"Following the science" is a dangerous illusion

Truth is personal, but we’ve evolved to pretend it’s not

Following the science is a dangerous illusion 2

When politicians insist that they’re “following the science”—as if it reveals impersonal, unquestionable truths—they promote a dangerous illusion. Evolutionary psychologist Pascal Boyer warns that, like traditional diviners reading horoscopes or entrails, leaders invoke “the science” to offload responsibility, avoid conflict, and cloak decisions in inevitability. But science is no oracle: it is a human process of debate, judgement and dissent. Framing it as divine revelation betrays science’s spirit. Divination’s ubiquity in traditional societies suggests it serves deep social functions, and that humans are wired to seek impersonal truths. But we must resist the urge to turn science into an oracle.

 

Truth is in the pebbles

How do you find out the truth? One recommended procedure, at least in some parts of the world, consists in throwing pebbles on the ground and studying the patterns they form—they provide a positive or negative answer to the question you asked before casting the stones. In other places, a specialist will help you find out the truth by throwing dice, monitoring the flight of birds, examining a sacrificed animal’s entrails, casting horoscopes or drawing cards from a pack.

___

There is a subtle rationality here that we can elucidate if we examine how divination is actually used, and what makes it so useful in some circumstances.

___

Divination is documented in the earliest historical records. It occurs on all continents and in all societies, from bands of foragers to industrial societies. People consult diviners, partly to discern the future but more often to figure out the present: Are the gods angry with me? Is someone using witchcraft to make me sick? Is my spouse cheating on me? Are my office colleagues conspiring against me? Or, as lovers intone as they pluck petals, does that special person love me or love me not?

People have derided such practices for a long time. Cicero composed a whole treatise, De Divinatione, to debunk what he called old ladies’ superstitions. Most of us would concur. How could small pebbles thrown in the sand, or the shapes of a goat’s intestines, tell you what grievances your relatives harbor against you?

But there is a subtle rationality here that we can elucidate if we examine how divination is actually used, and what makes it so useful in some circumstances.

 

The method in the apparent madness

Consider the kinds of situations in which people may use divination, situations that often occur in many small-scale, so-called “traditional” societies, including in the village where I did fieldwork in Central Africa. A man in the village has been sick for a while, feeling exhausted at all times. A married woman is worried because she has experienced several miscarriages and is still childless. They have both received help from Western-style physicians. Everyone understands that something in their bodies is not working properly. But the question is, why did that happen to them in particular, and why now? That is where witchcraft beliefs become relevant. Everybody in these communities assumes that some people out there (whether they are aware of it or not) can inflict some mystical harm on others—make them sick, weak or infertile, ruin their crops, start family disputes, etc.

related-video-image SUGGESTED VIEWING Truth, theory and ultimate reality With Abby Innes, Bernard Carr, Lisa Randall, Tim Maudlin

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases
Join the conversation

Brian Quass 9 September 2025

Although you focused on divination, there is a huge problem with "following the science" when it comes to studying drugs. This is because Western governments and their materialist scientists are focused exclusively on the potential downsides of drug use. Such "science" is political. This is why we have a National Institute on Drug Abuse in America and not a National Institute on Drug Use. The scientists' job today is to prove that drugs are dangerous. They ignore all glaringly obvious holistic benefits of drug use. And so our materialist scientists gaslight Americans by telling us that drugs like coca and opium have no positive uses whatsoever. Sigmund Freud knew better. So did Galen, Paracelsus and Avicenna. But modern science is blind to anecdote, history and common sense. This is why our FDA promotes brain-damaging shock therapy for the depressed and yet refuses to approve of a wide range of drugs whose intermittent use could make shock therapy unnecessary. This is what they call "following the science" in the age of the Drug War: depriving the depressed (and endless others) of all inspirational medicine -- you know, the kinds of medicines that inspired the Vedic religion, the kinds of medicines that our predecessors considered to be panaceas!

This is why drug prohibitionists want us to "follow the science," because they know that materialist science is blind to the obvious when it comes to drug benefits. And so they hold drug use to standards that we set for no other risky activity on the planet, thereby forcing millions to go without godsend medicine, merely because such substances could be misused by white American young people -- the white American young people whom we refuse "on principle" to educate about safe drug use. This is why hospice kids in India go without morphine today, because fearmongers and demagogues have taught us to fear drugs rather than to use them as wisely as possible for the benefit of humankind. This is what comes of "following the science" in the age of drug prohibition.

This is all due, in turn, to a category error. It was a mistake to place passion-scorning materialists in charge of mind and mood medicine in the first place. By so doing, we have created endless jobs for materialists -- but only at the cost of completely disempowering human beings when it comes to healthcare.

Brian Balke 3 September 2025

The validity of divination is inextricably tied to spirituality. Atoms define the limit of stability for the structures that science can create. If spirit is a manifestation of stable structure at scales far smaller than atoms, then scientists will never be able to observe or manipulate those structures.

The essential corollary is that the brain of a spirituality sensitive person lies at the end of a long evolutionary chain of development that allows an organism to interact with those structures - when and only when those structures choose to participate. Spirit does not speak intelligibly to our senses, but only to our imagination.

In that experience, this is essential: when we open our hearts to one another, there is no truth that is not revealed. I apprehend the intentions of the author. They are not consistent with growth towards moral maturity.

Justin Brkovic 3 September 2025

There seems to be confusion between good science and bad science here. The key is to be able to be educated enough to make the decision to know how to read science and be able to be critical and always look for new methods and stronger lenses to investigate our surroundings. One stat I read not too long ago is that over 75% of science today uses corrupted methods; thus making their work, a waste of time and invalid. So once again, education is key and the ability to observe correctly and answer the right questions rather than many non-sequitors, which are nothing but utter oratory and not science. So, yes, science in the end should be followed under strict principles of good science, and we should all be able to determine that for ourselves through our own critical lenses.