Reigniting public trust and public confidence in science: Why high quality science alone will restore trust in science and wipe out pseudoscience

Reigniting public trust and public confidence in science: Why high quality science alone will restore trust in science and wipe out pseudoscience

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

Published in SSRN, and other blogs and portals

Abstract

The core and the underlying objective of this paper is to show why public trust in science is at an all-time low in many parts of the world, and how this observation has been ratified and corroborated by many different surveys and research studies carried out in different parts of the world in recent times. In this paper, we also review the core and critical components of public trust in science, and review some scales, yardsticks and metrics that have been developed in this regard. We also review the possible causes of claimed American decline in science, and review why science and intellectualism have not taken off in a big way in developing countries as well. Therefore, we will argue that the only way to get out of this rut is to produce science that is of a fundamentally and foundationally higher quality by several orders in magnitude. Not doing so would produce a large number of dangerous counter reactions such as a dangerous resurrection of religion, and the rise of new age movements. We then cite and reproduce a large number of examples to bolster our case, and examples of these include the now nearly defunct Out of Africa hypotheses and the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, for example. While many of the examples discussed here may appear to be social sciences centric, a large number of these concepts would categorically apply to all other fields of the sciences as well, and this must be seen as a much more general exercise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

"Trust is the glue of life. It's the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It's the foundational principle that holds all relationships, " - Stephen R. Covey

"Trust is like blood pressure. It's silent, vital to good health, and if abused it can be deadly," - Frank Sonnenberg

 

The core and the underlying objective of this paper is to show why public trust in science is at an all-time low in many parts of the world, and how this observation has been ratified and corroborated by many different surveys and research studies carried out in different parts of the world in recent times. In this paper, we also review the core and critical components of public trust in science, and review some scales, yardsticks and metrics that have been developed in this regard. We also review the possible causes of claimed American decline in science, and review why science and intellectualism have not taken off in a big way in developing countries as well. Therefore, we will argue that the only way to get out of this rut is to produce science that is of a fundamentally and foundationally higher quality by several orders in magnitude. Not doing so would produce a large number of dangerous counter reactions such as a dangerous resurrection of religion, and the rise of new age movements. We then cite and reproduce a large number of examples to bolster our case, and examples of these include the now nearly defunct Out of Africa hypotheses and the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, for example. While many of the examples discussed here may appear to be social sciences centric, a large number of these concepts would categorically apply to all other fields of the sciences as well, and this must be seen as a much more general exercise.

What is trust?

But what just is trust. Loosely defined, a trust may often refer to firm belief that an individual has, or a group of individuals have, in the reliability, truth, power, strength, or ability of an individual or some other inanimate object or thing. Trust often involves overemphasizing positive feelings or attitudes towards someone or something, thereby downplaying any adversities or negative outcomes such as disappointments or fears of negative outcomes. Trust is a fundamental and an integral aspect and component of human associations and successful and long-lasting relationships, regardless of whether they may be personal or professional relationships. Trust is an integral part of all facets of everyday life, and is essential to all walks of life, whether it may encompass or span professional, institutional or personal activities. Key aspects of trust often include a small but acceptable or manageable amount of vulnerability on the part of the individual or self-doubt, positive expectations from the anticipated actions of the third party, willingness to depend or rely on the other party’s actions or judgments, acceptance of a moderate amount of risk, etc. Implicit trust refers to a level of confidence or belief that is not explicitly stated but is a reliance on someone or something based on a set of tacit assumptions and expectations, rather than on direct evidence or explicit and verbally stated or communicated agreements. Implicit trust is generally founded through repeated interactions, shared experiences, or a carefully nurtured perception of reliability, even without formal guarantees. Explicit trust on the contrary, is explicitly stated or communicated to other individuals, and there is often a two way communication in case of the latter. Another closely related and aligned term is confidence. What is confidence? Confidence is the feeling or belief that one can have faith in or rely on someone or something. It is related to trust, though it is somewhat different from the former.

Public trust in science

By all or most accounts, public trust in science appears to be gradually waning, or at least appears to have hit a road block and a stumbling block in many parts of the western hemisphere, though it appears to be on the rise elsewhere in the globe. In a 2023 Pew Research Center survey it was found that the percentage of Americans who believe science has had a mostly positive effect on society has decreased as public trust in scientists continues to slowly decline or wane. Although a full fifty seven percent of respondents surveyed indicated that science had a mostly positive impact on society, this figure has been slowly dropping, and has fallen since the pandemic. Another study published in the prestigious journal Nature by a group of scientists from around the world surveyed public attitudes towards science in a total of sixty-eight countries. A total of 71,922 respondents were questioned, and while there was no distrust in science as such, figures varied widely from country to country. In China, there is a high level of public trust in science, with a large majority of citizens expressing confidence in scientific knowledge and its applications, and considering scientists to be role models. In India, there is also a high level of trust in science, with a fairly large majority of the population admitting to its role in their everyday lives. However, this trust is not absolute and is accompanied by a degree of skepticism, which stems from factors such as religious and personal beliefs, and a general distrust of colonial science and colonial paradigms. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Public trust in social sciences is even harder to define, and only a few surveys, if any have been carried out in this regard; even if surveys were indeed to be carried out, the results would be notoriously unreliable, and the root causes hard to pinpoint. This would be for at least two sets of overlapping reasons. Firstly, the ambit and the purview of social sciences would be hard to define with precision; secondly, the public perception and understanding of what constitutes social sciences is nebulous and hazy at best.  Public trust in science is also extremely crucial for well-informed decision-making, evidence-based policymaking, and effective social and cultural amelioration. When the public trusts science, they are more likely to accept scientific advice, comply with recommendations, and support research funding.  This will have a ripple and a cascading effect on society in general. Factors influencing public trust in science include perceived competence, benevolence, and integrity of scientists, dogma free science, ideology free science, open communication, transparency of method and research findings, open and intensive public engagement, adequate and formal media representation, etc. [5] [6] [7] [8]

