Skip to main content

Science Says . . .

Discussions of reality will often use or encounter the phrase “Science says . . .” followed by a claim or a fact. The phrase is a claim to authority, and the authority of science if being leveraged to give credibility to what follows. This can be used appropriately but also inappropriately. Whether used honestly or dishonestly, there are a couple of things to watch out for in order to avoid being duped.

To be used honestly and correctly, the claim that follows must be:

  • Generally Accepted – this form should never be used for an obscure fact published in a single paper. Even though the scientist who discovered and published the fact may have followed all the proper protocols and passed all the right peer reviews, a single report might be mistaken. Papers are wrong a lot, but it is the action of the community the eventually checks and rechecks in order to eliminate the spurious results. Scientist brought us “cold fusion” but later work showed the paper to be spurious.
  • Scientific Consensus – this form should be used only where there is a broad consensus for the claim across a given field. For example the existence of DNA is nearly universally agreed upon. While scientists will research and actively promote controversial theories, we should never pretend that science as a whole supports a controversial theory.
  • Current – science is continually moving forward, refining theories, and in some cases invalidating old theories. It would be inappropriate to cite a scientific consensus from 100 years ago as being the consensus today. There was a scientific consensus several hundred years ago that bad health was caused by too much blood, but citing that today would be nonsense.
  • From the appropriate field – The consensus should be among the scientists that work in the field in question. Ben Carson might believe that the pyramids were constructed to hold grain, but he is a surgeon, not an anthropologist. We would look to climate scientists for their consensus about climate change, and biologists for their consensus about the origin of species.
  • Testable – any scientific claim should be testable. There are many subject areas that are not testable, and science simply can not have an opinion on that.
  • Enduring – Any claim that is attributed to science in general should have stood some test of time. Brand new theories have not had the time to gain a consensus. A new discovery might be attributed to a particular scientist or a particular organization, but using the general term “science says” is not justified until there has been enough time to find any possible errors.
  • Not just one person’s pet theory – A scientist may have the best degree from the best university, but just because a person with a degree claims something does not make it a scientific consensus.
  • From an community devoted to science – this is obvious but work including in this list that a generally accepted principle from a non-scientific community can not be considered science.

The consensus angle is the one that gives people the biggest problem. Some people argue that a “popularity contest” is a poor way to determine validity. Why do we need scientists voting on whether something is correct or not? There have been times that a majority of scientists were wrong. Just because most people think something does not make it true. For example, for a hundred years the best scientists thought there was something called “ether” which carried light waves. Michaelson and Morley ran an experiment that showed that it could not be true in the 1880’s. During the decades leading up to 1880 it would have been reasonable to say “Science says there is ether.” but now that we know that is wrong. Here is the thing: it is not just a couple of scientists, but the entire field knows that the theory of ether was wrong.

The idea of the brilliant rogue captivates some presentations. Even though the scientific community believes ABC can’t work, Dr XYZ has shown that it is true! Dr. XYZ might be correct, but we can’t say it is science until they have convinced about half the scientists in their field. Even Einstein, who came up with relativity which appeared to fly in the face of Newton and Euclid, took 20 years before there was general consensus around these ideas. Einstein was right, but it would be improper for anyone to say in 1906 that “Science says that space is curved.”

While the romantic stories like to present the scientist as a lone hero, persecuted by the community, and working late into the night proving everyone else wrong, this is not how science — in the collective — works. While individual successes are important, the real triumph is the careful work of an entire field, cautiously checking and rechecking each other’s work. They look for each other’s mistakes. It is this collective effort of holding each other to high standards that is essential to the steady and accurate progress of scientific knowledge.

What to Look For​

When someone says “Science say . . . x” you should be able to ask:

  • Which major scientific institution supports that position?
  • How long has this been the accepted view?
  • What percentage of scientists in that field agree with the claim?
  • Who benefits by this view, and is there any reason to believe there is a conflict of interest?