Long ago I read a good argument about how we arrive at best answers to issues. It was written by social psychologist, Joseph Royce, in his book, Encapsulated Man. In it he argued that we rely on four sources of knowledge. They are: authoritarianism, intuitionism, rationalism, and empiricism. He ranked them from worst to best. Authoritarianism occurs when we are told by someone in authority that thus and such is true . Good examples are parents when they teach their children about the world. Many such “truths” are fraught with errors, but parents mean well. And later kids learn for themselves that their parents were not and are not the best source of knowledge. Next comes intuitionism, or our gut feelings about something. We each have them, and typically they alert us to something that doesn’t feel right. It is probably good to be cautious about such feelings. We don’t know exactly what is out of kilter, but something generally is. We need more information about this person, place, or thing. Third, we rely on our own sense of reasoning. If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then we suspect that A is a probable precursor to C. It may not be in any given situation, but it is a good preliminary conclusion. We are on good enough grounds to challenge a different conclusion. And last, there is empiricism. This source of knowledge comes to us through trial and error via observation. We test and observe. And when we also control the environment to prevent outside sources from interference, and our controlled environment can be set up and we get similar results again and again with different investigators, we conclude with a high degree of certainty that we have found something that is worthy of consideration by everyone.

Science is based on rationalism and empiricism. With it we start with a hunch about something; then we formalize our hunch into an hypothesis; then we challenge our hypothesis with its opposite or its negation; and then we layout in great detail how we intend to pursue this investigation to its limited conclusion, while allowing for all competing outcomes to surface. When we measure we must be careful about what we are actually measuring by setting controls; we use analytical methods that are appropriate to use with the data found; we make trial runs with pilot studies; we choose our sources and methods with care by following the latest methods; we analyze, synthesize, and evaluate with high standards of rigor, and we limit our conclusions to only what the entire investigation supports. We rely on accuracy, reliability, and validity to our findings before our peers so that they can review them. When others can replicate our findings in different settings and over time, the reliability of our findings is enhanced. When others draw the same limited conclusions, the validity of our findings are enhanced. And when others repeat the entire study again and again with the same results, the scientific community gives its formal pronouncement: Science allows us only to reject the status quo. We do not accept our research hypothesis as true . We merely fail to reject it as false. Science moves slowly and with care.

Ideologies, religious beliefs, and all other pathways to knowledge pale in comparison to the study and the rigor that go into scientific investigations. Most such beliefs are based on authoritarianism. When believers assert that they have the truth, and their beliefs are contrary to the findings of the scientific community, they are on very shaky grounds. And if their beliefs cannot be verified at all, they are situated in the domains of mysticism or the occult. They could be true , but it is irrational to accept them as true . If you still believe, and you carry your beliefs into the voting booth, you are doing humanity a disservice. You have not only been led down the primrose path, but you are trying to impose your fake facts on others without a shred of evidence that your beliefs are true . You are also at war with science, and with rational thinking. You are not on the pathway to enlightenment, rather you are a throwback to the Dark Ages when tyrants ruled by brute force because they could. When I say “you,” I am referring only to those who are brainwashed and don’t know it.

Did I mention that installing someone as the head of the Department of Education who does not believe in public education is anti-science; or the head of the Environment Protection Agency who thinks that all the scientific studies in support of climate change are false is anti-science; or a brain surgeon in charge of Housing and Urban Development who hasn’t a clue about what his department does is anti-Urban Development; or the head of NASA who is not a scientist is clueless; or the chief Economic Advisor who believes that tax cuts to the wealthy will stimulate economic growth believes in mysticism; or a President who recommends each of the aforementioned heads is anti-science, anti-rational thinking, and who blames others for all his anti-everything thoughts is at war with himself (anti-disestablishmentarianism)?