Measuring public trust in science

The "Public Trust in Science" scale is a scale that is used to assess how much the general and the wider public trusts scientists and scientific institutions. It typically involves a survey where respondents rate their level of agreement with statements about scientists' competence, integrity, benevolence, and openness, often on a five-point scale. This scale helps researchers understand and analyze various public perceptions of science and its role in society, and leads to heightened and improved efforts to improve communication and engagement between scientists and the public. A group of individuals led by Anne Reif,  Monica Taddicken, and Peter Weingart had developed and validated the Public Trust in Science (PuTruS) Scale in an article published by them in 2024. The objective of this exercise was to recognize the multidimensional nature of the concept of trust in science. By making a reference to understanding of public trust in science as a general perception, the researchers had integrated previously conducted research on different levels of trust objects, thereby emphasizing the importance of trust in scientists in furthering the overall goals and objectives of science. Components such as expertise, (use of knowledge, education and qualifications) integrity (objectivity and reliability through adherence to standards and processes), benevolence (commitment to serving a common good), transparency, dialogue orientation were also evaluated along with their overall public impact on the trust on science and scientists. Other concepts such as deference to scientific authority, conspiracy beliefs, and science populism were also evaluated. Therefore, blind belief and trust in scientists are not warranted; informed judgment and open two-way dialogue are. Per this method and metric, cross-cultural comparisons are also important, just as we believe that a temporal analysis also is. Variations of the above theme also exist, and we must move towards consolidation and aggregation, not disparate themes. [9]

American science is generally seen to be in decline

While the USA is still seen to be a major scientific superpower, with important projects being funded by tax payer money, and by important institutions such as the National Science Foundation among others, there are many emerging indicators that suggest or even imply a decline in its undisputed dominance in certain key areas. Factors such as decreasing research and development (or R&D) spending as a percentage of gross domestic product, slashed federal funding increased global competition from China, India and other countries, myopic and blinkered vision on the part of policy makers, hubris, nonchalance, and challenges in securing funding and academic positions for young and emerging scientists in important disciplines are among the important factors contributing to this state of affairs. However, some argue that the US remains an important leader and hegemon in science, more so if we consider its overall research output and the quality of its research universities. For example, some 67% of the world’s top universities are American, and American or US-based scientists still bag a disproportionately large share of the world’s Nobel Prizes. This seems to validate the stand of American exceptionalism. However, American decline appears to have accelerated since 2025, and many European nations and China are also positioning themselves as counter magnets to the USA and are taking steps to attract the world’ top scientific talent. Marcia McNutt, president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, recently said in a “state of the science address”, that the USA needed a coordinated national research strategy, and a long-term vision in order that it may maintain its suzerainty in the field of science, and in order to prevent a further decline or slump. There are also other indicators of an American hubris, which is an important precursor of decline.

There is a renewed competition from developing countries which are likely to collaborate with each other like never before. In India many people are still suspicious of scientists particularly in the social sciences. This is partly due to adherence of western-centric paradigms, and left-leaning intellectualism among other things. Indian elitism is also rampant, and the Indian far right has reared its ugly head in the recent and not too distant past. We had written about intellectualism in depth previously, particularly, intellectualism in developing countries, We had also written about the need for twenty-first century intellectualism to deal and grapple with contemporary issues not archaic or outmoded ones. [10]  

The name of this paper was “Redefining Intellectualism for a post-globalized world: Why present-day intellectualism is obsolete and why a comprehensive reassessment of intellectualism is required” (Published in 2023). We had published another paper entitled “Weaponizing the “intellectual revolutions in developing countries” narrative: Using ethnography driven data for purpose of driving sociocultural change” This was published by us in 2025. In this paper, we had made the following observations. [11]

