Hillary Believes in Science — Which Isn’t Saying Much

Science is more limited than you might have thought

By William M Briggs Published on July 30, 2016

You just knew it was going to be a good night. Hillary shined on that stage. Her tics and tremors and mysterious coughs were all but absent. Her voice had little of the usual blood-freezing screechiness. She looked human.

She hit her verbal stride. She was smooth. She was doing so well that she had the audience ready to whip out their wallets and give their last to the Clinton Foundation. It was so emotional!

And just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, she said it. She said it! She said, “I believe in Science“!

Me too! Me too! I believe in Science, too!

Isn’t Science great? Isn’t it wonderful? Worthy, even, of worship? Why, there’s no question Science can’t answer!

Take, “Should the United States turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, a policy Hillary favors?” Science answers, “I have no idea!” Or this: “Is it right to kill the unborn, an act Hillary condones and even encourages?” Science says, “Beats me!” Or maybe this: “Should the United States increase taxes and swell the size and reach of its government, programs Hillary promises?” Science snaps back, “Not a clue!”

These aren’t the most helpful answers, but they are answers, and true answers at that. Turns out Science, despite its reverent awesomeness, besides it being a thing we should all believe in and swear fealty to, is useless in answering many questions.

Well, we don’t need Science for morals, anyway. We can use religion and commonsense instead. So that if we want good answers to the questions just posed, we have to find agreement along lines other than those provided by test tubes, microchips and integral calculus.

Science answers questions of fact, or tries to. For instance, here’s a question Science can answer: “When does human life begin?” Science says, “At conception.” Well, that’s an easy answer, too, because, of course, when sperm meets egg the process of life initiates, as is obvious (it may not be as obvious, but Science cannot say what life is; only philosophy can). Now we can use this indisputable scientific fact about when human life begins as an assist for the question, “Is it right to kill the unborn?” Science says the unborn are human lives, therefore the question becomes, “Is it right to kill an innocent human for the convenience of another?” Science is ignorant of the right answer here, but morality isn’t.

Here is another softball Science question: “Is a man who thinks he’s a woman actually a woman?” Science says, “No way! A male cannot be turned into a female.” Science can classify and perhaps explain why a man might mistakenly think he’s a woman — perhaps our benighted man has developed a chemical imbalance — but Science remains dumb about the practical consequences of the man’s delusion. Thus if we ask, “Should a grown man who thinks he’s a woman be allowed to use the girl’s shower facilities,” Science says, “How should I know?” But morality and religion are ready to step into the answer gap.

The theme, which you have already guessed, is that Science is no judge of the facts it explains. Science can tell you a fact but it can’t tell you what to do with that fact or why those facts matter to anything, except other facts. It’s worse than that, because Science isn’t always right about facts, either. And that’s because Science is made by scientists and scientists are people and people make mistakes.

Take another thing Hillary believes in. She said, “I believe climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying, clean-energy jobs.”

Once defined, “climate change” becomes a scientific question: “Is climate change a fact?” Science answers, “Yes.” It’s good, therefore, that Hillary believes in this simple fact. Well, all scientists believe in it. I myself am a scientist and don’t know and have never heard of any scientist who doesn’t believe in this fact.

The next question Science might be able to answer is, “Why does the climate change?” And here Science says, “I have a vague idea, but not a good enough notion that I can make accurate predictions; therefore, ask me again in a dozen years when I will have learned more.”

Science is wise, here, because it is a fact — a scientific fact! — that the predictions Science has made about our climate have been uniformly lousy, which necessarily implies Science does not know why the climate changes. That means for the question, “What should we do about climate change?”, Science can’t yet provide factual answers we can trust.

Since we can’t trust Science well enough on this matter, at least not now, we’re right back to looking for answers elsewhere. Do we trust that Hillary can provide good answers?


William Briggs is a writer, philosopher and itinerant scientist living on a small, but densely populated island in the Atlantic Ocean. He earned his Ph.D. from Cornell University in statistics, where he is an adjunct professor. He began life as a cryptologist for the Air Force. Follow him on Twitter.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Jersey McJones

    Science does have the answer to the question, “Should the United States turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, a policy Hillary favors?” Application of the scientific method to this question will show you that Hillary Clinton does not nor has ever favored such a thing. So the question is moot, misleading.

    To, “Is it right to kill the unborn, an act Hillary condones and even encourages?,” again, I do not recall Hillary Clinton encouraging abortion, and I seriously doubt she would, so we have here yet another moot and misleading question. We also have a purely philosophical question. Science can only tell us that it is most humane if performed very early in gestation.

    And to the question, “Should the United States increase taxes and swell the size and reach of its government, programs Hillary promises?,” Moody’s Analytics put out a report yesterday projecting moderate growth, a “somewhat stronger economy,” with Hillary’s proposed policies. Trump’s plan was panned.


    • Kaleb VonBerg

      In response to: “Science can only tell us that it is most humane if performed very early in gestation.”

      Science cannot tell us if anything is more or less humane. The question of whether something is humane or not is always a moral question upon which science has no ability to provide an answer. Science can tell us if abortion ends life, but science cannot tell us if that is right or wrong.

      • Jersey McJones

        Sure it can. Try thinking about it for more than a few seconds.


        • mbabbitt

          Pardon me but…you are deluded.

    • kentclizbe

      Distract and misinform much? Or just confused?

      Hillary supports illegal immigration: “Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat from
      pundits over her previous unabashed support of sanctuary cities that
      refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and thereby
      afford deportation protection to illegal immigrants.”

      Hillary and abortion? Ask Planned Parenthood, the biggest baby-killing operation in the USA: “In a new letter to supporters, Dawn Laguens, vice president of the abortion giant’s political arm, said the 2016 presidential election is critical to the future of abortion in the United States. Laguens said
      Clinton will be a “champion” for abortion if she is elected.
      “She’s also, hands down, the strongest nominee we’ve ever seen on women’s health and rights,” Laguens added.”

      Hillary’s support for higher taxes and bigger government? Your response is off topic. Her PC-Progressive support for every higher taxes and ever growing government has nothing to do with Moody’s rating of Trump’s economic plan.


      • Jersey McJones

        You are a liar.


    • Alice Cheshire

      Seems JMJ believes whatever parts of “science” suits his needs. Kind of like Hillary. A match made ……somewhere?

      I find the term “most humane” used for killing human beings rather disturbing. I was not aware one could humanely kill humans. Killing is killing. “Humanely” is used to try and soften the responsiblity for the killing. It speaks to the killer, not the victim. Should I assume Jersey is saying if we’re kind and gentle, then we’re not really bad for killing people? Or at least that’s what using science justifies?

    • Can you give us a demonstration of applying the scientific method to Hillary Clinton’s madness, professor?

      • Jersey McJones

        Easy. There is no evidence Hillary suffers from any madness. Method applied.


        • You obviously are ignorant of the scientific method.

  • Jim Walker

    I think she believed in Satan more.

  • Ulysses S Grant

    Does this mean scientism has peaked?

If the Foundations are Destroyed, What Can the Righteous Do?
David Kyle Foster
More from The Stream
Connect with Us