A document was posted online on January 22 on a site that aims to combat false information. Entitled “How do you know if a scientific study is reliable?”, this document is presented in the form of a short comic strip. It received support from the Ministry of Higher Education and Research.
False scholar, true charlatan
The intention is obviously laudable. It is a matter of recalling what the elementary criteria of scientificity are so that everyone knows how to distinguish between an acceptable explanation and a sectarian or commercial delirium.
A priori, nothing to dispute then.
One detail, however, catches the eye. The comic strip features two characters who represent, one scientific seriousness, the other obscurantism. The first is a serious and studious young girl; the second is an elderly white man, wearing a suit and tie, with a receding hairline and a beautiful white beard.
The confusion comes from the fact that this second character corresponds exactly to the classic image of the Western scholar: it is the archetype of the wise man who has served since antiquity to describe the philosopher or the honest man, and who could apply without too much difficulty to some of the great minds or Nobel Prize winners who have populated the history of science.
So why did you choose to represent the charlatan in the guise of a scientist? Of course, we suspect that it would have been inappropriate to put a Salafist or an African marabout here, but political correctness has its limits. Of course, we understand the intention: we must break stereotypes, and above all not let people believe that science is the preserve of men. The argument is admissible, but it is one thing to break the codes, it is another to create a new denigration that targets those who have largely contributed to the history of science. The message comes out completely confused. Because by associating the traditional image of the scientist with that of the charlatan, the comic strip unconsciously invites us to doubt science itself: has it not been taken over by old oppressive white males? This weakens the idea that science is based on universal criteria, independent of individual characteristics, since it moves science onto the terrain of social antagonisms.
Priority to sex education?
Let's add another remark about this comic strip. What does it implicitly say, if not that it is now necessary to remind the younger generations of the fundamentals of the scientific approach and rational thought? We therefore deduce that these things are no longer self-evident. This is also true This is confirmed by studies that show that the Tik Tok generation easily subscribes to the most delusional beliefs. (the earth is flat, abortion can be done by plants, etc.).
So the question is why the education system no longer knows how (or no longer wants to) do this basic scientific education work. It is then difficult not to make the connection with the release this week of the new Sexuality Education program. Obviously, no one disputes the importance of this education. But knowing that this program is about fifty pages long, and that it is marked by a meticulous, if not obsessive, concern for detail, we say to ourselves that priorities have definitely changed. Why is there no equivalent for scientific education?
More seriously: to the extent that this sex education program presents itself not as a technical guide but as a catechism of individual rights, we understand that the dominant concern is of a moral nature. Because what is hammered home throughout these 50 pages is first and foremost the absolute imperative of respect for others: everyone must be free to make their own choices and preferences. This is certainly a fine project, but by wanting to erect respect for tastes and beliefs into dogma, are we not further weakening the scientific ideal, which precisely implies freeing oneself not only from morality, but also from the sensitivities of each individual?
