Science Cringe

Embarrassment for the sake of progress

I’m a sucker for Cringe. Maybe I think disgust is essential for human existence, but mostly I just think the shit is funny. I recently had a strong desire to start posting what I am calling Science Cringe: the stuff we do in the name of science that is just gross. By the end of this essay I hope you’ll 1) identify and accept your own cringiness, and then 2) start calling out Science Cringe when you see it (or at least send it to me so we can laugh and cry together).

What is Cringe?

The Office.

The Office makes you sad that these kinds of jobs ever existed. You’re embarrassed for the characters and probably yourself. Most of us can relate to a lot of the fuck shit seen in this brilliant masterpiece.

cringe

(krɪndʒ)

vb (intr)

a. to wince in embarrassment or distaste

b. to experience a sudden feeling of embarrassment or distaste

Cringe makes you feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. You know something is Cringe when it hits home. You feel like some alternate (or younger) version of you might have done something similar. If you would do the cringy thing today, it’s hard to accept it as Cringe. It’s like reading old diary entries or text messages from 10 years ago…there is a strong urge to look away, but today’s journal entry is just fine.

A few more examples of cringe

Stupidity. No shade, but if you’re convinced the earth is flat after “looking into it”…Cringe. If you think DJT was the best president ever… Cringe.

TikTok. All of it. Lip syncing has always been a little cringy. I even felt a little cringe back in college, when I went to support my fabulous colleague from The Cheesecake Factory, Roxxxy at her drag show. Lip syncing is kinda cute in the context of drag. On TikTok, it’s the worst of humanity, and it’s everywhere. Make. It. STOP.

Most social media. Posting on social media is super Cringe… but we do it. It’s Cringe because we’re bearing our souls, often in the spirit of self-promotion. To be successful on Instagram you can 1) Be hot, and show it OR 2) Be funny and clever.

The lack of nuance is extraordinarily cringy.

Free-floating Quotes. A stranger called me Cringe on Instagram recently for posting philosophical quotes. Ok, fine. Cringe. The Quote Gang is rife with platitudes, mischaracterization, inaccuracies, and misinterpretation. It was warranted, but I’m still posting.

Accepting your own Cringe

While watching influencers fall on their ass is hilarious and satisfying, it’s also kind of dark. In fact, deriving any kind of pleasure from displaced embarrassment is schadenfreude… and that’s pretty cringy. However, like anything in life, self-awareness is key, and owning your shit is freeing. If you can accept things you do as cringy, you freely accept truths about yourself. You’re free to challenge your own assumptions and those about the world around you. This is why I implore you to Accept Your Cringe.

How am I cringy? It’s a hard question to ask, let alone answer. I’ll walk you through some of my own Cringe to help you get there.

Yesterday’s Daily Stoic passage asserted that the only thing we are truly in control of is our “Mind”. Our physical bodies may deteriorate, or we may be imprisoned, but we can always control our choices. This is typical stoic fodder but Total Cringe for a neuroscientist (me) without even getting into the whole Free Will thing. While we don’t know the exact nature of the Mind, most of us agree that the brain is a soup of neurochemicals and electrical signals with physical conduits and hubs subject to outside influence…ahem… not totally within our control.

When I think about someone who is “Triggered”, they’re not in control of their choices. That is to say, a physical stimulus has coalesced into our Mind. I’m spitballing here, but let’s say you see someone… I don’t know… breaking into our nation’s Capitol. Your eyes filter the image, sending a signal through your occipital lobe, some perception centers, and on to the brain stem. This impulse travels down through your spinal nerves, let’s say the Vagus. Efferents run to your heart, increasing the rate at which it pumps while simultaneously activating your gut motility. Sensory inputs create a positive feedback loop back to your brain where you *might* become aware of the physical sensations of being Triggered.

So… are we really in control of our “Minds”? We’d have to have a really strong pitstop in the frontal lobe to control our impulses to stop a physical reaction. In the likely event we can’t, we might be able to fight it off cognitively, but this just ain’t gonna happen for most of us monkeys. The cortex is kinda thin compared to our other more primitive brain structures. On top of that, some of us are genetically and epigenetically primed for stronger emotional responses.

I can understand how stoics might think that we can overcome these external inputs to our Mind. It’s aspirational. With practice and mindfulness, we might be able to rewire behaviors and patterns, strengthen our cognition, and lessen inputs from emotional and physical feedback loops. After all, how do we become expert guitar players, learn brand new languages, or form bonds with strangers?

The more compassionate side of me can’t help but cringe a little at the stoics’ obvious lack of neuroscience knowledge coupled with today’s Hustle Gang mentality. Culturally, there is a shift from valuing productivity, and I cringe because I kind of subscribe to productivity. I can tolerate my Cringe because I’m not married to my perspective. I can see how pumping up productivity can be detrimental. It’s a malleable that thing I believe, not who I am as a whole.

