Arrogant natural science?

Switch to the German version to read the full analysis with many references.

The sceptics’ movement is concerned with the question of the scientific nature of various systems of assertion. Paul Kurtz, philosopher and founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), said in his later years that this activity had shifted since CSI was founded in 1976. Originally it was about pseudoscientific, paranormal claims. Today, however, many of the attacks on the integrity and independence of science come from political-theological-moral doctrines.

In 2023, there were upheavals in the German sceptic movement. Central to this was a dispute as to whether postmodern-influenced Critical Studies from the social sciences can also be a legitimate topic. As recently as 2019, CSI’s Kendrick Frazier had emphasised the universality of sceptical studies. However, there was no longer any consensus on this in the German sceptic scene. As a result, members distanced themselves from the German sceptics’ organisation GWUP and no longer wanted to support this approach.

One of these critics is the multi-award-winning publicist Florian Aigner, who sees himself as a physicist and science explainer. Aigner criticised alleged ideological endeavours and linked these to a lack of “social fairness” and political demagoguery. Ulrich Berger, the chairman of the Vienna GWUP regional group, firmly rejected these accusations.

Aigner and other critics probably still feel committed to science. So far (January 2025), however, no policy paper is known that meaningfully distinguishes their position from that of the GWUP. In order to investigate this, it may therefore be instructive to search analytically for relevant views, ways of thinking or attitudes in related texts by critics.

We therefore looked at Florian Aigner’s short opinion essay “Die Selbstüberschätzung der Naturwissenschaft” (The hubris of natural science) from 2024, which deals with the relationship between different areas of science. In order not to take anything out of context, we analysed the entire article. We attempted to clarify any ambiguities by looking at a related article published in the same year.

Florian Aigner is regarded as a competent science essayist. Unfortunately, analysing his texts revealed some shortcomings:

• Inaccuracies: The language is sometimes imprecise which does not serve the understanding of the text. For example, the impression is created that mathematics is a natural science, but it is in fact a formal science. The German term “Geschlecht”, which can mean sex, gender or identity, now has such radically different meanings that it can no longer be used without prior explanation, as Aigner does.
• Bias: The one-sided selection of examples creates a clear selection bias. Supposed superiority does not only exist in the natural sciences, but also has a long tradition in the humanities. After reading the article, one might also think that far-reaching social constructivism has not received any serious criticism at all, but this is not the case.
• Straw men: Straw man arguments cloud the impression of the text. After all, an arbitrary application of mathematics is not good science, not only in sociology but also in physics. Evolutionary psychology by no means denies the influence of cultural moulding.
• Inappropriate assessment of empiricism: The scientific-theoretical discourse on the relationship between theory and empiricism is not simply one between natural science and social science, but is also conducted within disciplines. Empiricism in the social, life and behavioural sciences is also given a very pejorative framing in the texts: terms such as propaganda and pseudoscience are used.
• Categorisation error: There is a tendency to confuse social science with social philosophy and political activism. Description and norms are not kept apart. Social science is not responsible for setting social norms. Rather, norms should be negotiated socially in a fair discourse, whereby scientific findings should also be taken into account.
• Suspicion of manipulative rhetoric: The two texts analysed follow the pattern of initially making strong assertions, followed by a partial retraction. Accusations are not substantiated. This is not good argumentation.

We took a closer look at Florian Aigner’s comments on sex-specific preferences and the gender equality paradox and also consulted the specialist literature on the subject. The lack of reflection criticised by Aigner was not found: Different methods are used to empirically investigate whether there are innate preferences or whether everything is socially constructed. Given the results, it is not very plausible that normative stereotypes alone explain different behaviour. Florian Aigner also seems to be under the misapprehension that realised equal rights must necessarily imply de facto equality.

Unfortunately, the texts are riddled with inaccuracies, selection bias, framing, category errors and straw man arguments. This does not make it any easier to find out what the author stands for in a positive sense. However, we can identify a tendency in the texts, namely an emphasis on moralism over empiricism, even when it is not a matter of norms but of facts. If the empirical social sciences can prove every opinion, they are de facto disavowed. In order to decide whether an “opinion is dangerous nonsense” or not without reference to facts, the only option is to fall back on a moral doctrine. It therefore seems plausible to assume that the texts are not about science at all, but about contemporary virtue signalling.