Science Con-Artists

Abstract

Deception abounds in nature. Some species are first-rate con-artists. Angler fish with fins that mimic squiggling morsels that lure unsuspecting prey. Carnivorous pitcher plants that emit the aroma of rotting flesh and attract flies to their doom. Orchids that resemble female wasps, decoys for male wasp pollinators. Cuttlefish whose color and pattern morph with the substrate as a disguise against predators. Deceptive patterns, smells or sounds in organisms wonderfully reflect the adaptive response to opportunity. So, too, in human culture? Human behavior can take advantage of cultural conditions and deceive others to promote one’s own interests. So, if science receives cultural authority, it should surprise no one that those seeking power or profit might try to mimic it. Indeed, the more authority we give to science, the greater the likelihood of science imposters – and the more sophisticated their deceptive tactics. Cultural anthropologist Chris Toumey likens the process to a magician’s illusions. Imitators “conjure” science, he says, “from cheap symbols and ersatz images” (1977, p. 6). It is an apt and vivid label. We could just as easily call them science con-artists. Liars. Cheats. Seeking our confidence using a semblance of science. Predictable opportunists, perhaps. Science educators generally want to inform students so that as citizens and consumers of science they do not succumb to such wiles. The posture – too easily taken for granted, I think – is that simple knowledge of the scientific method or evaluating scientific evidence will suffice. From teaching about what defines science and what pseudoscience, students supposedly learn to debunk the charades. Here, I invite you to question this sacred bovine. A sampling of recent historical cases will indicate, I hope, that the science con-artists in modern society are more significant than commonly assumed. Science and what counts as science can diverge sharply ( Sacred …