What if conservatism isn’t an ideology but just the application of scientific thinking to social systems?

Think about what scientific thinking actually is for a second: having a theory, running experiments to prove or disprove the theory, observe the outcomes, draw conclusions. Basic stuff.

In every scientific field, new theories must prove themselves superior to existing knowledge before being adopted. The medical establishment doesn’t abandon proven treatments for untested alternatives without rigorous evidence. Engineers don’t replace working bridges with experimental designs based on theoretical improvements alone.

Yet, curious enough, in social and political systems we’ve flipped this burden of proof entirely.

Existing institutions are assumed guilty until proven innocent. Proposed changes are assumed beneficial until proven harmful. We have thrown out fundamental scientific methodology where it matters most.

What we call “conservatism” is simply applying the same evidentiary standards we use everywhere else.¹

Existing systems are like surviving species. They’ve experienced selection pressures that eliminated less so alternatives. They may not be perfect, but it does mean proposed changes should carry the burden of proving they’re actually improvements.

History provides our experimental data. We can conduct a meta analysis across the varied social experiments that cultures and centuries have run.

In every domain that demands actual consequences, such as medicine, engineering, aviation, we do not replace functional systems with novel ideas without overwhelming proof. Risk management is inherently conservative.

If you are a scientific minded progressive, don’t forget that scientific thinking means you don’t abandon proven systems for untested theories without overwhelming evidence. That’s literally how science works.

So the parting question for you to ponder: what are the implications if you begin shifting from ideological positions to empirical questions? What does the historical record actually show about different approaches?²

---

¹ While this framing appeals to secular, scientific sensibilities, it’s worth noting that not all truths are measurable. I personally hold to beliefs grounded in tradition, faith, and moral duty things that aren’t “provable” by data but are no less real. This isn’t an attempt to reduce everything to empiricism, but to highlight that even within a purely scientific frame, conservatism makes more sense than its alternatives.

² The historical record shows consistent patterns: societies with strong property rights, rule of law, and stable families tend to prosper across cultures and centuries. Meanwhile, attempts to radically reorganize society, from the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror to Soviet collectivization to Cambodia’s Year Zero, repeatedly produce predictable disasters. Even well intentioned reforms often fail spectacularly. Things like urban renewal projects destroyed functioning communities, and many educational innovations have measurably worsened outcomes.

---