Very enjoyable article.

One of the things I have noticed over the years as a non-scientist is how science has been misrepresented, especially when the word “theory” is dragged into the conversation. The way I see it, science is a system with a methodology used to test whether an idea is falsifiable. And in doing so there must be an outcome that is consistent and replicable despite how many times the test is performed. But the problem is that people, especially those who try to dispute the value of science, conflate the scientific method with concepts or conclusions based on a calculated assumption. Such concepts change according to the arising of new data and understanding. However, there are facts that science have presented through observation and measurement — the fact that microorganisms exist, the fact that cells create energy in the mitochondria, the fact that gravity exists, and so on. These are not theories or guesses.

In the course of argumentation people will too often use logical fallacies. We see this especially with religious arguments against science.

We can add in the fact that scientists are not science. Scientists are human beings and therefore heir to biases, faulty thinking, false conclusions, and erroneous guesses. But this has nothing to do with sound scientific conclusions, methodologies, and findings.

Throwing out the efficacy and value of science based on arguments about the fallibility of scientists, the fact that certain pharmaceutical corporations stand to make trillions on vaccines, and the politics of academia (including persistent resistance to ideas that threaten to overturn the status quo) is just problematic thinking.

When politics, money, tenure, and reputation come into the picture we have seen how science can get a bad reputation, as scientists and science influenced by corporate greed may produce biased reporting. They have been known to fudge the numbers, lie, and cheat. But this still has nothing to do with the efficacy of scientific methodology and more to do with human nature, biases, favoritism, and corruption.

The fact that scientists are only human and imperfect is one of the reasons a method was created: A big lever will move a heavy object whether a scientist or all scientists do not believe that it can.

Here we are in the 20th century and “highly advanced” and scientists are still human and still fraught with errant thinking, false conclusions, reluctance to accept change, and (some) prone to corruption. And political and personal factors too often influence whether a new theory, report, or conclusion will be accepted, especially if it threatens to overturn long-accepted ideas or the power structure of academia.