Is Science Ever Settled?

It is often asserted in the media, in different contexts, that 'the science is settled'. This blog post explores issues concerning that assertion.

So, what is science? Textbooks have been written on this. But what is science to the casual reader? Science is a methodology; a way of thinking. It is observational and rational. It is emperical. As a process, it leads to a body of 'knowledge'. However, that knowledge is always subject to scrutiny. It works this way. Observations are made and data is obtained thereby. The data is analyzed. Statements about the data are made. These statements may be in the form of correlations, theories of causation and predictions of the future. Scientific statements should be objective (empirical) and testable.

Data continues to be obtained over the course of time. The scientific statements are tested against the new data. According to Karl Popper ("The Logic of Scientific Discovery"), the data either corroborates the statements or falsifies them. The data never proves the statements to be true. That is not how science works. Albert Einstein noted: 'no amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.'

This brings us to the hallmark of science: the ongoing testing of statements that form part of a theory, including predictions that the theory makes. Testing is the key. Where testing is denied, we are no longer operating within the realm of science.

Statements about subjective experiences or feelings of personal conviction are not scientific statements.

Science was not settled for scientists such as Newton and Einstein. Newton's 'laws' withstood scrutiny for 300 years but ultimately his theory of gravity gave way to General Relativity. Einstein's theories of relativity are under constant scrutiny and many scientific articles have been published questioning these theories. His theories are not 'settled' science.

What if there is a near 100% consensus among scientists that a certain area of science is settled? Michael Crichton says this about consensus in science: 'There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If its science, it isn't consensus, period.'

Indeed, many of the great advancements in science have been made by those who did not accept the consensus. Darwin and Einstein are just two examples.

Dr. Judith Curry (“Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response”) makes a distinction between ‘scientific consensus’ and a ‘consensus of scientists'. She notes that a scientific consensus may apply where a relatively stable paradigm or body of knowledge exists that structures and organizes scientific knowledge in a given area. However, she notes, the existence of a consensus of scientists surrounding a specific hypothesis or theory is not itself evidence in support of that hypothesis or theory.

So what is the average person to do when faced with an assertion that some question of science, including social science, is 'settled'? Keep an open mind and yes, question, question, question.