You can’t argue with science?
I saw this bumper-stickerish claim recently. The assertion has interesting philosophical relevance. But what does it mean? It’s not clear.
To start, let’s eliminate the interpretation that science itself is something with which one can or cannot argue. Taking such an interpretation would be to treat a term such as ‘science’ — or whatever that term refers to, which is not altogether clear, given the demarcation problem — as if it were a person with whom one can argue. Let’s not begin our investigation by committing the fallacy of reification. In the claim, ‘science’ seems to work as a poetic device, namely, the device of personification.
So does the claim mean: “You can’t argue with a scientist!” ?
That doesn’t seem right either. Of course, one can argue with a scientist. Scientists do it all the time. So do non-scientists. It’s quite possible to argue with a scientist. Such a thing is actual!
Should we instead construe the claim normatively as follows?
“You shouldn’t argue with a scientist!” ?
That won’t work. In some cases, you should argue with a scientist. If you have a good reason to disagree with a scientist, you have a right to do so. And perhaps you have an obligation as well.
Maybe it means: “You shouldn’t argue with a scientist about matters of science within that scientist’s purview!”
Still, this doesn’t work. If you are a scientist and you have a good scientific reason to disagree with another scientist about some matter in the other’s wheelhouse, you have a right to do so. And maybe a duty.
Well, does the claim mean this?
“You shouldn’t challenge a scientific claim which is supported by scientific evidence!”
That won’t work, either. If that were true, no philosopher or scientist would be permitted to argue against a scientific claim supported by solid scientific reasons. For example, if this interpretation were true, then Einstein wouldn’t have been permitted to present a theory of gravity that challenged Newton’s – which is absurd. You see, the very process of science is designed to allow for (and require) such argumentation. The process of science progresses in part because scientists challenge scientific claims.
Well then, perhaps the claim means something like:
“You shouldn’t challenge a scientific claim supported by scientific evidence if you have no good reason to do so, e.g., on the basis of poor reasoning, false information, ignorance, mere stubbornness, etc.”
Perhaps that is what the claim means. If so, it’s finally starting to sound reasonable. And yet, I suspect there are counterexamples. But why highlight science as if it were the only area of rational thought? Maybe the claim should instead be something like this: “You shouldn’t unfairly challenge any claim (scientific or otherwise) that is supported by good evidence if you have no good reason to do so.”
So much for bumper sticker slogans. They typically won’t get you very far off the ground.