SNo	Observation	Additional notes	Remediation
1	Some Indian religious beliefs: Dinosaurs never lived in India	Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles belonging to  the clade Dinosauria, and represent by a bewildering mosaic of shapes and sizes. They first appeared to have emerged during the Triassic period, around 240 million years ago, with possible minor variations in timeframes. They became the dominant terrestrial vertebrates after the Triassic–Jurassic extinction event which may have occurred circa 2000 million years ago, and their dominance continued throughout the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods with new varieties popping up at irregular intervals. A large number of different types of dinosaurs have been found in India, including Rajasaurus, Titanosauras, Isisauras etc. These have been validated through fossil finds, though the complete list of Indian dinosaurs is much, much larger. Fossils are being found at irregular intervals, thus causing the list to be continuously expanded.	Such beliefs are held by many highly educated people in India, some Ph.D’s, and this shows that we have a long way to go. The Marxist technique of suppression will also not obviously work, as it can be fraught and ridden with catastrophic consequences. Even highly educated people in India do not appear to know that the earth is 4500 million years old, and the big bang is dated to circa 13.8 billion years ago or so.
2	Some Indian religious beliefs: The Dasha avatars of Vishnu needed to be taken literally	The Dashavatara of Vishnu, meaning "ten avatars," are the ten major incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu. They are as follows: Matsya avatar, Kurma avatar, Varaha avatar, Narasimha avatar, Vamana avatar, Parashurama avatar, Rama avatar, Krishna avatar, Buddha avatar, and Kalki avatar. Each avatar is believed to have a unique purpose and significance in restoring the cosmic order and preserving the universe. Almost no one would take this literally, though some religious inspired persons still do.	-          Do-
3	The Gangetic plains were the epicenter of all mankind’s achievement	Mesopotamia is generally seen as the cradle of civilization. But this is only because Mesopotamia is at the epicenter of all world civilizations.	-          Do-
4	All Indian epics need to be interpreted verbatim	The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are two of the most important Indian epics, though final versions are dated to between 200 BC and 200 AD, with several references to previous eras and epochs.	-          Do-
5	The Vedas originated from Bramha’s mouth	In Hinduism a relatively recent umbrella term with concepts stretching back to hoary antiquity, the concept of the four Vedas emerging from Brahma's four mouths is a important symbolic representation. It signifies Brahma's role as the creator of the universe or the cosmos, and the divine source of all knowledge, with each mouth representing a specific Veda. Brahma, is sometimes depicted with four heads, each having a mouth, the origin of each of the Vedas. However, this cannot be taken literally, as this is likely to be a relatively later construct. ·	-          Do -
6	Rishis taking off in rockets to space in Ancient India	This is another popular myth and a fallacy popular even among some educated youth.  This is eerily and bizarrely similar to Erich von Daniken’s chariots of the Gods. The rot lies everywhere, greed being the primary driver and culprit. But who will bell the cat?	-          Do -
7	All of Hinduism is Vedic	This is utterly absurd. There are a large number of Gods of Non-Aryan origin in Hinduism.	-          Do -
8	Rakshasas or monsters really existed in Ancient India	In Hindu mythology, both Rakshasas and Asuras are demonic or supernatural beings, but with distinct characteristics and origins. Rakshasas are described as fierce, man-eating demons, associated with nocturnal activity and forests, while Asuras are a more general term for beings that are opposed to the Devas (gods) and the natural order of the universe. As recently discovered by the Author recently, many Ph.D’d believe in this.	-          Do -
9	Brahmins were divinely empowered to deliver God-given knowledge to the masses, and other castes are genetically inferior	Ambedkar seems to have shattered this myth as he spoke about the annihilation of caste. He famously led the Mahad satyagraha in 1927, and the priests had to purify the water afterward.	-          Do-
10	The IVC is Vedic, and all other evidence must be discounted or ignored (Indus Valley Civilization)	This is popular among most Hindu nationalists. We had demolished this myth multiple times previously. This epitomizes the “Everything began right next to my home fallacy”; and the nature of research would be determined by the ethnic origins of the researcher in question.	-          Do-
11	The IVC is Dravidian and all other evidence must be discounted or ignored	This is popular among some Dravidian nationalists. We had demolished this myth multiple times previously. This epitomizes the “Everything began right next to my home fallacy”; and the nature of research would be determined by the ethnic origins of the researcher in question.	-          Do-
12	Doubting Darwinian evolution, and proposing counter narratives instead	Darwinian evolution, more commonly known as the theory of evolution by natural selection, is a scientific explanation for how life on Earth evolved over aeons. It posits that species evolve through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that leads to the gradual accumulation of traits within a population, resulting in macromutations, speciations, the diversification of life.	-          Do-
13	Pushpak Vimanas	According to Indian legend and myth,  Pushpaka was first built by Vishvakarma for Brahma, the Hindu god of creation; later Brahma gave it to Kubera, the God of wealth; but it was ultimately  stolen by Ravana. There are also depictions of winged chariots in Ancient Egypt, but these may never have taken flight. Leornado da Vinci’s flights may also have never taken off.	-          Do-
14	Believing in personages such as Swami Nityananada and others- cults and godmen	There are a large number of such personages in today’s world, drawing an unsavoury fan following among the educated.	-          Do-
15	Appeal to authority	I.e. Something occurred or can be postulated to have taken place if a greater man said so. We also have the bandwagon fallacy, appeal to ignorance fallacy, false dichotomy fallacy, and the false equivocation fallacy routinely used by the far right to vindicate their claims and belief systems.	-          Do-
16	Indian Muslims do not know the basics of their history	We have collected ethnographic data here: Some Muslims who studied till grade twelve did not know how old Islam was, or even the brief history of their own faith. They do not know how Islam spread through the various caliphs. They do not appear to understand the Islam was invented to suit the requirements of one man.	-          Do-
17	Absence of basic knowledge of scientific method	This includes the inability to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, between history and myth, identify scientific fallacies as they occur. The list is vast and undoubtedly large, and we have been writing about this off and on over several years now.	-          Do-
18	The fallacy and the myth that Islam does not require reform	There is a growing body of researchers calling for reform in Islam, though conservative clerics and preachers want to bury all such talk conveniently under the carpet.	-          Do-
19	The age of the universe according to the Vedas	According to Vedic scriptures, the universe is about 155.52 trillion years old, with a total lifespan of 311.04 trillion years. This is equivalent to 100 years of Brahma, the creator deity, and is calculated based on cosmic time cycles of Yugas and Kalpas. However, the underlying epistemology is required before any theory can be evaluated. Proponents of such theories must furnish a sound methodology under any circumstances.	-              -          Do-
20	Saraswathi divine origin of language theory	In ancient Hindu mythology, Goddess Saraswati is the goddess of wisdom, learning, and speech. Saraswathi is also credited with creating the Sanskrit language the sacred language of Hinduism and the language of the Vedas. While this theory is obviously untenable on scientific grounds, mainstream researchers must come up with better theories just as we have done – we had proposed the epochal polygenesis theory on the origin of language in 2016. We need an acceleration of meaningful effort from all sides before myths can be debunked.	-          - Do-

 

Intellectualism is therefore still weak in general, particularly in developing countries, particularly owing to the following factors:

1. There is extremely poor quality intellectualism, and scholarship is often extremely sloppy and shoddy. 2. Intellectuals are mostly leftist in orientation, or follow some other rival counter-ideology, which may be either reactionary, or non-reactionary.

3. Marxist intellectualism is inherently weak since it mostly grapples with a limited set of issues, and has limited perspectives to offer.

4. Intellectualism is mostly based in advanced nations such as the USA, and countries such as India have yet to mature and evolve in this area.

5. The thrust areas for intellectualism are still extremely narrow; hence, we had proposed an “Intellectualism by objectives” approach.

6. Intellectuals are mostly nerdist, geeky, and are social misfits. They lack a real-world knowledge of practical problems facing society.

 7. Intellectuals rarely follow cross-cultural and inter-disciplinary approaches; they do not have knowledge of different fields and branches of the social sciences, research tools or techniques, and a knowledge of other fields of the sciences.