Anyone deeply rooted in the belief that is the subject of their Cringe will not find it funny or entertaining. They may have a hard time accepting their own Cringe because they see it as part of their belief system and ultimately, who they are.

Not accepting Cringe makes you the cringiest.

Who can’t accept their own Cringe? Who takes themselves too seriously?

One group that comes to mind… modern scientists and intellectuals.

Make no mistake, I am including myself in that bucket. I couldn’t just read the damn passage. I had to dig into my knowledge of the brain and philosophy on free will creating some sort of Matryoshka Cringe Doll. Ew.

Science Cringe

Why are today’s academics, scientists, and intellectuals unwilling to see how cringy they are?

They take themselves and their pursuit of knowledge too seriously.

Mistakes are frowned upon in today’s academic circles. It should be just the opposite, but admitting error is career suicide because of the immediacy of funding, publishing, and the competitiveness of academic pursuits. Sadly, it’s baked into the culture to take yourself and your work seriously.

Plus, Cringe makes you reflect on your own actions and systems of belief. It’s messy and difficult to understand, and academics can prefer to analyze things outside of themselves

For intellectuals/academics: Post-modernism has taken over much of the social sciences. To accept something as Cringe, you must accept something as true… and what is truth to a post-modernist but a possibility. They just can’t vibe.

For the harder sciences: Cringe is incalculable (at this point), and admitting that you have beliefs is repulsive for many scientists. Being able to laugh at how seriously we take science begs the question of whether or not science is fallible. Scientists (especially young ones) are so wrapped up in grants, publishing in their ultraniche that they haven’t had time to explore the philosophies of science. Tattooed people say you aren’t in the club until you get a bad one. The way I see it, you aren’t in the scientist club until you’ve questioned scientism.

Scientism? Cringeeee, but let’s go there.

The AAAS feigns an explanation of scientism:

Richard G. Olson defines scientism as “efforts to extend scientific ideas, methods, practices, and attitudes to matters of human social and political concern.” (1) But this formulation is so broad as to render it virtually useless. Philosopher Tom Sorell offers a more precise definition: “Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.” (2) MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson offers a closely related version, but more extreme: “Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.” (3)

AAAS catalogs the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, positivism, and logical positivism. Auguste Comte, the father of positivism, claimed that the only valid data is acquired through the senses. Logical Positivism asserts that meaningful statements must be analytical (math/logic) and/or empirical (verified by experimentation), and the rest is bunk.

AAAS doesn’t say much about the space between today’s scientists and those of the past…possibly because we may be in the midst of a paradigm shift (or perhaps it already occurred) and no one wants to talk about it (Cringe).

Thomas Kuhn argued that science is mostly incremental. We inch along adding to new knowledge, coloring inside the lines until an anomaly occurs. The anomaly leads to new Extraordinary Science - a change in the fundamental way we experiment - leading to a paradigm shift. At this point, scientists behave like philosophers (Cringe for most scientists) - arguing points and ideas rather than battling with empirical tests, logic, and math. Some argue that Kuhn’s way of thinking allows post-modernism to find its way into science (Cringe).

Basically, Thomas Kuhn injected a bolus of alternate perspective into the way we conduct (or don’t conduct) science, and I gotta say: it is incredibly inconvenient. Now we need a Science Cringe page to argue whether a significant anomaly has occurred and objective truths exist? It’s entirely possible that another system for attaining knowledge exists. Scientism relies on the scientific method for acquiring the best snapshot of objective truth that we know of, but some would expand scientism to include qualitative observations. Then we have to think about objective vs subjective measurements (Cringeee). This Post-modernist expansion really shakes things up because it basically says everything can be almost everything. So, truth can be truth and not truth. Perfect fuel for an absurdist… but for a scientist? Cringe.

Is modern scientism toying with post-modernist ideology?

Kinda… yeah. If we expand the definition of science outside of those that use the scientific method, then we’re there. We do exactly this when we include social science as science. Not to mention, we’ve got bigger problems in the hard sciences alone: Alan Sokal showed how easy it is to sneak shit science past our checkpoints, biology is pandering to social science - swatting away mean people, and epidemiology is having a hell of a time right now.

As far as I can tell, there are at least two problems that allow the intrusion of post-modernism into science: 1) Reproducibility and 2) Falsifiability. Many studies are not able to be replicated, but they’re still being cited and cherry-picked as scientific. I won’t even get into the perils of citing studies based on the identities of their authors. An eternal optimist, I thing time eliminates junk science like a house of cards, but when? Hopefully, before it is too late and we’ve burned all the books.

