Introduction In a society constantly grappling with overwhelming challenges, many individuals may appear indifferent or apathetic. This article explores the realities behind such perceptions, particularly focusing on the struggles faced by working-class Americans, the complexities within the scientific community, and a reflection on historical principles of equality and rights. By delving into these themes, we hope to shed light on the deeper context of what lies beneath the surface behavior of the populace.
Part the First: Jessica Wildfire on Apathetic Americans. As a member of the Professional Managerial Class who originates from a working-class background, my perspective often differs from that of many of my peers. A persistent sentiment among them is that “They just don’t seem to care…” But is that truly the case? From Heads Above Water: Why It Looks Like Americans Don’t Care:
A father works tirelessly from dawn till dusk, while the mother takes on the night shift. In between, she fits in whatever sleep she can before picking up their child from school, running errands when she can muster the energy, and then collecting the father from work. They share a late dinner before she heads back to her job.
Two jobs, one car.
Now, imagine telling such a family that it is their moral responsibility to resist fascism. Picture lecturing them on their carbon footprint or urging them to cultivate a garden or capture rainwater. Envision informing them of an impending famine that could strike in eight weeks or accusing them of complicity in genocide. Then, hand them an additional list of tasks to safeguard the future.
If your day consists of dealing with disgruntled customers, overly demanding managers, endless grocery lines, and toddler temper tantrums, how would you prefer to spend the rare one or two hours of free time? Would you choose to read about your bleak reality, filled with blame, or would you rather relax with videos of adorable dogs? I know my choice.
For those earning a living from a laptop or nurturing a garden, it can be easy to overlook the daily struggles faced by the majority of Americans.
…
If you’re puzzled about why Americans aren’t more engaged, understand this: they’re tirelessly grinding away just to make ends meet. They simply do not have the luxury of time for gardening or participating in book clubs. While debates about how we got here could go on indefinitely, the stark truth remains: not everyone opted into this exhausting life; many were simply born into it.
Staying afloat.
It’s a sentiment that resonates. When the unrelenting stress of inevitable challenges keeps you awake at night, your focus shifts. Meanwhile, the child of privilege often lacks such understanding.
Part the Second: Science on the Rocks. A frequent source of insight for me is SBM, which thoroughly discusses the state of American biomedical science. In this section, we revisit Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis from Stanford University, a pivotal figure contributing to the so-called “replication crisis” in science. Yet, this crisis may not be what it seems. As we’ve mentioned previously, his assertions hinge largely on statistics. While Benjamin Disraeli may not have coined the phrase, “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics,” it still holds relevant truth. This statement should not diminish the value of statistics, but rather highlight their potential pitfalls. Ioannidis emphasizes that mishandling statistical data can lead to severe consequences. Interestingly, his paper on the topic was revised more than fifteen years post-publication. How many truly engaged with it?
Dr. Jonathan Howard re-examines the topic in “Dr. John Ioannidis Says Obsessive, Self-Anointed “Science-Based” Blamers are a Total Embarrassment for Science:
While his COVID-related work and connections with MAHA doctors remain significant, future credibility for Dr. Ioannidis seems tenuous. Recently, he penned an article that serves as an opportunity to discuss DARVO, a manipulative rhetorical technique that originated in the context of abusive relationships and has recently emerged in scientific discourse.
DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. This succinctly encapsulates Dr. Ioannidis, who, despite being a prolific scientist (with around 1400 publications since 1994; averaging over 40 per year), his critiques, while seemingly reasonable at first glance, reveal deeper levels of criticism as one digs further, especially since the pandemic began. Most rational individuals understand that credentials alone do not grant a scientist credibility; this belief seems confined to those who lack genuine scientific merit and their supporters:
Although Dr. Ioannidis is under no obligation to respond, his criticisms have yet to be addressed earnestly. Instead, he displays his hurt feelings and admonishes us for our “obsession,” without once engaging with substantial counterpoints to our work. Such criticism is not unique to SBM.
Despite professing admiration for “rigorous organized scepticism and evidence-based questioning,” Dr. Ioannidis seldom addresses his critics with the consideration they deserve. Instead, he seems to pit himself against us in some futile competition while implying our discussions solely revolve around labeling him a “quack.” To him, accurately quoting his statements and disagreeing constitutes an “attack.” Imagine how outraged he would be if we labeled him harsher terms, as Dr. Vinay Prasad has done. Strangely, Dr. Ioannidis seems unperturbed by such behavior, even referencing their past collaboration on civil discourse in his recent piece.