 8. There is no general long-term orientation in intellectualism, and there are too many rival camps in operation.

Therefore, in twenty-first century intellectualism, and all fields of activity in various fields in the social sciences, including theorization and conceptualization, the following must be followed, and must be present at all times:

1. A desire for scientific, cultural and socioeconomic progress must always be at the heart of scientific activity and intellectualism. People must always be at the heart of all meaningful research activity.

2. Our concepts and theories such as the theories of socio cultural change, structured apperception techniques, cultural frame of references, ethnography of enculturation, mind orientation, cultural orientation, mindspace, identity theory, etc, must always be borne in mind, and used whenever necessary.

3. Truly globalized teams must be used in research- refer our paper on cross cultural research design for a more comprehensive overview.

4. Inductive approaches must be followed wherever applicable as discussed in our papers with grounded theory and exceptionism.

5. Field work driven approaches must be followed wherever applicable with a collection and analysis of raw data.

6. We must guard against excessive over theorization under any circumstances, especially where they do not make any sense.

7. Real-world utility and practicality of theories, frameworks and paradigms must be ensured at all times.

8. Universal applicability of theories, frameworks and paradigms must also be ensured at all times.

9. Unnecessary careerism and rivalry must be eschewed at all times. There must be institutional coherentism at all times.

10. Eschewing intellectual nerdism and ivory-tower approaches is a must for meaningful and sustainable progress.

11. Desire to do good to science and to society or individuals must be present at all times. This must be applied meaningfully and productively at a universal level, level of a culture, or the level of an individual.

12. Scientific methodologies, tools and techniques must always be followed including qualitative and quantitative social science research techniques such as interviews, questionnaires, surveys, focus group discussions, panel studies, cohort studies, and quantification techniques, and these must be put to practical use to solve real-world problems, and provide practical and workable solutions

13. Integration between all fields of social science, and different branches of the social sciences and the non-social sciences must also always be carried out by means of the adoption of trans-disciplinary approaches.

14. Proper science communication must be carried out to the masses using simple and easy to understand language. The principle of “Irreducible simplicity” and “Continuous zero-based reassessment of assumptions, hypotheses and methods” must be borne in mind at all times. Jargon must be avoided wherever possible, and culture specific requirements must be borne in mind at all times.

15. Prioritization and according importance to those aspects and facets of research that are important to solve societal problems.

Therefore, from our perspective, many meaningful and productive changes would be required, and this would include inductive approaches to science - the inductive approach as we must state, begins with a set of observations and then moves from those experiences to broader generalizations about those experiences to develop hypotheses and theories. Cross cultural research is also required – the entire process needs to be formalized, and grounded theory is also required. Theorization must be based on real-world data and not abstract theorization. Ethnography-generated data is also required along with emic and etmic perspectives. Needless to say, intellectual multipolarity is undoubtedly required along with a generous and a liberal dose of practicalism and pragmatism. Interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in research methodology are also required tempered with the right dose of skepticism – no skeptopathy at any rate. No esoteric pursuits are permissible at any rate, and we must eschew and skirt rampant careerism and self-centric pursuits in science. At the same time, interlinkages between careerism, ideology-drenched science and poor quality science need[12] to be probed multidirectionally. [13] [14] [15]

Dogma in science

Scientific dogma refers to the unquestioned or unreserved acceptance of certain underlying principles, hypotheses and theories within the scientific community, even when there is no definitive proof or conclusive evidence to support them in their entirety. Scientific dogma can be seen as a barrier to progress and exploration, as it discourages scientists from challenging existing norms through better research and pursuing alternative options or ideas. Scientific dogma may stem from scientific ideology, a concept that was first introduced by the researcher Georges Canguilhem. "Scientific ideology" in general refers to the set of beliefs and values that influence or determine how scientists approach their work, effectively impacting the direction of scientific research and interpretation of scientific findings. Scientific ideology includes both positive and negative connotations, and may lead to positive and negative influences and outcomes for science in general. [16] [17] [18]

There are also many other unsavoury or unwholesome practices that characterize present-day, contemporary science, and are widely operational; for example, we have changing theories (or challenging theories with counter-theories) at a drop of a hat – often old theories are not refuted completely and comprehensively. There is too much rampant careerism and an absence of institutional coherentism; scientists often resort to talking down to people whose interests there must undoubtedly serve,  and display intellectual arrogance instead. Use of fillers such as “experts”, “experts warn”, “latest research shows” without providing any underlying epistemology (and of course transparency of method or results) to the broader public who are often taken for granted. This reduces and diminishes public trust in science greatly.  This is particularly fatal where public trust in science is just increasing after a lull or a hiatus. This also effectively throws up counter-reactions. The human psyche is often poorly understood, and the findings of one field of study are often not validated or ratified against the findings of another field of study.

Richard Dawkins for example, proposed a reductionist view of the God debate; while he was a trained biologist, he was not a trained social scientist and may not have understood that humans will always be humans and that humans will always have culture and tradition. This elicited a complex set of diverse reactions from the general public, some of whom stated that religion was here to stay. We believe that we have brought out a more comprehensive and integrated view of the God debate in several publications and books published by us in 2024. One is also reminded of the song “Tradition” from the movie “Fiddler on the roof” which is based in imperial Russia around 1905. This song was composed by the eminent singer Jerry Bock. We also have researchers referencing other researchers carelessly and thoughtlessly. For example, we say, “JP Mallory believes …….” Or “Kenoyer believes ……….”with the original researcher not justifying their statements adequately or sufficiently. [19] [20]

We also then have western elitism; Western elitism refers to the belief that individuals who are part of a select western group or circle of elites, often characterized by intellect, wealth, power, or other desirable qualities, are more likely to contribute constructively to society and deserve greater influence or authority. The term western elitism may also refer to the perception that Western culture, values, and ideas are inherently superior to those of other regions. We had for example the French sociologist Lucien Levy Bruhl who argued that people from non-western cultures and societies lacked a scientific temperament and consequently could not do science; they possessed what he called a primitive mentality or a primitive mindset, and could not distinguish between fact and fantasy. Thus, in 1913, J. McKeen Cattell, the Vice President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science was skeptical or the ability of non-white cultures to produce great scientists; even the otherwise brilliant American Biologist and Geologist Louis Agassiz thought non-whites to be unfit for scientific work.

