Common Sense: There Is No Such Thing as Settled Science

For far too long, those with a particular agenda—inside and outside the scientific community—have advanced the notion this, that, or the other is “settled science.”  Generally speaking, those embracing this concept are progressives.  I am arguing today there is no such thing as settled science, and asserting the idea is totally contrary to the scientific method.

The scientific method is about trying to make sense of something.  The scientific method “is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge.” (This from Saint Google)  It entails multiple steps:

1. Observation and question.
2. Background research.
3. Form a hypothesis or testable explanation.
4. Make predictions based on the hypothesis or testable explanation.
5. Pursue experimentation and/or testable explanation to test the hypothesis.
6. Analyze the data from the experimentation or testable explanation.
7. Form a conclusion.  Does the data tend to confirm or contradict the hypothesis or testable explanation?
8. Communicate the results.
9. Use the results and conclusions to make new hypotheses or predictions.

In other words, at all times, an open mind is part and parcel of approaching things from a scientific vantage point.  One can say the scientific method is circular, not linear, in its structure.  We never stop forming new hypotheses or predictions.  We never stop observing and questioning.

In the face of  this definition of the scientific method being commonly recognized, we still see those with a particular agenda proclaim that on a given topic, “the science is settled.”

I am so old I can remember the multiple and contradictory declarations that have occurred when it comes to the food pyramid.  For many years, protein was king, meaning meat stood at the top.  Then, grains, fruits, and vegetables were put at the top.  This usually came with the admonition to not consume so much meat.  Recently, protein has returned as the primary objective for eating.  That means meat no longer is demonized by those in the business of using the scientific model.  This does not mean that anyone was right or wrong at any point.  Instead, different hypothesis created different experimentation or testable explanation to account for what was being observed in the data.  The critical point being that the process of observations, hypotheses, generation and analysis of data, and conclusions never stops.

By far, the most popular topic for the “settled science” community is climate change.  Never mind that since the dawn of man, the climate has been changing.  Guessing consumption of fossil fuels by humans had little to do with ending the ice age.  Even the term “climate change” has been a moving target.  In the late 1970’s, we were warned the problem was a cooling of the universe.  Then, it became global warming.  To better account for the data, the term of choice became climate change.  

Here is a question for those worshipping at the climate change temple.  Is there any weather pattern that would contradict the “settled science” of climate change occurring as the result of an overall warming of earth?  Common sense says there must be some set of data that argues for a different conclusion.  Even more reasonable, and these are the voices being silenced and ridiculed, would be looking at different possible conclusions based on confirmation of alternative hypotheses or testable explanations having been tested to account for the same data associated with our climate.  

Who can forget the “listen to experts, follow the science, and let the data decide” mantra we heard during COVID-19?  Turns out the data was the last thing determining policy.  Social distancing?  Even the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), after the fact, admits the six-foot separation distance (remember the footprints in the checkout lines?) was essentially pulled out of thin air.  We know now that masks, especially the cloth ones, were practically useless.  However, at the time, those refusing to wear them were shamed.  How about the vaccinations?  The “science” argued once vaccinated (and updated over time) individuals were bulletproof from further infections.  Letting the data decide now leads us to far different conclusions.  Watching individuals driving a car alone, wearing a mask, makes me laugh out loud.

We could do this all day, on subject after subject.   What is important remains the same.  It would be nice to see the smug progressives promoting settled science on topic after topic take a deep breath.  Then, they might be willing to give more consideration to truly using the scientific method to test their ideas.  We are back to where we started.  Common sense:  There is no such thing as settled science, and arguing that it is true for any topic is an oxymoron.