A reflection on the human machinery of knowledge, the intuition that questions it, and the diverse landscapes of knowing it often ignores.
In fourth grade, a girl newly arrived from Hong Kong taught me origami. She didn’t use words I fully understood, but her hands spoke a clear, folding language. We made cranes from stolen memo paper, a quiet conspiracy of creation in the back of the classroom. That was my first conscious lesson in a profound truth: there are ways of knowing that live outside of official textbooks, transmitted through gesture, patience, and shared focus. Years later, when I would explore wellness practices from cultures not my own, I would remember that feeling—a legitimacy that needs no external stamp.
It was other people who thought I was crazy. The shield they raised was always the same, polished and heavy: “Science says.” The phrase was a full stop, a closing of the door. I sensed the fishiness—a disconnect between the absolute authority they claimed and the messy reality of human judgment. So I pursued a master’s in statistics. I didn’t need to prove myself to them; I needed to arm my intuition with the language to dissect their certainty. I learned to see the machinery—the gears of p-values, the levers of study design. I saw how the engine could be tuned to sing a chosen tune. But the deeper wound, the cultural one, took longer to diagnose. I realized the “science” wielded as a cudgel was often not a pure search for truth, but a dialect of power. The subtext beneath “That’s not scientific” was sometimes simpler, and uglier: Your curiosity about that is not legitimate. The target wasn’t just an idea; it was a form of respect, an attempt to engage with a way of being that the dominant framework hadn’t yet taxonomied and approved.
Science is a method, not a monastery. It is a profoundly human activity, conducted by beings with mortgages, ambitions, biases, and blind spots. The ideal is a clear lens focused on nature. The reality is a lens held in a trembling hand, its glass smudged by the fingerprints of funding, prestige, and unexamined cultural prejudice.
The core method—observe, hypothesize, test, refine—remains a peerless tool for navigating objective reality. But to treat “Science” as a monolithic source of truth requires a kind of faith—faith in the institution, and faith in the humans doing the work. I witnessed this faith up close in academia: brilliant psychology and neuroscience PhD students “teaching themselves stats” in a weekend to run their analyses. I realized then that much of the edifice is built on this precarious, do-it-yourself foundation. We must have faith they learned correctly, faith they applied it honestly, faith they reported it fully. This is why science, as practiced, often drifts into the realm of religion: it demands trust in a priesthood of practitioners whose craft is often opaque.
My training was an apprenticeship in doubt. The problems aren’t mysteries; they are the documented flaws in the machinery we’ve all agreed to trust:
This is not an indictment of the tool. It is an autopsy of its human implementation. It shows why science must be a skeptical dialogue, not a decree. A single study is a shouted sentence; truth is the entire, argumentative conversation happening across decades.
To say “science says” is to confuse the map for the territory. The map is the published literature, the consensus statements—all human constructions, polished for presentation. The territory is the raw, complex, and often inconvenient reality of nature and human experience.
My journey taught me to be a cartographer-skeptic. Healthy skepticism is the navigator’s wisdom. It asks:
This is the critical mind: using the principles of the scientific method to evaluate the practice of science itself.
The moment science becomes a “-ism”—Scientism—it ceases to be a tool and becomes a creed. It swaps open inquiry for dogma, evidence for authority, and the humble “we don’t know yet” for the arrogant “it cannot be.”
I learned to distinguish between scientific inquiry and scientific ideology. The former is a living practice of wonder, rigor, and self-correction. The latter is a dead shell of that practice, used to silence rather than to explore, to dominate rather than to understand. I was never arguing with the tool. I was being beaten with the ideology.
True science is inherently humble. It must remember it is a subset of knowledge, not the totality. It can tell us the chemical constituents of a healing plant, but its methods are often blind to the generations of careful, lived observation that identified its use. Dismissing that as “anecdote” is not rigor; it is a failure of intellectual imagination. It is refusing the origami lesson—the wisdom that skilled hands and patient attention constitute a form of data, too.
Keep an open but critical mind. Trust the process, but audit the practitioners. Celebrate the findings, but interrogate the framework. And be vigilant when the language of objectivity is used to dress up the old, familiar patterns of exclusion. The goal is not to tear down a tool, but to prevent it from becoming a weapon. It is to make room—in the lab, in the journal, and in our collective understanding—for the many different kinds of paper from which truth can be folded.