Why People Reject Science

The next episode for the podcast will be on Western Esotericism, which studies esoteric spiritual practices and philosophies that have been rejected and banned by Christianity and academia. I stumbled upon this field of study after watching a few YouTube videos about esoteric practices such as astrology and magic. A lot of it is based on ancient beliefs and cultural aspects that were never taught to me in school. I found it fascinating how much we humans argue about what is correct and what is fake and outlandish. And it got me to thinking about how many people in modern times will reject proven science in favor of beliefs that are outdated and based on misinformation. I’ve heard of people who believe that the earth is flat or deny climate change, despite photographs and historical data that proves otherwise. Or when the Covid-19 pandemic took place and people thought it was a hoax by the government, despite the many people who suddenly died from the disease. I’ve always wondered why people would have an anti-science stance, relying on pseudoscience and untested misinformation to support their arguments. The arrogant part of me wanted to brush these people off as stupid and delusional. It wasn’t until I did more research that I found a more empathetic answer.

The PNAS is a scientific journal by the National Academy of Sciences, and I found an article on their website called “Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?”. The authors present a four-part framework explaining why people reject science, especially if its new information (like the pandemic a few years ago). This new information can cause cognitive dissonance, which is basically mental and emotional discomfort that conflicts with our identity and ingrained beliefs. People will either trivialize the information, reject it outright, or actually take steps to adapt their knowledge. The latter takes more effort and a willingness to embrace change. But most people would choose the former and reinforce their beliefs, even if it’s detrimental to their lives in the long run. It’s like people knowing that cigarettes are bad for their health, but will continue to smoke anyway since it’s an ingrained habit, nicotine addiction aside. For some people, being a smoker is part of their identity, and it would take a great effort to kick the habit and the addiction. Taking an anti-science stance is a lot like that, but even more dangerous, as people don’t believe they are rejecting modern science. I’ll summarize the four components that the authors lay out in the article.

First off, some people find scientists untrustworthy. They believe scientists are acting in their own self-interest instead of the greater good of the public. When the vaccine for Covid-19 rolled out, many people didn’t trust it, thinking that scientists were being incentivized by the pharmaceutical companies. America already has a health crisis with many people unable to afford health insurance, medical staff being overworked, and people feeling dissatisfied with their medical care. This has led room for people rejecting new medical information and instead siding with misinformation spread on social media.

Second, many people already belong to anti-science groups that create a conflict between the in-group and the out-group. People who are anti-vax versus those who believe in vaccinations. Climate-change deniers versus those who believe in climate change. Flat-earthers versus everyone else. Again, these people believe in pseudo-science and misinformation that supports a stance that they share with others within the anti-science group. There’s also a historical component. Black and indigenous people have been exploited and underrepresented by the scientific community for a very long time, leading these communities to also reject science. I’ve heard stories of racism against black women in the medical setting. There was a rhetoric that black women were less sensitive against pain than their white counterparts, or were just faking their illnesses. This is rooted in racism of course, but there are still complaints of black women saying that they feel unheard and misunderstood when trying to explain their symptoms to doctors. This can lead people to rally against doctors or prefer only  doctors who are black women. While there’s nothing wrong with the latter, it still highlights an issue within the scientific community that allows anti-science to spread even deeper.

The third reason people are anti-science is because the information can contradict with their beliefs and attitudes. This has existed throughout history. The Christian church taught that the earth was the center of the universe. When Galileo presented his books and findings that taught otherwise, he was prosecuted under the charge of heresy. Books by Nicholas Copernicus that also taught the heliocentric model were banned. I illustrate how much control the Church had over people’s lives in my episode on Western Esotericism, but this shows a similar pattern with scientific information. When we are presented with information that contradicts our beliefs about ourselves and the world, that can bring up confusing, uncertainty, and discomfort. This is cognitive dissonance and like I said earlier, people will take the path of least resistance to ease that discomfort. To me, it looks like people choosing to be delusional, but in actuality, it’s an effort to reinforce those beliefs because changing them is hard. You have to admit to yourself that parts of your identity have been based on misinformation. And that can be a hard pill to swallow. But as I’ve said in other episodes, change is inevitable. And most times, we have to adapt to that change. Unfortunately, some people would rather stay entrenched in their old ways until technology and societal changes force them to change, and that is rarely ever fun.

The fourth and last reason people take an anti-science stance is based on the way information is relayed. Much of science is complex and based on theories that have been tested overtime along with a lot of accumulated data. This is complex for most laypeople. So when scientific information is relayed in complex language and uncertainty, many people are primed to trivialize it or outright reject it. Many people are emotional, so when the information is presented in cold factual language, people don’t see the connection to it and their lives on an emotional level, so they don’t take the information seriously or know how to digest it. Many people refused to wear masks during the pandemic, but when science communicators reframed wearing a mask to protect your loved ones, that encouraged some people to get on board. Others still saw it as an infringement on their rights. The Texas governor banned mask mandates within the state. I’m not sure how many more republicans and conservatives would have adopted mask wearing if it was reframed in a way that aligned with conservative values but this brings me to a big point in the article.

Politics has a lot to deal with how we accept or reject science. Today’s political climate is very toxic and hostile. Politics wraps all four components into an identity that is deeply ingrained. On one end, you have people engaging in online discourse that is combative with no room for finding common ground or understanding. On the extreme opposite end, you have dangerous riots like what we saw during the January 6 insurrection in 2021. The situation becomes even more dangerous when followers see political leaders as the voice of reason and scientific information. I remember how former President Trump trivialized the pandemic and spread misinformation about it even when health organizations urgently warned the public to disregard what he was saying. But he was the president and many people listened to him over actual health professional who saw the effects of the disease first-hand. The more people that ignored these warnings, the longer the pandemic went on in America, and the more people died. That’s how dangerous taking an anti-science stance can be.

The article ended with the authors presenting solutions to science communicators that basically boiled down to understanding laypeople and tailoring your message to those different groups. Earn our trust by showing that you actually care about public health instead of your elite status as a scientist. Show that you understand people’s concerns as it pertains to their deeper values and ethics. They also mentioned partnering with those communities that have been exploited and underrepresented so that those communities will be more accepting of new scientific information. It can also open doors for more research within those communities. But the key is to collaborate with those in the community instead of seeing us as the object of study. This is a new concept being embraced but still has a long way to go.

Overall, I got a deeper insight into why people reject science. It’s not just the public but also the scientific community as well. It highlights a broader issue with society. Many people do not trust the government and leaders because of historical abuse and disregard for the public. Scientists have had a hand in this, which is why the prejudice against them continues today. Spreading the correct information is a collaborative effort on both sides, but science communicators have to find better ways to relay this complex information to the public in ways that are empathetic. People are not simply stupid and delusional, but complex and social. And sometimes those social identities are based on anti-science and pseudo-science instead of what has been factually proven. Sometimes this is okay, such as spiritual practices. But sometimes it becomes dangerous, such as with physical health and modern medicine. The trick is keeping both in mind and not letting our ingrained and spiritual beliefs overrun scientific information that has been proven with sufficient testing and consistent results.

Check out the article linked here if you want to read more. For more of my content, be sure to sign up to my email newsletter and subscribe to my podcast on your podcast app or on YouTube.