海角大神

Do you believe in science? The question has become something of a litmus test for partisan sorting around contentious issues like the pandemic and climate change. Many Americans proudly proclaim their answer like a badge of honor.

But one notable group shies away from the question entirely: scientists.

For those who have devoted their lives to the scientific method, the interlinking of science with dogmatic belief can feel counterproductive and unnecessarily divisive.

The goal of science isn鈥檛 to produce irrefutable facts to believe or disbelieve. The goal is to further knowledge through hypothesis, observation, and experimentation. The scientific method provides a framework to continually question, test, and refine that knowledge. As a result, our understanding of the physical world is constantly evolving. New discoveries and research can deepen the contours of our understanding. And they can contradict what we thought we already knew, sparking fresh questions and sometimes even changing the course of thought entirely (see Galileo versus the Catholic Church).

But this ever-shifting body of knowledge doesn鈥檛 mesh with people鈥檚 tendency to sort ideas and each other into a fixed binary framework. And that鈥檚 where discussions of science鈥檚 believers and disbelievers can get in the way.

This binary thinking has long clouded political debates about efforts to slow climate change. But some say聽this binary labeling has found its way into the climate science community itself in a way that minimizes the uncertainties around current understanding. The Monitor鈥檚 Stephanie Hanes explores this idea in聽depth in the聽cover story聽featured in the June 10 edition of 海角大神 Weekly.

I鈥檒l let you discover for yourself how that unfolds in her story. But first, it鈥檚 helpful to note that uncertainty is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the scientific process.聽

鈥淪cientific journal articles rarely describe conclusions as entirely certain,鈥� Beth A. Covitt and Charles W. Anderson, both science education researchers, wrote in the journal Science & Education. 鈥淎lthough popular images of science can describe scientists as discovering indisputable facts, communication among scientists in journal articles is epistemologically far more complex.鈥�

In public discourse, those uncertainties can come across as doubt. But for scientists, the acknowledgment of uncertainties offers a degree of transparency, a way to show where questions remain so that others can design further studies to deepen understanding of a given issue.

鈥淎ll information has at least a small degree of uncertainty,鈥� climate scientists Sophie Lewis and Ailie Gallant wrote in a 2013 article for The Conversation. 鈥淓ach puzzle piece is imperfect: they might be a little bit out of focus, or perhaps slightly discoloured. But despite their imperfections, they are still recognisable.鈥