We must also leverage the power of the social sciences. This has not been attempted to a great degree thus far, given the fact that most sub disciplines of the social sciences are stuck in an archaic western mold.  We must also understand the theory of cultural lag for example, and understand that humans will always be humans. We must snuff out all forms of cognitive dissonance, a concept that we had probed in exhaustive detail in our previously published papers.  We must also develop robust techniques to test paranormal claims such as astrology, telepathy, ESP or extrasensory perception, clairvoyance, etc. The importance of this in promoting a scientific temper must not be discounted because there are many different kinds of people on earth from widely varying cultural backgrounds, and with different mind and cultural orientations.

Science communication is a fairly comprehensive concept that includes the practice of informing, raising awareness of science, scientific issues, and science-related topics, and also getting involved with participants and audiences that must also include, people from the general public, i.e. outside the science community. Important though this may be, the entire process must be meshed and interfaced with other concepts in social science such as emic perspectives, the ethnography of enculturation, cross-cultural frame of reference, etc. Also read our papers “Unleashing the potential of the ‘Sociology of Science’: Capitalizing on the power of science to usher in social, cultural and intellectual revolutions across the world, and lay the foundations of twenty-first century pedagogy” and “Introducing Anthropological Pedagogy as a Core Component of Twenty-first Century Anthropology: The Role of Anthropological Pedagogy in the fulfilment of Anthropological and Sociological objectives”, where more case studies are presented. Therefore, as a part of this general exercise, counseling and public education: Seminars, symposiums, webinars, etc must be orchestrated and executed.

Marxist Historiography too is steeped in antiquated western paradigms and is not conducive for a scientific temperament and a transparency of ideas. We had even labeled this, and rather derisively so, the colonial Marxist imperialist school of Indology. The only defense Marxist historians have had in their favour is that schools of thought (including Hindutva) have been encouraged, which is quite frankly absurd. Ossification of thoughts and ideals into rigid camps is not the way to go just as the Marxist oriented Indian magazine routinely cites left-leaning scholar Audrey Truschke’s ideas. This tacitly implies, “X indulges in his ideology, and therefore, so can I”. We had published five papers critiquing Marxist Hisioriography. We believed and still believe that it is one sided and flawed. The papers were titled historiography by objectives, core objectives of twenty-first century historiography, anthropological historiography, qualified historiography, and investigative historiography

Marxist approach for suppression is flawed; Suppressing or obfuscation of history is a perfect recipe for superstition or myths to flourish and take hold. Marxists regardless of whatever sphere or real they deal in, appears to be badly fossilized in a time warp. Marxist historiography is also additionally, and rather unfortunately so teleological and deterministic in that is posits an origin in history at the start of the revolution of the proletariat. There is however, a diversity in interpretation of ideas and concepts even within the legitimate realm of Marxist discourse, and no two Marxist historians, intellectuals and scholars are exactly alike. However Marxist historiography is tragically marred by the fact that it pays scant attention and regard to cultural and some other non-material causes. This is not only inherently dangerous, but also highly self-defeating. However, KM Shrimali appears to have paid a great deal of importance to religion in his magnum opus, “The religious enterprise: Study in early Indian religions” which was reviewed multiple times positively.

This is the way to go; humans are living and sentient beings, and live and breathe culture. It is only a objective and an interdisciplinary method that can slowly move people away from organized religion, not suppression, obfuscation of information, or distortion of facts.  Anything else would be anthemia, and inimical and antithetical to the pursuit of dispassionate objectivity, and would even throw up unfortunate counter-reactions such as the ultimate triumph of right-wing forces. As we have always said, one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. All these things are of extreme and paramount importance if an intellectual revolution is to occur, and people are to be gradually moved away from traditional forms of organized religion. We still have the Tarzan effect. This leads to people fearing to leave their comfort zone, or step into virgin and uncharted territory.  Nonetheless, we must bring about change through greater international collaboration in science, and better cross-cultural research design which must be implemented in the true sense and spirit of the term.

Thematic apperception tests or TAT’s in short, were first developed by Henry Murray and Christiana Morgan in the 1930s, and explore unconscious motives, conflicts, and interpersonal relationships. The Rorschach inkblot test (developed by Hermann Rorschach, a Swiss psychiatrist, in 1921) is a projective psychological test where individuals describe what they see in a series of ambiguous inkblots. The author has been a subject of both these tests owing to intellectual curiosity, and needless to say, they have limited utility and appeal.  We have, over the years, developed other concepts such as thought worlds, worldviews, mindspace, mind orientation, cultural orientation, structured apperception tests for sociocultural change, eureka points, mini eureka points, cultural frame of reference, cross-cultural frame of reference, and symbiotic approach to sociocultural change which we believe will hold a much higher utility and appeal. Many paradigms in various fields of the social sciences are also utterly outdated and obsolete. Read our book, “Why we need a revolution in the Social sciences: A post-colonial perspective” to find out why. We had touched upon many fields of the social sciences in this book, and had discussed concepts such as self-fulfilling prophecy, the diminishing marginal utility theory of money, indifference curves, and the utility of several concepts in microeconomics which may likewise be disputed. We have discussed naïve approaches to religion which will stand nobody in good stead, but will instead trigger a series of unfortunate consequences. [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