The bigger problem is unfalsifiable claims. These are pooling up on the edges of modern science and even in chemistry (how can you falsify chemical synthesis?) and amongst the social sciences. How can you falsify the claim that

the scientific method asserts patriarchy over women ?

You’d have to be able to prove that the method itself doesn’t contribute to the patriarchy. Can you even define and measure the patriarchy (Cringe)? This would require more falsifiable claims about what the Patriarchy is and that it exists. Even if you could, Feminists wouldn’t buy it because the method itself is the thing that supports the patriarchy! Messy. Cringe.

This Feminist perspective on knowledge is an example of where we lose objectivity and controlled experimentation. This is the place where anti-positivism rears its head. This idea comes about from thinking that the researcher’s perception and bias inevitably alter the data. The idea that data is socially constructed is easily applied to social sciences, but the hard sciences? Cringe. Although, I do know an Interpretivist physicist, so it’s a thing. This individual believes that their background and ethnicity influence the physics they conduct (maybe) and the conclusions they draw (maybe) in a meaningful way (Cringe).

In between positivism and anti-positivism lives the Realist. They believe sociology research can be conducted well enough to be called science by combining qualitative and quantitative methods. That oughta snuff out the weaknesses in an unfalsifiable or unobservable phenomenon. Cringe.

This is where homeopathic, chiropractic and alternative medicines are gaining popularity. This is because, ironically, the lack of access and exorbitant medical costs that has come with sweeping advances in medicine. Lived experience is counted as evidence in many pseudoscientific - ahem - Realist arenas.

For the elite, however, objective science will stand quite the way it is, anti-positivist. At least until we deal with quantum computing (Cringe). Big Tech will continue to pander to the post-modern Critical Theory crowd with gestures of Diversity and Inclusion while actually not giving a single fuck (Cringe). Elon’s testing rockets built from the principles of physics, and unlikely to staff the first colony on Mars using their astrological signs. If you have access, you’ll probably take your medical advice from the evidence pyramid.

Another weak spot in our epistemological system and a ripe source for Science Cringe is the collection of universities that are supposed to be at the helm of truth-seeking. They’re proving to be first and foremost advocacy centers, clinging to Foucaultian ideas about power. Cringe, but can you blame them? They’re dying.

Is science being misused?

Absolutely, and it always will be.

“Humans may crave absolute certainty; they may aspire to it; they may pretend, as partisans of certain religions do, to have attained it. But the history of science — by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans — teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us.” -Carl Sagan

Our society has been hugely polarized (Cringe), and partisan ideologies have infected many of our scientists. This presents a perfect opportunity for the Party of Science to emerge, which is a sweet, naive notion, but fated to lead us into authoritarianism and is, importantly, beyond cringy.

Carl believed that we have a responsibility to safeguard the process and the results of science. How can we do this if we don’t investigate the gross parts of what we do in semi-real time? We’re getting a little close to existential disaster for my liking. Time to own up.

Do all scientists buy into scientism?

Most certainly not. At a certain point in our studies, most of us recognize how little we know. The scientific method has taken us this far, but what the actual fuck do we know about the universe? Not much. We certainly don’t have a unified Theory of Everything, and we might never get there. When you reach this understanding, you accept what we have before us and keep your mind open. Cringe? Either way, there is certainly room to explore and poke fun.

The Science Cringe Movement

I’ve spent entirely too much time writing this, and it is likely a steaming pile of shit, but if nothing else, I think there is room for more steaming shit just like it. Largely, Science Cringe pokes fun at scientists being unscientific. I do think we should continue to use science to the best of our abilities to discern objective truths about the universe and fight against its misuse. If you don’t see why you should do this, here is the list of Pros and Cons that I made up.

Pros of talking about Science Cringe:

1. It could be a real eye-opener for scientists and the public that scientists are fallible.

2. It might inspire us to scrutinize data more closely instead of listening to our bias for the consensus.

3. It would be funny AF. To an obscure audience. But it could grow. Maybe.

4. It is important for us to recognize the pitfalls of post-modernism in our scientific process and contribute to countering pseudoscience.

5. Owning our shit might help humanity in the long-run as far as existential risk goes.

Cons of talking about Science Cringe:

1. We’ve got a million other things on our minds. How important is this?

2. It will be difficult to convince scientists that they are cringy, and uncomfortable dealing with the backlash. (This is probably a pro, tbh)

3. It might be counterproductive to human progress in the short-run by shaking the nascent public sphere of belief around science, aka The Church of Science. (Again probably a pro, unfettered belief in science could be a long-term problem.)

Obviously, I think it’s good for human progress to address our own inadequacies, and Science Cringe might push us to do just that. I also think we are evolving enough mentally to be able to take it on the chin. Well, some of us (CRINGE).