ORGANIZED SKEPTICISM

Science is the most critical type of thinking. Its methodology incorporates skepticism and fierce criticism. Robert K. Merton, a sociologist of science, characterized it as "organized skepticism" or "institutionalized distrust" because any scientific community worthy of the name is governed by certain mechanisms (imperfect, but effective) that seek to ensure that no result, no assertion, is accepted until robust and sufficient evidence is presented against a battery of reasonable doubts. No other type of thinking is as demanding and critical of itself.

"To have faith in science" is an oxymoron because scientific practice is precisely set up to challenge faith. The scientific mind doesn't take anything at face value but demands proof and evidence, so trusting in its results is trusting in that community of skeptics. That process turns it into the knowledge machine (Strevens, 2020), as well as the perfect antidote against superstition and ignorance.

Furthermore, science insists that all its results are provisional and subject to review, always open to new evidence and discoveries. Therefore, being critical of science is another way of being scientific, unless those criticisms have an anti-scientific intent of a religious, political, or populist nature, which is increasingly what we're seeing.

MYTHICAL THINKING AND SCIENTIFIC THINKING

The alternative to scientific culture is scientific illiteracy, meaning mythological or magical thinking. Mythical thinking and scientific thinking are two contrasting ways of understanding the world. Mythical thinking is based on belief in supernatural forces that control the world. Scientific thinking, on the other hand, is based on observation and experimentation. The former may be useful for providing comfort or meaning to life, but it is not a reliable way of understanding and acting in the world. So why are so many people still not trusting science?

In his book The Conquest of Happiness (1930), the British philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote:

"Science is the only form of knowledge that gives us a solid basis for action. Mythical thinking, on the other hand, can be a source of confusion and error. If we want to live rationally and effectively, we must rely on science, not on myth."

So why are more and more people returning to a mythological framework to understand and adapt to the world?

WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE NOT TRUSTING SCIENCE?

Something is failing. The 21st century is managing to rattle us. Anticipating what's coming, more and more people question whether science is still the best guide for action. Scientific culture is weakening, and anti-scientific discourses are on the rise.

That wasn't the forecast. The promoters of the Enlightenment believed that science, by improving people's living conditions, would help create a more rational and tolerant society. More science, they calculated, meant more scientific culture. However, recent events have shown that we can create highly technoscientific civilizations without the corresponding scientific culture.

The promoters of the Enlightenment took for granted that technological and scientific dominance, apart from bringing widespread well-being to the world population, would also serve as an education in Enlightenment values, such as progress, continuous improvement, the value of knowledge, curiosity, etc. It was assumed that the greater the dominance of sciences and technologies, and the more their impact on our lives was seen, the more enlightened society as a whole would be. And that has been the case for much of the 20th century, at least in the West. But the 21st century is turning out to be paradoxical. Even in our environment, with 60% of the population under 35 having higher education, an even higher percentage among women, we exhibit behaviors and opinions distant from science. And we also see that mental problems are on the rise, especially among the younger population. The direction of political upheavals indicates that the social psyche is fracturing in an anti-scientific direction.

RETURN TO MYTHOLOGICAL THINKING

It is paradoxical that precisely science has made magical environments possible, of miracles and gods, which make the return to the mythological cave plausible. Water comes out of the tap, the light turns on, we surf the Internet, talk to the U.S., and take an ibuprofen. We don't know how any of those everyday miracles work, but they work. We have become so accustomed to miracles that we don't bother to learn from them. That makes every miraculous tale believable or accepted uncritically. We allow ourselves not to know, due to the familiarity of wonder, but also because the amount of knowledge to digest would be excessive if we wanted to understand everything.

On the other hand, the owners of technoscience have become divinities that escape the political control of States. The big tech companies have created semi-divine characters, mythological creatures like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sam Altman, or Elon Musk, who, through decisions only possible in a technoscientific and global world, can split countries, companies, families, and ways of life in two. Technologies that fall like those accurate lightning bolts of Zeus, eluding any kind of citizen control, but with the ability to affect us directly, sometimes destructively, which fuels the popular sentiment, as true as it is poisonous, of human impotence.

In other words, science itself has created a techno-political environment that is more economic and accessible, but to deal with it, doses of mythological thinking are needed because it is more flexible and creative and less constrained by reason and evidence. That's why I believe that the social rise of conspiracy theories responds to the need to understand that new framework that we are fearfully witnessing.

UNCERTAINTY

These new divinities not only create small miraculous artifacts. They also have the potential to transform the world radically, even in ways not anticipated or desired. The eco-social crisis and the risk of civilizational collapse have led us to wonder if we live in an age of uncertainty.

• The climate crisis is going to transform everything, the climate, geography, biodiversity, demography, economy, or the idea of sovereignty.
• Artificial intelligence could become so powerful that it could surpass human intelligence.
• Biology could become a branch of engineering, entering a phase of designing life forms.
• Neurology could decipher brain behavior, being able to "read" the brain itself and perhaps someday "write" in it.

With such an uncertain future, science cannot give us all the answers. This can be overwhelming, especially for people who do not have the education or time to scientifically understand the complexity of the processes. Therefore, a certain portion of the population resorts to simpler and moral types of thinking, which provide them with a sense of security and purpose. They resort, for example, to religious or spiritual beliefs, thinking that God has a plan for the world, or that nature has a balance that will eventually be restored. Or they resort to political or economic ideologies, placing hopes in fixed points, and assuming that such ideologies will solve the problems we face.

Moral thinking is useful for providing a sense of security and purpose in times of uncertainty. However, it is also a dangerous type of thinking because reducing complexity to binary moral schemes can lead to intolerance, violence, and conflict. Or to anti-science, as we have seen.

IN DESPERATE TIMES… SCIENTIFIC CULTURE

In this paradoxical context, increasingly scientific in material terms and increasingly anti-scientific in ideological terms, scientific culture is more necessary than ever. Faced with the complex and multifaceted challenges we face today, such as pandemics, general artificial intelligence (GAI), climate change, biotechnology, and brain reading technologies, it is crucial to foster a scientific culture that is not only informed and engaged, but also responsible and ethical.

People who communicate and disseminate science are facing a new style of anti-scientific, unhinged, narcissistic, and frightened thinking. To navigate these unprecedented times, we need a scientific culture that empowers us to critically evaluate scientific information, make informed decisions, and participate in responsible technological development.