What does it actually mean to rebel scientifically?

This is the question I have been circling for eleven episodes, and now I want to answer it directly. The answer is different depending on whether you are asking about individual practice, community organizing, or democratic governance. So I want to take it at all three levels.

At the individual level, Scientific Rebellion is an epistemic commitment. The commitment to hold your beliefs with a grip calibrated to the quality of the evidence supporting them. This sounds obvious when stated abstractly. It is profoundly countercultural in a society that rewards the comfort of certainty. We are rewarded — socially, psychologically — for the confident assertion of clear positions. We are penalized in social status, in the approval of our communities, sometimes in our sense of our own identity, for the honest acknowledgment of uncertainty.

The engineer’s version of this commitment is the one I find most useful, and I want to describe it carefully. An engineer who is uncertain about a structural calculation does not resolve the uncertainty by confidence. They do more analysis. They consult the literature. They run the numbers again. They call a colleague and ask for a second opinion. They build in a safety factor to account for the residual uncertainty. And when the result comes back wrong — when the bridge behaves differently from the model — they do not defend the model. They update it.

That practice is not just an attitude. It is a set of habits of mind that runs counter to the default patterns of human cognition. The tendency to seek information that confirms what we already believe. The tendency to weight a vivid anecdote more heavily than systematic evidence. The tendency to evaluate the quality of an argument by the social status of the person making it. These tendencies are not character flaws. They are features of the cognitive system that has served our species well in other environments. But they are not adequate for the epistemic demands of democratic self-governance in a complex, diverse society. The rebellion, at the individual level, is the discipline to work against them.

Karl Popper proposed falsifiability as the criterion that separates scientific claims from non-scientific ones. A claim is scientific if and only if there is some possible evidence that could, in principle, show it to be wrong. I want to press that criterion into wider service. It is a test worth running on any claim anyone offers you. Ask — what evidence would change your mind on this? If the answer is nothing, you are no longer dealing with a knowledge claim. You are dealing with a faith claim dressed in the language of knowledge. Faith claims are legitimate in their own domain. As the basis for governance of a pluralistic society, they are not.

At the community level, Scientific Rebellion looks like the coalition work I described in the last episode. It looks like building alliances around shared commitment to evidence rather than shared ideology. It looks like creating spaces — congregations, PTAs, civic organizations, neighborhood networks — in which honest engagement with inconvenient facts is possible. It looks like protecting the institutional infrastructure that makes evidence-based reasoning possible at the scale of a community. The public library. The local newspaper. The independent teacher. The union. The local judiciary.

At the democratic governance level, Scientific Rebellion looks like accountability. It looks like the demand — made in school board meetings, in legislative hearings, in electoral campaigns — that those who make policy on behalf of a community be required to show their work. To demonstrate that the policies they are proposing are supported by evidence. To engage honestly with evidence that challenges their proposals. To accept the verdict of the evidence even when it is politically inconvenient.

This is not a radical demand. It is the demand the Founders made of themselves. The design of American constitutional government was explicitly grounded in reason and evidence rather than in the preferences of any particular faction or the authority of any particular creed. That is what the Federalist Papers are. It is what the ratification debates were. The claim that evidence-based governance is elitist or technocratic is a rhetorical move. Evidence-based governance is what self-government actually requires. Its absence is not populism. Its absence is manipulation.

Let me give you the concrete program, because I don’t want this to stay at the altitude of abstraction.

In education, teach critical thinking explicitly, at every grade level. Not just the scientific method as a procedure, but the habits of mind it requires. Distinguishing evidence from assertion. Recognizing logical fallacies. Asking what would count as evidence against a claim. Being willing to change your mind when the evidence demands it. Teach the history of science, including the history of how scientific consensus has been manufactured and resisted, so students recognize the playbook when they see it deployed again. Teach religion honestly and comparatively, including the role of religious institutions in both atrocities and liberation, so students understand what the separation of church and state is actually protecting and why.

Teach gender identity and sexual orientation honestly and age-appropriately at every level of public education. This is not indoctrination. It is the opposite of indoctrination. It presents students with the actual diversity of human experience and trusts them to engage with it. Schools in Michigan have been doing this in various forms for more than a decade. The children are fine. Better than fine. The research consistently shows that LGBTQ-inclusive curricula benefit not only LGBTQ students but the entire school community, reducing bullying and improving overall school climate.

In government, insist consistently and loudly that public policy be justified by public evidence. This requires more than voting in presidential elections. It requires active engagement in the venues where manufactured certainty does most of its work. School board meetings. State legislative hearings. Local zoning battles over where tax-advantaged private religious schools can expand. The organizations doing the most damage to American democratic pluralism are highly organized at the local level. The response has to be equally organized.

Support the practical applications of the separation of church and state. The tax-exempt status of religious organizations should not extend to political campaigning. Public funds should not flow to religious schools that discriminate. Government facilities and officials should not be used to promote specific theological positions. Legislation that has no justification other than religious doctrine should not survive constitutional scrutiny. These are not radical propositions. They are the consensus interpretation of the Establishment Clause that held in American law from the mid-twentieth century until very recently.

