Trust in the Scientific Method.

Greetings. Trust in the scientific method. 

Science has proven time and time again to be a remarkably productive way of understanding our natural world.

There is no doubt that scientists have dramatically increased our knowledge about the universe we reside in, the natural history of life on our planet, and about how our species' physiological processes work. Additionally, scientific knowledge has directly led to the development of technologies like vaccines, computers, and combustion engines. These technologies, and many, many others, have radically altered the way we live and are strong evidence that scientists have gotten their theories largely correct. Does this decades long record of success mean that we should always blindly trust the science?

The term "science" is a word that is admittedly somewhat dfficult to pin down. The majority of the population, at least in advanced countries, agree that science has generally been a good thing for society and accept the majority of scientific findings and discoveries. But, and isn't there is always a but, many people, particularly many religious people, disagree with the primary conclusions of scientists on issues like vaccines, evolution, and climate change. Part of the reason for this unfortunate situation is that science is often understood to be a competitor to religious faith. Some notable scientists reinforce this erroneous belief when they utilize their platforms to make declarations and pronouncements that go far beyond their area of expertise. Logically, we should seek out the positions of subject matter experts, but we should also be mindful of the limitations of that same expertise. For example, when scientists in the field of biology declare that there is no God (which is true,) or that all religion is harmful (again, a true statement,) they are speaking outside of their area of professional expertise. This understandably can make religious people mistrust even what they say about biology.

Scientists, as a general rule, are motivated in their work by curiosity about the universe and the unknown. Scientists posit lots of questions and test potential answers with experiments. Scientists interact with others in their field of study who are interested in similar questions. Scientists submit their research to other scientists who subsequently analyze and scrutinize the conclusions, scientists who attempt to produce similar results. This process is called peer review. Over the long term, consensus about the answers to scientific questions emerges from the peer review process. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the UFO research community has no such structure in place.

Consensus is not equivalent to truth. A consensus of qualified experts can be inexact, or downright wrong. But, and there's that but again, a high level of acceptance among a diverse cross section of subject matter experts usually creates a high standard for the overturning of any scientific claim. New ideas, concepts, theories, and discoveries that challenge the old schools of thought are often very exciting and as rare as a live Dimetrodon leisurely strolling down Hollywood Boulevard. When new theories are confirmed as defensible, they can be rewarded with the highest accolades, but their proponents must continue to persuade the scientific research community with valid arguments and quality, tangible, falsifiable evidence. Ultimately, the trustworthiness of science depends on this process, and thus weeds out fringe groups and the latest theories that aren’t compelling in any way, shape, or form. 

People who haven't the foggiest idea about how the scientific method actually works sometimes argue "science can't explain everything" as though that presents a license to discount any and all scientific claims that come to public knowledge. It is far more accurate to say that science continues to develop and improve as new data, evidence, and information comes to light. As a result of the scientific method, some questions that were once a matter of scientific dispute have been settled beyond all reasonable doubt (the movement of the Earth around the sun, the periodic table of elements, and the germ theory of disease, etc....) These, and many other scientific findings can be trusted and ought to be acknowledged as evidence that science really does discover facts about the universe. But (not again,) does the public see it that way? Not always, after all, some idiots firmly believe that the Earth is flat.

Other issues are still a matter of scientific dispute and spirited discussion. As of this writing, there is no scientific consensus on how and when life first arose on Earth, or what dark energy/matter actually is, or whether or not wormholes are strictly a creation of science-fiction. For other topics there is a general consensus, but new data continues to surface, which gives us a more informed depiction. New discoveries can fill in many details or point to alternative ways of applying what has been previously proven to be valid. When the data in question is not conclusive, scientists will express varying degrees of confidence and margins of error. Often times the data in question is clear and scientific conclusions are nearly as certain. It can swing both ways. 

Scientific consensus does not always mean scientific concord, and there will always be dissenting voices and opinions. That is a healthy part of the scientific process, but it should always be reported and represented accurately. Despite the scientific back and forth, the most consistently reliable guide to defensible knowledge about the universe and all unknown or undefined questions, is to follow the scientific consensus. Period. 

Thank you for your time and consideration.