This will not only be readily apparent to those who have been following matters of science constantly and continuously but has been demonstrated from time to time; some Hindutva proponents egged on by Marxist thought (and hardliner dogmatists such as DN Jha who appeared to have thought that imposing a counter-ideology was the solution as opposed to transparency, non-ambiguity, and intelligibility) have accused them of being hand in glove with western Indologists, many of them being though well-meaning, lack a compass to understand Indian culture given that they were neither born nor raised here in India. Another Hindutva proponent calls science “science fiction”, and leans heavily towards creationism much like Islamic preacher Dr Zakir Naik. Just a few decades ago, a prominent western researcher classified Indians into imaginary “Aryans” and “Dravidians” while the term “Aryan” is just a cultural term in the Rig Veda, and the word “Dravidian” was primarily a geographical expression in Sanskrit literature. Asko Parpola and others at one time even suggested that the whole of the vast Indus valley civilization spoke only one language (Based on an archaic and pre-historic analysis of the Indus valley script). The same gentleman i.e. Asko Parpola went on to say that since the “Dravidian” Harappans existed between 2600 BC to 1900 BC (Based on second-hand archaeological data), the “Aryans” could not have “come in” at the same time. Such cardinal and unforgivable errors beget other counter reactions besides of course leading to a loss of public trust in science; an Indian politician, now deceased, labeled South Indians “Rakshasas”. Another Hindutva proponent argued that finding early human fossils in the Gangetic plains would disprove the already defunct “Aryan invasion theory”. Of course, it is only less than successful individuals in the west who gravitate to Indology, but this can be no excuse just as poor quality Indian science can be no excuse.

Errors of time and space, all, but these are consequences of poor research, and poor science communication. Likewise, the left-leaning Indian magazine with its archaic left-leaning scholarship also throws up counter reactions in the form of the rise of the far right. As we have always said, one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. This should be the social sciences equivalent of every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and should be applied at all times, and under all circumstances. All this takes place in the twenty-first century, and this only goes on to show that we have still a long, long way to go whether it is in generating scientific paradigms that are of a fundamentally and a foundationally higher quality, or whether it is in dealing with matters pertaining to science communication to the masses. Luckily and thankfully, there is no anti-west sentiment in India – quite unlike in some parts of the world such as Mexico where whites are sometimes derisively labeled as gringos, but the process of intellectual decolonization must be brought to its logical conclusion, without raising or lifting counter-ideologies that is. [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

Out of Africa theory

The Out of Africa theory, which has several variants posits that modern humans originated in Africa and then migrated to other parts of the world. This theory has had to face several criticisms, which have tarnished and sullied its reputation and its claim of reliability. Evidence working against its favour include those related to genetic evidence, fossil records, and the twin concepts of “mass migration” and "replacement" which all things considered seem highly dubious and unlikely. The Out of Africa theory, explaining the origin and dispersal of anatomically modern humans, has evolved into several overlapping or mutually incompatible versions. One version of this hypothesis has it that humans migrated out of Africa 70,000 to 80,000 YBP. Another variant argues that migrations took place much earlier, around one million years ago. Some variants call for a high degree of interbreeding with supposed pre-existing archaic humans outside of Africa, while others do not. The proposed routes of migration also vary from version to version. We will always argue for the multiregional hypotheses given that real world problems can be incredibly complex, and researchers must be prepared to deal with a mind-boggling level of complexity. Additionally, no such wide variations should also occur if grounded research is followed along with institutional coherentism and epistemic coherentism; Also confirmation holism. Apparently, this kind of research did not occur. We also need to take into account the principle of non self-canceling contradictory evidence, a principle that we had espoused in a previous paper; this will naturally make models more robust and reliable. Models should also have enormous explanatory power, and should be flexible enough to be altered with additional or upcoming evidence without losing steam.

Genetic studies have also additionally revealed that some genetic variants found in modern populations existed in Asia hundreds of thousands of years before the suggested or postulated Out of Africa migration, suggesting a more complex history of human evolution. Fossil finds in China include the Peking man or the Homo Erectus Pekinenesis discovered in 1921 at the Zhoukoudian Peking man site. A diminutive subspecies, the Homo floresiensis or the Hobbit has been found in the island of Flores in Indonesia. Fossil finds in Narmada valley called the Hathnora man have been made by Arun Sonakia in 1982. Another type, called the Balagonda man has been reported from Sri Lanka along with an assortment of other hominin fossils. Fossil finds have also been reported in Siberia and other places in Asia, and these are called the Denisovan man. Other fossil finds have been reported in Israel dubbed the "Nesher Ramla Homo," and the database is only increasing. The diversity of fossil finds in Africa must also be noted – we have noted subspecies as far apart as the Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, Orrorin Tugenensis, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Australopithecus Anamensis, among others, and the diversity within Africa itself is mindboggling. In addition, many of these fossil finds are dated to different periods, and we must account for a temporal variation as well. There is a great deal of genetic diversity even within South India and other places at the present time– this lends credence to the Multiregional hypotheses. The multiregional hypothesis also provides a much better platform for future research than the oversimplified Out of Africa theory; it can also be additionally be expanded and recast much more readily than the staid and relatively stagnant Out of Africa theory with the emergence of new evidence.

Another absurd hypothesis in our opinion is that of 1500 BC “Aryan” migrations to India at the very same time the Rig Veda was postulated to have been compiled. We have dealt with this topic and this issue at great depth previously in our multiple publications on the Aryan issue. There are a plethora and a multitude of logical problems associated with this assumption, which include, but are necessarily not only limited to Sanskrit PIE conundrum, (Vedic Sanskrit also did not exist in Central Asia, only an ancestor of it did, - Vedic Sanskrit was influenced by Avestan but was a distinct language by itself, Chariots in the Rig Veda- could have been imported from West Asia and not Central Asia, The River Saraswathi – IVC could not have taken shape with the Thar desert sitting in between – however, it doesn’t automatically make the IVC Vedic as we have shown.  Models proposing migrations in 1500 BC would be at a loss to explain how the Indo-Aryans got the upper hand. Other evidence: Aryan influences towards the end of the Harappan civilization have been claimed at Kalibangan. The Cemetery H culture is dated to 1900 BC. At best, it must have been a slow process of acculturation. The Dravidian Harappa hypotheses is also likewise untenable, - We have discussed evidence against this hypothesis extensively. All these myopic endeavours will ensure that public trust in mainstream scholarship is lost. It will cause them to learn heavily towards Hindutva and other ideology. Moreover, Witzel and his allied have a penchant for making short-term adjustments, not foundational or fundamental reforms.   