Should Dr. Ioannidis ever detail our missteps with clarity, it would mark an unprecedented occurrence. Meanwhile, I remain open to valid critique. Until then, we recognize that he is merely unjustly attributing blame to competent scientists with whom he disagrees, often without adequate supporting evidence.
Indeed. However, it is evident that institutional science is straying from its mission in numerous regards. In stark contrast to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, the response of our scientific institutions since late-2019 to the emergence of a new coronavirus has left much to be desired. The reasons behind this situation remain to be fully understood but are a key factor in the dwindling public trust in science, if not its complete erosion. A recent article in Nature delves into this topic: Have people stopped trusting science? The data tell a surprising story. “Surprising” is subjective, but the facts remain:
Concerns regarding trust in science had been simmering for years, but they reached a boiling point during the COVID-19 pandemic as misinformation proliferated, prompting vocal opposition to recommendations—such as vaccinations and mask use—that research indicated could save lives.
In June 2022, as the pandemic subsided, researchers Niels Mede and Viktoria Cologna called for participants interested in surveying trust in science on Twitter (now X). Their inquiries garnered vast attention, leading to a team of about 240 people, forming an international project named TISP (Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism) and conducting a 68-country survey. Mede, currently affiliated with Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, noted that the initiative generated significant interest.
The online survey posed 12 questions regarding scientists’ competence, integrity, openness, and benevolence, each a component of trust. This addressed concerns over the simplistic nature of overarching surveys about trust in science, which often fail to delve into the nuances of the terms ‘trust’ and ‘science’. Combined results yielded a trustworthiness scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), with a global average of 3.6 aligning with earlier international surveys suggesting that trust in science remains comparatively strong (refer to ‘Solid support for science’).
According to my calculations, 3.6/5 equates to 72%, or a C-minus, should we analyze it too literally. This doesn’t strike me as robust. A much larger issue comprises polarization between those who trust science and those who question it. This dynamic intertwines with a crisis of legitimacy affecting political and cultural landscapes today. Simple explanations are elusive. As previously discussed here and here, the essence of solid science resides in researchers who approach their work with neutrality regarding outcomes. As such, it’s vital to scrutinize the Acknowledgments section in scientific papers rather than the Abstract. The source of funding takes precedence over the research findings. In hindsight, who funds the research typically outweighs the conclusions drawn.
Part the Third: Science is Still Pretty Cool in Three Parts. Three concise articles in Archaeology magazine showcase why this remains true. The first outlines evidence that Bronze Age Scandinavians sailed to Iberia:
A new study comparing prehistoric boat carvings, or petroglyphs, from 12 sites in northwest Iberia with thousands of similar images from southern Scandinavia indicates notable similarities in design and detail. These findings are documented in the journal PLOS One.
The research employed high-resolution 3D scanning, digital modeling, Reflectance Transformation Imaging, and Geographic Information Systems to analyze Iberian carvings. Such methods unveiled detailed insights overlooked in previous surveys and facilitated direct comparisons to Scandinavian rock art.
Many carvings exhibit the same boat characteristics: curved hulls, crews, oars, masts, rigging, and sail-associated shapes. Decorative elements, including bird forms and S-shaped designs at the vessel’s ends, are evident in both areas. This close resemblance suggests a shared shipbuilding heritage and analogous artistic traditions among far-flung coastal cultures.
The study’s underlying paper bears a captivating title: Boats on the rocks: Late prehistoric nautical iconography and landscape, from Northwest Iberia to Scandinavia (open access). The illustrations convey stories beyond words, enabled by scientific tools that early archaeologists couldn’t conceive:
This paper provides a comparative analysis of prehistoric rock art depictions of boats found across northwest Iberia and southern Scandinavia. Utilizing advanced digital documentation methods, such as high-resolution 3D scanning and GIS-based landscape assessment, the study meticulously examines the iconography and geographic arrangement of Iberian petroglyphs. It identifies substantial typological and iconographic parallels between Northwest Iberia and Nordic art, offering a comparative framework for proposing a Late Bronze Age dating (circa 1300–800 BCE) for Iberian examples. This shared artistic expression supports existing hypotheses concerning extensive transregional connectivity and maritime trade across Atlantic Europe, particularly regarding the transfer of vital metals like copper and tin. Moreover, the GIS analysis confirms that nearly all Iberian sites, regardless of proximity to the coast, maintain vital visual or physical connections to navigable water bodies, such as oceans or significant rivers. Ultimately, the authors assert that this rock art reflects both advancements in nautical technology and the cultural and ritualistic beliefs of maritime communities engaged in long-distance exchanges.
