Science and the left: why socialists need to embrace a skeptical, rational approach

Tom Armstrong from Manchester Left Unity writes.

There are very few people who would deny outright that science and the work of scientists have contributed immensely to the progress of humanity. In spite of the best efforts of capitalism to exploit people to an ever greater degree, we generally live for longer, with a greater quality of life than we did 100 years ago, and illnesses and conditions which would have meant certain death in pre-industrial times are now preventable and treatable where people have access to such treatments (the injustice of those that do not have such access is another story). Indeed, with the threat of climate change and biodiversity loss high on the agenda of the left these days, it is scientists that confirm that our society, based on massive overconsumption and the greed of the 1% to the detriment of the 99%, needs to change massively to a more just and sustainable model.

However this does not stop a significant number of people who subscribe to progressive causes from having beliefs where evidence for their validity is sketchy to non existent. In some cases this may be harmless enough if it is strictly a personal view which does not serve to threaten that person’s mental or physical health (or indeed that of those people around them). However today there are a lot of beliefs that in spite of being quickly debunked when scrutinised under a skeptical eye, still gain a lot of currency among the left and progressively minded individuals – and many of these beliefs are NOT benign.

I do not intend to pick apart every example of quackery, conspiracy theory, and pseudoscientific thought – there are far too many examples and plenty of people do just that already. However in this article I will highlight the many ways such beliefs are potentially harmful or even downright toxic to the left and progressive causes.

Quackery and pseudoscience – a potential killer

Pseudoscience comes in many forms among nominally progressive causes. The environmental movement particularly harbours many people who subscribe to pseudoscientific beliefs. An archetypical example is the New Age type who believes in the healing powers of crystals, homeopathy, etc. This often is coupled to an intense distrust of “Big Pharma” and all its works. Now I am as aware as anyone else that the pharmaceutical industry has acted, and still does act in highly unscrupulous ways (as indeed does any other industry run entirely to make a profit). However this distrust leads to people rejecting science-based medicine for so-called “alternative” medicine where the evidence for their efficacy is sketchy to non-existent. Whilst this may be harmless enough when dealing with the common cold, when dealing with deadly diseases such as meningitis and cancers this rejection of scientific fact is usually fatal. What is worse is when people promote such quack treatments (often with a significant price tag attached) to others – selling false hopes to desperate people.

Even more deplorable is when such belief forms part of government policy, such as when the government of Thabo Mbeki in South Africa embraced denialism of scientific findings on HIV/AIDS and made it almost impossible for poor South Africans to get access to anti-retroviral drugs, which has had a terrible impact on quality of life and life expectancy in the country.

Another example of medical based pseudoscience which is incredibly toxic are the “antivax” conspiracy theories, again popular among New Age circles. Due to scaremongering about the “safety” of vaccines (most infamously the now discredited work of Andrew Wakefield who fabricated evidence of a link between MMR and autism) measles outbreaks are on the increase, along with other diseases which had been all but eliminated by the late 20th century.

Unfortunately challenging such beliefs is often an uphill struggle – and when I have done so on social media I have felt quite alone at times, particularly since the “believers” often react with hostility to having their beliefs challenged – only last month I was barred from an event page for an anti-benefit sanctions protest after challenging someone for promoting a place that offered “alternative” cancer therapies, who had offered the protesters tea after the protest. Innocuous enough one may say, but I for one would refuse to patronise such a business, and when I explained why I was first censored then blocked. As socialists and progressive people, we must take a stand against this trend and promote a rational discourse which embraces science and evidence-based belief, and actively debunks irrational, pseudoscientific discourse, especially where it’s at its most toxic. What’s more, skeptics on the left need to show solidarity with each other, since there are many who will eagerly attack those who dare to challenge their misguided beliefs. This also applies to the further examples I will elaborate on.

“Freemen on the land” – nonsense of the highest order

I dedicate a section to this because this is potentially a very dangerous belief that has gained currency among several grassroots campaigns, which could resort to activists not seeking proper legal advice when needed. This belief is, according to the excellent source for skeptics that is RationalWiki:

“Freemen hold that we are all subject to a massive international legal conspiracy perpetrated for the profit of the elites, but you can hack the system if you just use the right form of words. They believe only in their version of natural law, which they call ‘common law’. In practical terms, they believe this means they do not have to pay taxes, debts, mortgages, etc. because we were all deceived and if you say the right form of words, this fact will be accepted! Think of it as people trying to use a real life cheat code.”

However:

“No freeman arguments have ever succeeded in court; some courts have even explicitly ruled that the term ‘freeman on the land’ has no legal significance when the argument is raised. Actually using the arguments gets people into worse trouble, including fines, asset seizures, contempt convictions and criminal records. However, this doesn’t stop freemen from claiming that it works.”