While scientific frauds such as the Piltdown man hoax and the Schon scandal have marred science’s reputation, poor quality science also unquestionably has. For example, methods to reconstruct the languages of the Harappans using the substratum based technique are obsolete -  we  have proposed other approaches to construct the spoken languages of the Harappans – refer our previous publications. Other cardinal errors in colonial – read old German Indology- include the desire to keep immigrants and natives segregated, belief in the bucolic and peripatetic Post-Harappan India hypothesis, non-literate Post-Harappan India hypothesis, poor quality publications on Indus script, unattested assumptions in Indology – Indo-Iranian language split up, the yet to be reconciled with the Kurgan hypothesis, BMAC hypothesis, etc. The Elamo Dravidian hypothesis is also likewise highly obsolete, though new incarnations have undoubtedly surfaced as recently as 2015. Originally proposed by David McAlpin, and extended later by Franklin Southworth and others, this model proposes a Pan-Dravidian language family, and is horrifically over-simplified. We have argued that the genetic and the linguistic diversity within the Indus valley civilization would have itself been enormous, with different ethnic groups and language families, not to speak of a much wider region. The origin of Brahui itself contested - Brahui speakers are very small in number; Brahui speakers resemble people of NW India; Brahui may not be a Dravidian language at all; According to one theory Brahui speakers migrated from Central Asia only a thousand years ago, but this theory is based on scant evidence. All assumptions regarding grouping and classification of languages need to be revisited; IE may at best represent a clutch of interrelated languages. Models dealing with the origin of languages may be based on obsolete and archaic paradigms such as the Out of Africa theory, even though there is only a loose correlation between the two. Poor quality science leads to counter reactions; it also erodes the quality of downstream scholarship, and stymies progress in science. The Author was positively horrified by Gregory Possehl’s review of his work in 2007- the otherwise competent archeologist lacks knowledge of India and lacks and objective mindset; he exhibited and demonstrated pompous naivety too. There needs to be a change in attitude from all sides, not least of all among scholars in India who often possess a pre-scientific mindset. We must move from pre-science, proto-science, pseudo-science, subpar science, to high quality science by developing metrics and measures to set apart the characteristics of low quality science from the characteristics of high-quality science.

Subpar science may have also led to the rise and resurrection of religion as people are disenchanted with the limitations of science, or are suspicious of colonial movements. For example, we have witnessed, the rise of religious movements all over the world in recent times, and the rise of religion in parts of Asia. The rise of Hindutva and the rise of Islamic extremism have especially been pronounced. We have had the 9/11 attacks and other Islamic terror attacks for example, and have witnessed the rise of ISIS, the rise of Taliban, the rise of Al Qaeda, the rise of Boko Haram. Western educated people such as Shamima Begum – of Bangladeshi origin have joined the ISIS –she was stripped of her British citizenship subsequently. Taslima Nasreen was criticized for her outspoken views against Islam, and the satanic verses – a novel by Salman Rushdie, was highly criticized in conservative Islamic circles – he was issued a fatwa as well, and recently attacked in the eye. We have also witnessed the rise of New age movements in the recent past. All this is unfortunate, and there is no initiative as yet to reexamine the role of religion through the lens and medium of science, particularly social sciences, as we had proposed in the past.  

Better education and pedagogy alone can help; Better science can help; We have had hubris and the God complex in the west, as some western scholars have thought themselves to be highly invincible. This is aligned to hubris, and we had described the phugoid cycle in anthropological economics in the past.  This will lead to other nations catching up in science, and we may also describe the second mover advantage here. Other concepts such as the comprehensive sociocultural complex may also help in analysis. The lions can roar and come to life if and when they deserve to do so – we are talking about science in developing countries here. However, a scientific temper and a scientific awareness is lacking in most developing countries to this day. People who are less accomplished often consider themselves to be superior, and people who are more accomplished often have a measured and graduated view of their own accomplishments. We may eventually choose to boil this down into a rule or a principle even. Of late, Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons, and some others have also written about the need to reorient and recast science to meet the needs of the twenty-first century. They also have written among other things of the need to take public and societal feedback to reorient science from time to time. We look forward to more thought leaders to emerge and arise in the near future. We also look forward to more foundational reform and course-corrections where needed and not mere nibbling at the edges or unsophisticated polish; more original work, as opposed to mere second hand thought. We also need primary checks and balances here, along with composite metrics, (and inbuilt quality control mechanisms) not secondary ones. This alone will save the day, and ensure that science meets the aspirations and needs of all future generations.

Conclusion

The core and the underlying objective of this paper was to show why public trust in science is at an all-time low in many parts of the world, and how this observation has been ratified and corroborated by many different surveys and research studies carried out in different parts of the world in recent times. In this paper, we also reviewed the core and critical components of public trust in science, and reviewed some scales, yardsticks and metrics that have been developed in this regard. We also reviewed the possible causes of claimed American decline in science, and review why science and intellectualism have not taken off in a big way in developing countries as well. Therefore, we will argue that the only way to get out of this rut is to produce science that is of a fundamentally and foundationally higher quality by several orders in magnitude. Not doing so would produce a large number of dangerous counter reactions such as a dangerous resurrection of religion, and the rise of new age movements. We then cited and reproduced a large number of examples to bolster our case, and examples of these include the now nearly defunct Out of Africa hypotheses and the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis, for example. While many of the examples discussed here may appear to be social sciences centric, a large number of these concepts would categorically apply to all other fields of the sciences as well, and this must be seen as a much more general exercise. We hope, expect and anticipate that this paper will reignite and rekindle the awareness for the need for intrinsically better science – by doing so, we may make some difference to the quality and quantum of scientific output produced.

