Sola Scriptura and the Scientific Reformation
Recently I've been thinking about Reformation, the 16th century Christian movement in Europe led by Luther. As commonly understood, this movement "posed a religious and political challenge to the Catholic Church and in particular to papal authority, arising from what was perceived to be errors, abuses, and discrepancies by the Catholic Church" (wikipedia).
Prior to Reformation, under the Catholic Church, scripture and tradition were seen as equal, and scriptural interpretation took into account former commentaries as well as Church doctrine and tradition. The Catholic Church had the authority to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God, as reflected in the notion of the Roman magisterium. The common people did not read the Bible or interpret it themselves; they relied on the Church to interpret it for them.
Where others saw infallibility and divine authority, Luther saw corruption. He invoked the notion of sola scriptura, challenging the authority of the clergy to be the authoritative interpreters of the scripture, and proclaimed that scripture should be interpreted according to an individual's conscience, unbound by Catholic Church doctrine. The invention of the printing press made the Bible directly accessible to the educated, and facilitated the dismantling of Church's hegemony on Biblical interpretation.
The reason this has been on my mind is because I am seeing some loose contemporary parallels with the public's relationship with scientific literature. Historically, much of scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals has been intended for an audience of other scientists and clinicians. Much of this research has been largely inaccessible for the general public, hidden behind a paywall or requiring academic affiliations for access. There was also little appetite for the public to read the research themselves; they were happy to let the experts do the talking or let the newspapers/media translate the message. Now, however, research is much more accessible. Thanks to venues such as Sci-Hub, almost anyone can access research articles with convenience. In addition, there are also websites that are devoted to communicating the results of new research to the public in a language that they can understand, although these websites typically have their own agendas. Suddenly, texts that were written for a technical readership of peers, are now open to scrutiny by anyone. People can look at the results of the studies themselves. More importantly, just as Luther saw Church as a corrupt institution, unworthy of having the authority of scriptural interpretation, the public is increasingly viewing scientists and researchers themselves as unreliable and untrustworthy interpreters of their own research; they are now fallible, corrupt, and conflicted by financial, institutional and intellectual conflicts of interest. This is particularly the case in areas which are subject to controversy, such as psychiatry. I see this on twitter a lot, individuals without a scientific or research background, are reading research articles, and openly challenging the validity of the results or the interpretation, and offering their own interpretation of the data. Sometimes they have the necessary intellectual skills and scientific knowledge to make sense of the study, other times they don't but this doesn't seem to hinder them from attributing more validity to their own interpretations.
Maybe I am just biased given my own background and intellectual commitments, but I would like to think that there is a difference between having the authority and expertise to interpret scripture and having the authority and expertise to interpret scientific research. Academic credentials can be seen as an analogue of authority, but I don't think interpreting scientific research is a matter of authority primarily; I think it is more a matter of expertise. Interpreting research correctly and critically is difficult. It is a skill that needs to be learned, developed, and practiced. It also requires a certain background understanding of existing scientific literature, because research doesn't happen in a vacuum. So while I am a proponent of increased accessibility of scientific research, and while I don't think that interpretation of scientific literature should be (or can be) restricted to an exclusive group, I am concerned about the perception among many lay individuals that relevant expertise is unnecessary when it comes to interpretation of scientific research. The problem is compounded by active distrust of the medical and scientific community, sometimes resulting from negative experiences individuals have had. The distrust and charges of institutional corruption are not entirely without basis. Expertise has been abused and misused in very serious ways.
Since public access to science, and public scrutiny and accountability of scientists are here to stay, increased scientific literacy in the general population is much more essential. The scientific process also needs to be more transparent, and experts need to do a much better job with regards to improving and restoring public's trust in them. These are, however, distant goals and distant remedies. I am not quite sure what can be done about it in the interim.
I am sure someone somewhere has drawn such a parallel before. I haven't come across it yet, but I doubt these thoughts are particularly original. If you are aware of literature that has examined the public's relationship with science from the lens of Reformation, please feel free to send my way.
Prior to Reformation, under the Catholic Church, scripture and tradition were seen as equal, and scriptural interpretation took into account former commentaries as well as Church doctrine and tradition. The Catholic Church had the authority to give authentic interpretation of the Word of God, as reflected in the notion of the Roman magisterium. The common people did not read the Bible or interpret it themselves; they relied on the Church to interpret it for them.
Where others saw infallibility and divine authority, Luther saw corruption. He invoked the notion of sola scriptura, challenging the authority of the clergy to be the authoritative interpreters of the scripture, and proclaimed that scripture should be interpreted according to an individual's conscience, unbound by Catholic Church doctrine. The invention of the printing press made the Bible directly accessible to the educated, and facilitated the dismantling of Church's hegemony on Biblical interpretation.
The reason this has been on my mind is because I am seeing some loose contemporary parallels with the public's relationship with scientific literature. Historically, much of scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals has been intended for an audience of other scientists and clinicians. Much of this research has been largely inaccessible for the general public, hidden behind a paywall or requiring academic affiliations for access. There was also little appetite for the public to read the research themselves; they were happy to let the experts do the talking or let the newspapers/media translate the message. Now, however, research is much more accessible. Thanks to venues such as Sci-Hub, almost anyone can access research articles with convenience. In addition, there are also websites that are devoted to communicating the results of new research to the public in a language that they can understand, although these websites typically have their own agendas. Suddenly, texts that were written for a technical readership of peers, are now open to scrutiny by anyone. People can look at the results of the studies themselves. More importantly, just as Luther saw Church as a corrupt institution, unworthy of having the authority of scriptural interpretation, the public is increasingly viewing scientists and researchers themselves as unreliable and untrustworthy interpreters of their own research; they are now fallible, corrupt, and conflicted by financial, institutional and intellectual conflicts of interest. This is particularly the case in areas which are subject to controversy, such as psychiatry. I see this on twitter a lot, individuals without a scientific or research background, are reading research articles, and openly challenging the validity of the results or the interpretation, and offering their own interpretation of the data. Sometimes they have the necessary intellectual skills and scientific knowledge to make sense of the study, other times they don't but this doesn't seem to hinder them from attributing more validity to their own interpretations.
Maybe I am just biased given my own background and intellectual commitments, but I would like to think that there is a difference between having the authority and expertise to interpret scripture and having the authority and expertise to interpret scientific research. Academic credentials can be seen as an analogue of authority, but I don't think interpreting scientific research is a matter of authority primarily; I think it is more a matter of expertise. Interpreting research correctly and critically is difficult. It is a skill that needs to be learned, developed, and practiced. It also requires a certain background understanding of existing scientific literature, because research doesn't happen in a vacuum. So while I am a proponent of increased accessibility of scientific research, and while I don't think that interpretation of scientific literature should be (or can be) restricted to an exclusive group, I am concerned about the perception among many lay individuals that relevant expertise is unnecessary when it comes to interpretation of scientific research. The problem is compounded by active distrust of the medical and scientific community, sometimes resulting from negative experiences individuals have had. The distrust and charges of institutional corruption are not entirely without basis. Expertise has been abused and misused in very serious ways.
Since public access to science, and public scrutiny and accountability of scientists are here to stay, increased scientific literacy in the general population is much more essential. The scientific process also needs to be more transparent, and experts need to do a much better job with regards to improving and restoring public's trust in them. These are, however, distant goals and distant remedies. I am not quite sure what can be done about it in the interim.
I am sure someone somewhere has drawn such a parallel before. I haven't come across it yet, but I doubt these thoughts are particularly original. If you are aware of literature that has examined the public's relationship with science from the lens of Reformation, please feel free to send my way.