Science is a Series of Shocks

The history of science is nothing except a serious of shocking discoveries. What could be more impossible than that the earth, the definition of stillness, moved? Nothing in science incited more ridicule in Parisian newspapers at the time than Pasteur's “fantasies” of invisible creatures floating in the wind and causing infections (not merely a bizarre notion, but a seemingly obvious violation of Occam's Razor, to boot.) Almost nobody at the time believed that such a thing was possible – much less true. Understandably, the whole idea of invisible animals seemed perfectly lunatic to the vast majority of people. Yet the earth does move around the sun, at the rate of a thousand miles an hour, at the equator, time itself changes according to the speed of the observer, there are particles we can't see, radio works over vast distances at incomprehensible speeds, gravity extends its force across apparently empty distances, mass bends space, light is a wave that also, somehow comes in discrete packets, plant and animal species transmute into other species given enough time, and the health of human beings – not just other plants and animals – is fundamentally affected by light, making the extensive use of artificial light extraordinarily dangerous to our health over time. It is foolish to suppose that all the surprises are over, we would do well to remember instead Newton's statement from 1727, “I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” There are many more surprises left, and our current arrogance and complacency, expecting only minor surprises as we continue to explore the universe, is the opposite of science.

We know from the history of science that even the most certain and dogmatic public and scientific opinions do change, and change radically: because evidence eventually wins these arguments – just the sort of evidence that has been piling up over the last decade or two for the Photoperiod Effect. The obvious truth is, we are designed and evolved to have long recuperative periods of darkness. For countless millions of years all animals on earth have lived with long nights – until just a moment ago in history. Nothing could be more unscientific than to assume without evidence that sharply shortening the amount of darkness we experience each day, for decade after decade, despite all the hormonal consequences of that act, must necessarily have no consequences for our health. We know that the long days of the photoperiod effect are a condition that nature never prepared us for, so we cannot expect (especially given that nearly everything our bodies do is entrained to light) to blithely introduce such a radical change without any consequences. To assume that there can be no such effects is to deny evolution; perhaps if favor of assuming that a supreme being could never be so cruel as to make the world unsafe, or to allow us to create a seemingly helpful invention with hidden and terrible costs. Such comforting thoughts are bad theology and worse science.

Of course, scientists are no less likely to push their heads into the sand as the general public. As German physicist Max Planck said last century, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” So far, scientists are generally ignoring the accumulating evidence of a Photoperiod Effect on human health, or they will often acknowledge the problem intellectually, as genuine, but refuse to alter medical practice or advice, or to sound an alarm. Yet millions are dying of these diseases, and hundreds of millions are ill.

The detailed scientific evidence showing all the detailed consequences of unnaturally lengthening our days and sharply curtailing our nights is very important, but those details will mean more if I put them in context first, so that you know why they matter. Therefore, let's start with a fairly quick sketch of the big picture.