Hence why it is so dangerous – activists could fall for freeman arguments and end up being found guilty after being arrested and charged at a protest where a proper legal defence would have probably lead to an acquittal or at least a more lenient sentence. However in most cases it’s not activists who resort to freeman arguments. In fact most of the people who claim to be freemen are actually quite reactionary, trying to get out of paying their council tax, for example. Also the fact it supposedly derives itself from the constitution of whatever country it is being applied in tends to lend itself to far right arguments and conspiracy theories. Indeed the organisation UK Column – a front for the British Constitution Group (refer to RationalWiki for more on the latter) has been present on anti-benefit sanctions protests, and whilst they may not be as immediate a threat to the left as more overtly fascist groups such as Britain First or the EDL, they often go about their business without having their core beliefs challenged – beliefs that are rooted in conspiracy theories which serve as a distraction from reality, and are also coupled to reactionary attitudes themselves due to their nationalistic focus and emphasis on the rights of “British citizens”.

Conspiracy theorists – derailing discourse and undermining credibility

Since I first got involved in the left and progressive activism, conspiracy theorists have always been in the background – and long before then too. They manifest themselves in many different forms which I am sure most of you have encountered since social media has made them ubiquitous, and they are readily debunked when examined though the harsh lens of scientific inquiry – not that it stops the “True Believers” from denouncing those that do for being “shills” for this company or that government or this intelligence agency. They prove problematic because conspiracy theories distract from the reality of what is actually happening and prevent a nuanced analysis of what is happening – an example being those who are convinced that the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon were an “inside job”, which in turn means that many important questions regarding past and present foreign policy subsequently remain unanswered, and leaves groups vulnerable to being discredited by their inaction or tacit approval of conspiracy theories. Worst still, conspiracy theories often aid and abet reactionary viewpoints, such as anti-Semitism (by either incorporating anti-Semitic tropes or using the theory to justify anti-Semitic thought, an example being the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the many writings inspired by that document), and climate change denial (one example being the conspiracy theory that climate change is not due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel consumption but actually from chemtrails, in order to manipulate government policies and facilitate the forthcoming of a New World Order) – allowing the real culprits behind climate change (a capitalist system and a fossil fuel industry motivated by profit first and corporate responsibility at best a very distant second) to be let off the hook.

This has many dire consequences for a left trying to form a reasoned argument on the issues we face today, and we can and should point out that these theories are quickly and simply debunked when the actual evidence is examined. Whilst conspiracy theories are so exuberantly perused by individuals, so much energy is wasted on a distraction which could go into building legitimate campaigns based on actual evidence regarding the issue at hand. However, whilst conspiracy theories can be a damaging distraction, being critical of conspiracy theories and critically questioning the government and mainstream media versions of events are in no way mutually exclusive, in fact skepticism actively encourages this.

State-sanctioned irrational belief – where skepticism is needed most

Whilst it’s important we challenge problematic beliefs among ourselves, capitalist governments are more than happy to resort to anti-scientific arguments as well, adopting beliefs that are easily debunkable once the evidence is provided, in a deliberate attempt to mislead people in order to further the agenda of the government, as part of a wider campaign of black propaganda. This includes the climate change denialism that informed many of those in the administration of George W Bush in the US, and indeed the Tories in our present government. Then you have Jeremy Hunt’s belief in homeopathy, which is alarming considering this is the man responsibly for policy on health.

Quackery as government policy is exceptionally dangerous. A prime example is the so-called “biopsychosocial” model of disability, conceived by the US insurance company UNUM and used to justify DWP policy (including the notorious Work Capability Assessment). Whilst the skeptic community has not yet focused much energy on this, this “model” of disability can be considered a form of quackery, and it is destroying the lives of thousands of people who are already on the brink thanks to Con-Dem austerity. At least with homoeopathy an adult individual can choose whether to believe or reject it.

Conclusion – what the left should do

The appeal of pseudoscientific, anti-scientific and irrational thought will not just vanish overnight. Many of those subscribing to such beliefs play major roles in keeping grassroots activism alive and need to be commended for doing so. However we must not shy away from confronting irrational belief where it proves to be problematic. Whilst there are active “skeptics” who challenge such beliefs, in my experience there is limited overlap between them and the left. This needs to change, because every belief that is founded on pseudoscience and conspiracy theory serves to discredit us – the environmental movement in particular have a major issue when it comes to pseudoscientific beliefs and proposals that stem from them which are unworkable in the wider world. By embracing a proper scientific outlook on the world, and making our beliefs evidence-based, we can a robust case for what we believe in as socialists, and be more resistant to those who wish to dismiss and discredit us.

Useful links

RationalWiki – A treasure trove for skeptics, where ideas and beliefs are held up to scrutiny and checked for evidence, and those that lack such evidence are subsequently debunked.

The Quackometer – Excellent blog which highlights cases of quackery and the unscrupulousness of those that promote it, comes with a facility which allows different websites to be tested for scientific credibility.

9/11 CultWatch – Another great source for those wanting to debunk “9/11 Truthers” and other conspiracy theorists, as well as highlighting how damaging they can be to progressive causes.

IFLScience – Many will be familiar with this from Facebook – but this website and the associated FB page do a sterling job of highlighting the amazing achievements of scientists, as well as challenging anti-scientific myths.

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe – Another website with a popular FB page, this does what it says on the tin.