This evidence reveals that our European ancestors were remarkably resilient, exceptionally innovative, and profoundly brave—qualities that seem to be fading, if not entirely lost, today.
In the piece titled Ancient Herculaneum scroll read for the first time after nearly 2,000 years, researchers have:
successfully retrieved an ancient scroll without unrolling it. Utilizing advanced X-ray technology and artificial intelligence, they accessed the full surviving text from a sealed papyrus for the first time since its creation. This work grants scholars access to writings obscured since CE 79.
…
This specific scroll, denoted as PHerc. 1667 or Scroll 4, endured the volcanic eruption that turned the papyrus into a delicate block of carbon. Unrolling would likely lead to irrevocable damage, as prior attempts in the 1800s and late 1900s compromised the fragile outer layers, leaving a tightly packed inner core.
Opting for a non-invasive approach, the team scanned the scroll using high-resolution X-rays at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Grenoble, France. They reconstructed the rolled pages in three dimensions, flattened them digitally, and trained AI models to detect ink indistinguishable against the charred papyrus. Papyrologists subsequently verified each reading, producing a Greek text.
…
The recovered text seems to focus on Stoic ethics, examining themes like human nature, self-discipline, education, and moral evolution. One segment reflects how individuals stray when they deviate from their inherent nature, while another underscores the importance of wisdom obtained through learning and reflection.
The last discernible column mentions Aristocreon, a nephew and student of the Greek Stoic thinker Chrysippus. The linguistic style and handwriting suggest a date in the second century BCE, marking the scroll as one of the oldest extant documents from Herculaneum. Given the rarity of surviving literature attributable to Chrysippus, scholars speculate this scroll may contain teachings pertinent to his philosophical teachings.
Indeed, papyrologists continue to thrive! As scientific advancements progress, there is much to learn from their applications.
In relation to other scrolls, there’s promising research reported on Tracing the Origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls through AI and Chemical Analysis:
The initiative, called Tracing Scribes and Scrolls, is spearheaded by Professor Mladen Popović at the University of Groningen. The Dead Sea Scrolls rank among the most significant archaeological discoveries of the 20th century. Stored by the Israel Antiquities Authority in Jerusalem, this collection comprises the oldest known versions of many biblical texts, alongside numerous Jewish writings from the late Second Temple period. Despite extensive study, the origins of many scrolls remain uncertain.
The research team aspires to resolve these enduring questions. Some academics hypothesize that many scrolls originated from a Jewish community at Qumran. Others propose they were produced in different centers—possibly Jerusalem—before being concealed in nearby caves during turbulent times. Another hypothesis suggests that the caves functioned as libraries or repositories for older religious documents.
To probe these inquiries, the team aims to analyze 250 samples from the Dead Sea Scroll collection, incorporating parchment, papyrus, and ink. Scientists will juxtapose the chemical compositions of papyri from Egypt against materials from Qumran and other locations in the Judean Desert. This comparative analysis aims to unveil unique material signatures, enabling the identification of where raw materials originated and elucidating how various scrolls were crafted.
This project demonstrates the utility of AI (however one defines it). Reflecting back on the theme of trust in science, I can hear the “pragmatic businessman” pondering, “What’s the significance of any of this?” His innate lack of appreciation for cultural richness will likely cloud his understanding. However, that is inconsequential.
Part the Fourth: Remembering the Fourth of July. In today’s world, these principles may seem increasingly hollow, but they remain enduring truths, as articulated by Thomas Jefferson and his contemporaries over 250 years ago:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
…
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Their punctuation and capitalization reflect a sophistication often lacking in modern communications, particularly on certain social platforms. When referring to “Fortunes,” these individuals were invoking Fortuna, not an ephemeral meme coin. For our American readers, bear in mind that Independence Day transcends any single politician or ideology. It was true in 1776, and it remains pertinent in 2026. And for our friends in other nations, take solace in the knowledge that this phase too shall pass, one way or another.
Thank you for your time! I plan to revisit the Declaration tomorrow and celebrate my grandson’s third birthday. Remember to wear a wide-brimmed hat in the heat. Life is a marathon, not a sprint. See you next week.
