Science in An Era of Populism

In 1959, C.P. Snow delivered a groundbreaking lecture titled The Two Cultures, where he lamented the growing divide between the sciences and the humanities. At the time, Snow noted that while science was gaining traction, the humanities still held a certain cultural privilege. He saw this divide as a barrier to solving society's most pressing issues, advocating for greater mutual respect and dialogue between the two intellectual realms.

Fast forward to today, and Snow’s concerns about imbalance seem more relevant than ever—but the dynamics have shifted dramatically. In our contemporary world, science, particularly through the rise of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics), has become the dominant force. The cultural landscape has changed, with science now wielding a level of prestige that the humanities often struggle to match. Not only has science risen to prominence in academia and policymaking, but it has also become a symbol of objectivity, reliability, and trustworthiness in a world threatened by populism, conspiracy theories, and "alternative facts."

This ascent of science has had many positive effects, but it has also sparked the rise of something far less beneficial: scientism, or the overreach of science beyond its rightful domain. The rise of scientism has diminished the value of the humanities, created ideological dogma around science itself, and further widened the gap that Snow originally sought to close. In an age where the world is grappling with fake news and political spin, the time has come to revisit Snow’s plea for a better balance between science and the humanities—both for their mutual benefit and for society as a whole.

The Prestige of Science in an Era of Populism

There is no question that the cultural authority of science has grown tremendously in recent decades. Trends, such as the rise of populism, the spread of conspiracy theories, and the rejection of expert knowledge, have focused the need for the solidity of "facts". In a world where some deny the reality of climate change, or question the safety and efficacy of vaccines, science has become a bulwark for truth and objectivity. Many people understandably look to science as a beacon of reason in a sea of misinformation and "alternative facts."

I share great sympathy with those who want to defend science against these dangerous developments. Climate change denial, the anti-vax movement, and other crank theories represent a clear and present danger to society. They undermine public trust, sow confusion, and threaten collective action on urgent issues. For those of us concerned with facts, reason, and evidence-based policy, science stands as a vital defense. The scientific method, with its rigorous commitment to evidence, reproducibility, the reduction of bias and peer review, is one of the most reliable ways we have of distinguishing truth from falsehood.

But as much as we must stand against the enemies of science, we also need to be clear-eyed about science itself. Defending science from external attacks doesn’t mean we should exempt it from internal critique. Science, as an institution and a discipline, is not immune to being politicized, appropriated, or misused. And herein lies the heart of a key problem: the conflation of science with scientism—the belief that the methods of science are the only valid means of understanding the world.

Science vs. Scientism: The Problem of Overreach

Science, in its true form, is a disinterested pursuit of knowledge about the natural world. It is driven by curiosity, by a desire to understand how things work, and by the application of empirical methods to test hypotheses and build reliable models of reality. It is a profoundly important and awe-inspiring endeavor.

Scientism, however, is something quite different. Scientism takes the methods and authority of science and extends them beyond their proper scope, insisting that science is the only legitimate way of knowing anything at all. This is where figures like Richard Dawkins come into play. Dawkins, a staunch defender of scientific rationalism, has long been a proponent of the view that science provides the sole route to truth, and that other ways of knowing—particularly those found in the humanities or arts—are either irrelevant or ornamental. Dawkins’ vision of science borders on the ideological, reducing complex questions of meaning, morality, and human experience to mere technical problems awaiting scientific solutions.

This is not just a misunderstanding of the limits of science, but an outright distortion of its role. Real scientists, many of whom have broad, interdisciplinary outlooks, understand that science excels in understanding the natural world but balk at its uncritical extension to the human or social world. Science, for all its brilliance, does not offer us insight into what is morally right or wrong, or how to live meaningful lives. It is good at telling us how the world works, but it cannot tell us how we should relate to it. It offers plenty of insight into how people "work" but it cannot (via its empirical methods alone) tell us how we should live. Scientism ignores these distinctions and, in doing so, patronizes the humanities.

The humanities—literature, philosophy, history, and the arts—deal with precisely those questions that can only be addressed in part by science. They explore meaning, purpose, values, and human experience in ways that science simply cannot. Far from being ornamental, they are essential for understanding the full range of human existence. And yet, scientism reduces them to the margins, treating them as little more than decorative disciplines that are pleasant to study but fundamentally less important than the "hard facts" of science.

The Neoliberal Technocratic Turn: Science as a Tool for Control

This marginalization of the humanities has broader social and political consequences. Over the past several decades, neoliberal politics have co-opted the prestige of science to justify technocratic governance. Policies driven by metrics, data, and algorithmic decision-making have come to dominate areas such as education, healthcare, and social policy. This reflects not just the triumph of science, but the overreach of scientism—a belief that society can be managed like a machine, that human beings are reducible to data points, and that social and ethical questions can be solved through technical solutions.

Neoliberalism has used the authority of science to drive sweeping changes in public institutions. Education, once a domain that emphasized critical thinking and the exploration of ideas, has been increasingly transformed into a system focused on measurable outcomes, standardized testing, and economic utility. The same logic has infiltrated healthcare, where efficiency and cost-effectiveness often overshadow patient care and the human side of medicine. These trends reflect a larger belief that society can be engineered through scientific methods alone, without regard for the qualitative, emotional, and ethical aspects of life that the humanities are uniquely positioned to explore.

The great irony is that many scientists themselves reject this positivist overreach. They understand that the human and social worlds are fundamentally different from the natural world, and that the methods of science, while powerful, are not always appropriate for studying human behavior, social institutions, or moral questions. It is those who wield science as a political or ideological tool—often not scientists themselves—who propagate this dangerous misunderstanding. And it is this misuse of science that gives science a bad name, alienating people from the values it should represent.

Toward a New Balance: Science and the Humanities as Partners

It is crucial to emphasize that this is not an argument against science. On the contrary, science is one of the greatest achievements of human civilization. It has transformed our understanding of the natural world, cured diseases, and improved the quality of life for billions of people. But the methods of science are not universal tools that can be applied to all areas of life. There are many aspects of human existence—questions of morality, purpose, and meaning—that require a different kind of inquiry, one that the humanities excel at providing.

C.P. Snow’s call for a better balance between the sciences and the humanities remains as urgent today as it was in 1959, if not more so. We need to resist the allure of scientism and its reductionist view of human experience. Instead, we must embrace a more integrated approach to knowledge, one that recognizes the value of both scientific inquiry and humanistic reflection. The challenges of the 21st century—whether climate change, artificial intelligence, or social inequality—are not just technical problems, but human problems that require both scientific understanding and moral wisdom.

Science is indeed powerful, but it is not omniscient. It is time we restore the humanities to their rightful place alongside science, not as mere ornaments, but as essential partners in the search for truth and the betterment of society.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The rise of science in contemporary society, with all its benefits, should not lead us to dismiss the vital contributions of the humanities. While we rightly defend science from those who would undermine it with conspiracy theories and populist rhetoric, we must also critique the overreach of scientism and the devaluation of other forms of knowledge.

C.P. Snow’s vision of striking a balance between the sciences and humanities is needed more than ever. As we navigate the complexities of the modern world, it’s essential to remember that scientific progress is only part of the equation. We must also cultivate wisdom, empathy, and an understanding of the human experience—qualities that can only come from the rich traditions of the humanities. Only then can we fully address the challenges of our time.