In public discourse, name manufactured certainty when you see it. Call out the specific mechanism — this is not a genuine scientific dispute, this is a political strategy that uses the language of doubt to protect an interest. Name the false binary — the choice is not between Christian values and chaos, the choice is between evidence-based governance and theocracy. And keep naming the connections between different forms of false certainty. The anti-trans campaign. The book-ban campaign. The climate-denial campaign. The voter-suppression campaign. They are not separate. They are applications of the same epistemological weapon.

In coalition, build the broadest possible alliance of people who share the commitment to evidence-based governance, regardless of theological convictions. This means explicitly including progressive religious communities, not treating them as embarrassing exceptions to a secular rule. It means centering the voices of communities most directly harmed — Black Americans, LGBTQ Americans, women, Indigenous peoples, immigrants — not as constituencies to be served but as leaders whose experience of manufactured certainty has been the sharpest and most instructive.

It means, above all, voting. I am not being cute about this. The Supreme Court that eliminated the federal right to abortion, that has repeatedly ruled in favor of Christian nationalist arguments, that has opened the door to unlimited dark money in politics, was placed there by elected officials who were elected by people who voted. The manufactured certainty of the current movement has an Achilles heel. It does not represent the views of most Americans. On abortion. On gender-affirming care. On book bans. On climate science. On the separation of church and state. Polling is consistent that the movement’s positions are the minority positions. The minority position has power because it mobilizes effectively. The majority can mobilize too. It just has to decide to.

I want to place this program in its historical frame, because I think it helps. Immanuel Kant, writing in 1784, answered the question “what is Enlightenment?” with the two most famous words he ever wrote. *Sapere aude.* Dare to know. Have the courage to use your own reason. Kant was not describing a period of history. He was describing a stance. A human being’s emergence, as he put it, from self-imposed immaturity. The refusal to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another. The willingness to think for oneself.

That was a revolutionary claim in a world organized around the authority of kings and churches. It was a challenge to every power structure whose legitimacy rested on the claim to exclusive access to truth. And it has been contested, ferociously and continuously, ever since. The Enlightenment project has never been completed. It has faced continuous opposition from those whose power depends on the deference of others to claimed authority. What we are experiencing now is not a new attack on the Enlightenment. It is the latest in a three-century series of attacks.

What is new is the scale. The organization. The digital infrastructure. The specific political vulnerabilities the current attack is exploiting. A Senate that systematically underrepresents urban populations. An Electoral College that can produce presidents who lose the popular vote. A gerrymandering apparatus that insulates legislators from majority opinion. These are the specific features of our moment.

A New Enlightenment, then, is not something entirely new. It is the reassertion and deepening of the ongoing Enlightenment project under the specific conditions of our time. It involves new technology — the same technology that has been weaponized to spread manufactured certainty can be used to spread honest inquiry, if people are equipped with the tools to tell the difference. It involves new communities — grounded in honest uncertainty rather than manufactured certainty. And it involves new political commitments — the willingness to protect and strengthen the institutions that make honest inquiry possible. A free press. Public education. Independent scientific institutions. An impartial judiciary.

None of this is guaranteed. History does not guarantee progress. The Enlightenment project has been reversed before. What history does guarantee is that manufactured certainty eventually fails, because it is built on a lie, and lies require increasing amounts of energy to maintain. The energy required to maintain the lie that some human beings are less than fully human eventually exceeds the willingness of a sufficient number of people to pay it.

I believe we are approaching that moment. Not because I am temperamentally optimistic — I am not, and I have spent a decade watching things get worse in many specific ways — but because I have watched the evidence accumulate. The evidence of what gender-affirming care actually does. The evidence of what book bans actually cost. The evidence of what happens to communities when the knowledge their children need is suppressed. The evidence of what happens to women when their reproductive autonomy is governed by people who believe they speak for God.

This evidence does not assemble itself into a political movement. People have to do that. But the evidence is there, and more people are seeing it every year. Every parent who watches their child thrive with gender-affirming care, and then hears a politician say that care is abuse, is a person whose experience has given them knowledge that manufactured certainty cannot erase. Every student who is denied a book about their own history and finds it elsewhere — in a library, online, in a conversation with a teacher who knows the cost of silence — is a person whose knowledge has been deepened, not suppressed, by the attempt to suppress it.

The arc bends. It bends because people bend it. Because engineers who were comfortable became advocates. Because teachers kept teaching. Because doctors kept practicing medicine. Because parents chose their children over their comfort. Because every person who chose honest uncertainty over manufactured certainty made the truth a little harder to bury.

This is the New Enlightenment. It is already here, in pieces, in the classrooms and hospitals and congregations and living rooms where people are already doing the work. And the people who are doing this work — without fanfare, without certainty of success — are the bravest people I know.

Sign up on this site to receive updates on the soon-to-be-published book, “Hello, World, I’m the Dad of a Trans Kid: The Case for Curiosity in a World Addicted to Certainty.” If podcasts are your thing, please check out the podcast series of the same name.