precipitating a budding form of existential crisis throughout all strata of the masses that is both unfamiliar and deeply unsettling, especially in the face of the advances that humanity has made in establishing knowledge in the fields of science, technology and mathematics.
With such widespread accusations of falsehoods and lambasting of “evidence” and “facts” (on both sides of the political spectrum), the very nature of truth, evidence and reason has unavoidably been called into question. Not only that, but fringe movements such as conspiracy theories and alternative pseudoscience that transcend party lines have increasingly emerged in popularity to fulfill the growing vacuum left behind by the crumbling of the previous order that, more or less, advocated for substantiated argument and consultation of evidence. But a radical paradigm shift is in motion. Put plainly, it appears that popular skepticism (could we even say popular absurdism?) is now the new norm.
Now, while some people would consider such concerning developments to be very dark times at present, and portentous of the perils and crises ahead, there always exist optimistic solutions that could now be more ready than ever. Perhaps right now, in the current crisis of evidence, the time is ripe to rebound with a resilient pivot toward reinvigorated attention to the principles that make scientific, evidence-based reasoning as useful as it has been to humanity for the centuries of its existence. A concerted pushback that advocates for rigorous “scientific” and mathematical reasoning could be the first step in the effort to combat the bizarre political and social phenomenon that have threatened to delegitimize it.
The “crisis of evidence and belief” invokes an opportune revisiting of the importance of science and the quantitative and qualitative approaches of reasoning that it utilizes. Moreover, it allows us to seriously reconsider the place of science beyond the use it has as a profession to scientists — what is its value to the everyday “layman?” So perhaps it is not science itself that is under attack, but instead the channels that are used to communicate its discoveries and advances to the general public, and even more broadly, its perception by the public. As I wrote previously, the changes to climate science information on webpages under the jurisdiction of the new White House administration and the progress of Environmental Protection Agency head nominee Scott Pruitt through his confirmation process, are gestures that threaten open communication of climate science to the public.
Approaching the issue from a different and much broader angle, the state of education in the United States leaves much to be desired, at least in primary education. The lagging of American students in areas of science and mathematics is upsetting especially in contrast to the incredible value of such modes of thought. For example, the utility of the mathematical method is manifold and does not restrict itself to mathematics alone. Mathematical reasoning operates on rigor. That is, it requires justification at every step in its argument. From certain premises, one can progress toward larger conceptual frameworks, and from there, begin to work toward uniting even the most remote areas of mathematical thinking. Second, and by consequence of the first, it encourages a meticulous attention to detail. The attention and focus required to construct and validate mathematical statements is characteristic of the practice. Third, it promotes valid reasoning, and, above all, effective communication.
Of course, the philosophy of mathematics and “knowing” is far more complex and perhaps too recondite for the average person and their needs, but that does not prevent a sincere effort to promote the modes of thinking early on in education, a mode of thinking that has allowed the widespread progress we have come to enjoy. But do I think that the “scientific mindset” is the panacea to the current sociopolitical upheaval? Idealistically, yes, but realistically, no. Another pragmatic consideration is that maybe more targeted, specific countermeasures are necessary. However, in the long run, an emphasis on scientific rationale and mathematical, logical thinking would be of great benefit.