 

 

---

[1] Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking, Trust moves slightly higher but remains lower than before the pandemic, ByAlec TysonandBrian Kennedy

[2]  Barber, B. (1983). The Logic and Limits of Trust. Rutgerts University Press.

[3] Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge University Press

[4] Bachmann, R. (2001). "Trust, Power and Control in Transorganizational Relations". Organization Studies. 22 (2): 337–365

[5] Colquitt, Jason A.; Scott, Brent A.; LePine, Jeffery A. (2007). "Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance". Journal of Applied Psychology. 92 (4). American Psychological Association: 909–927

[6] Swingewood, Alan (1970). "Origins of Sociology: The Case of the Scottish Enlightenment". The British Journal of Sociology. 21 (2): 164–180

[7] Olby, R. C.; Cantor, G. N.; Christie, J. R. R.; Hodge, M. J. S. (1990). Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge. p. 265

[8] Scott, Colin (2011). "The Case of James Bay Cree Knowledge Construction". In Harding, Sandra (ed.). Science for the West, Myth for the Rest?. The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 175–197

[9] The Public Trust in Science Scale: A Multilevel and Multidimensional Approach , Anne Reif,  Monica Taddicken, and Peter Weingart, 2024

 

[10] Redefining Intellectualism for a post-globalized world: Why present-day intellectualism is obsolete and why a comprehensive reassessment of intellectualism is required, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, IJISRT, August 2023

[11] Weaponizing the “intellectual revolutions in developing countries” narrative: Using ethnography driven data for purpose of driving sociocultural change, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, SSRN, June 2025

 

[12] Embedding “practicalism” as an intrinsic constituent of the philosophy of science: Positioning “practicalism” as an essential prerequisite for rapid scientific progress Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT, June 2024

[13] Making the use of Inductive approaches, Nomothetic theorybuilding and the application of Grounded theory widespread in the social sciences: A guide to better research and theorization in the social sciences Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT May 2023

[14]Aligning theorization and hypothesis-building with cultural and cross-cultural frames of reference: A heuristic aid to better theorization and hypothesis-building Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT June 2024

[15] Operationalizing cross-cultural research design: Practical, cost-effective, and a minimalistic application of cross-cultural research design to minimize cultural bias in research and reconcile diverse viewpoints IJISRT, April 2023 Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[16] Belloni, Claudio. 2013. Per la critica dell’ideologia: Filosofia e storia in Marx. Milan: Mimesis.

[17] Marx, Karl (1978a). "The German Ideology: Part I", The Marx-Engels Reader 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company

[18] Marx, Karl; Engels, Friedrich (1974). "I. Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks". The German Ideology. [Students Edition]. Lawrence & Wishart. pp. 64–68

[19] Critical-Historical Perspective on the Argument about Evolution and Creation, John Durant, in "From Evolution to Creation: A European Perspective (Eds. Sven Anderson, Arthus Peacocke), Aarhus Univ. Press, Aarhus, Denmark

[20] Dawkins, Richard (1998). Unweaving The Rainbow. United Kingdom: Penguin. pp. 4–7

[21] Propositioning Investigative Historiography as a niche subfield within Twenty-first Century Historiography: Making a case for Investigative historiography in Twenty-first Century Social Sciences, Sujay Rao Mandavillli, IJISRT, August 2023

[22] Presenting the art and the science of Qualified Historiography: Anchoring history-writing in the event of uncertaintyand unreliability of narratives

Sujay Rao Mandavilli, IJISRT Volume 7, Issue 7, July 2022

[23] Introducing Anthropological Historiography as an integral component of Twenty-first Century Historiography: The role played by Anthropological Historiography in the attainment of long-term Anthropological goals and objectives International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, February 2018, Volume 3, Issue 2 Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[24] Historiography by Objectives: A new approach for the study of history within the framework of the proposed Twenty-First Century School of Historiography Sujay Rao Mandavilli ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Sciences Vol 1, Issue 2 (2015)

[25] Enunciating the Core principles of Twenty-first Century Historiography: Some additional extrapolations and inferences from our studies and observations on Historiography Sujay Rao Mandavilli ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Science (ISSN: 2394-9392) in Volume 2, Issue 4 July to September 2016

[26] Identifying tools and techniques for picking out cultural bottlenecks: Another crucial component of the symbiotic approach to socio-cultural change IJISRT, October 2024 Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[27] Delineating “Cultural limits” and “Anthropological limits” as central theorems in the social sciences: Some more useful and practicable techniques for social sciences research

Sujay Rao Mandavilli, This paper is based on my paper on Anthropological economics and has been published directly in Social Sciences Research Network (SSRN) in July 2024

[28] Aligning theorization and hypothesis-building with cultural and cross-cultural frames of reference: A heuristic aid to better theorization and hypothesis-building Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT June 2024

[29] Conceptualizing ‘Cultural Frames of Reference’ and ‘Crosscultural Frames of Reference’ for various cultures and societies: Employing these concepts to bring about social and cultural change in different societies Sujay Rao Mandavilli IJISRT, September 2023

[30] Articulating comprehensive frameworks on socio-cultural change: Perceptions of social and cultural change in contemporary Twenty-first century Anthropology from a ‘Neo-centrist’ perspective Published in ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Sciences Volume 3, Number 4 (July 2017 – September 2017) Sujay Rao Mandavilli

[31] The relevance of Culture and Personality Studies, National Character Studies, Cultural Determinism and Cultural Diffusion in Twenty-first Century Anthropology: As assessment of their compatibility with Symbiotic models of Socio-cultural change ELK Asia Pacific Journal of Social Science Volume 4, Issue 2, 2018 Sujay Rao Mandavilli