A Sodom and Gomorrah Story Shows Scientific Facts Aren't Settled by Public Opinion

Scientific American

3 days ago

In 2021 a multidisciplinary team of researchers claimed that a Tunguska-sized airburst, larger than any such airburst in human history, destroyed a Bronze Age city near the Dead Sea. The story went viral. This alleged destruction of Tall el-Hammam around 1650 BCE, with reports of melted pottery and mudbricks, pointed to the Bible, the team concluded in Scientific Reports, noting 'what could be construed as the destruction of a city by an airburst/impact event.'
News outlets from Smithsonian to the Times in Britain covered the report. It had all the ingredients—with authors touting its connection to the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah—to make it pure clickbait gold. On the day it was published, one of the co-authors posted links on his blog to their three press releases. A week later he asserted that it was 'the most read scientific paper on Earth' based on 250,000 article accesses.
Science, however, is not a popularity contest, and the 'cosmic outburst' story indeed holds a different lesson than the one first supposed, about how the public should hear incredible claims. In April, just before the study passed the 666,000 mark, Scientific Reports retracted the finding, writing that 'claims that an airburst event destroyed the Middle Bronze Age city of Tall el-Hammam appear to not be sufficiently supported by the data in the Article,' and that 'the Editors no longer have confidence that the conclusions presented are reliable.' Independent scientists (I was one of them) had alerted them to faulty methodology, errors of fact and inappropriate manipulation of digital image data. One study co-author responded to the retraction in an online post with claims that the editor had caved to harassment by skeptics, concluding that the 'court of public opinion is much more powerful than a shadowy hatchetman spamming a corrupt editor's inbox.'
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Public opinion does influence policy decisions and funding priorities in science. People are interested in new medical cures and new starry discoveries, which helps explain why we have a NASA and an NIH. That's why it is important for the public to be scientifically literate and well informed. But scientific facts are determined by the scientific method, logic and evidence, all presented in peer-reviewed publications that require reproducible results. Scientists don't vote on findings, but they do achieve consensus by convergence on understandings based on multiple studies across many fields.
The Sodom airburst paper instead represented the nadir of 'science by press release,' in which sensational but thinly supported claims were pitched directly to the media and the public. Press releases, rife with references to Sodom and biblical implications, appeared to be focused as much on titillation as on science.
A meme, in its original definition, is a self-propagating unit of cultural information that is highly fit in the evolutionary sense. Like genes, memes can be engineered. Science by press release can be an effective first step in the creation and laundering of such memes into the public's collective consciousness. The authors of the Sodom airburst paper did this well. Their press releases were quickly picked up and repeated by both online clickbait media and mainstream media.
The Sodom airburst meme was so successful that it achieved pop culture status and public acceptance within a year of the paper's publication, in this ' Final Jeopardy! ' question: 'A 2021 study suggested that an asteroid that struck the Jordan Valley c. 1650 B.C, gave rise to the story of this city in Genesis 19.' (Winning answer: 'What is Sodom?')
I am under no illusion that this myth will suddenly be rejected by the public just because the paper was retracted. It is a sticky and compelling idea that has been around since it was suggested by astronomer Gerald Hawkins in 1961. I think it is far more likely that it will join the large and growing pantheon of persistent false beliefs, folk facts and urban legends. Contrary to that bastion of error, scientists know that humans use more than 10 percent of their brains, vaccines don't cause autism, 'detox diets' don't cleanse our bodies, toads don't give us warts, and bulls don't hate the color red.
Many of those myths are harmless. It won't hurt you to avoid kissing toads, for example. Belief in other scientifically incorrect claims can be extremely dangerous. Avoid vaccinating your children, and you subject them to the risk of serious illness or death.
What would it hurt if most people thought that God sent an asteroid to wipe out the people of Sodom, because of their wicked ways? That could go either way. The Old Testament, in Ezekial 16:49-50, says that they were punished because they were 'arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.' Would it be a bad thing if fear of an asteroid makes us better people? But it could also generate opposition to planetary defense programs to plan for and prevent the impact of an asteroid if we discover one on a collision course. If the majority of people think it's God's will and that we've got it coming, then why shouldn't we just accept our fate?
Ultimately, science-informed choices are always the best ones, whether they involve personal decisions about vaccination or public policies for climate change mitigation. When faith inspires people to better themselves, I'm all for that, too. It shouldn't take irrational and unscientific fear of fire and brimstone from an asteroid airburst to make us want to be more humble, kind and generous than the people of Sodom supposedly were.