When contemplating the essence of science, how do you perceive it? Do you, like many, revert to your school lessons, layered with skepticism and cynicism? This sentiment is understandable. Many of us recall being taught “facts” in science classes that were later discredited. It seems we were instructed to memorize isolated facts about the world, and our ability to recite them became the yardstick for our scientific acumen. Numerous facts felt implausible; many experiments yielded unexpected results; and our personal experiences often contradicted textbook teachings.

Given this experience with science, why should we trust what science “reveals” as true?

Such doubt is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding. It stems from a narrow and incomplete grasp of what science is and how it operates. The solution may lie in confronting four prevalent myths that agenda-driven individuals exploit to cast doubt on authentic scientific understanding. While the world can easily mislead us, most criticisms of scientific findings succeed because they exploit our tendency to mislead ourselves.

In reality, science encompasses both a process and a vast collection of knowledge, representing our most accurate understanding of the world at any moment. Below, we explore four common misconceptions that are often used to challenge scientific findings and explain why they are fundamentally flawed.

1. Science is influenced by funding sources. A widespread belief is that scientists are swayed by their financial backers, rendering their findings and conclusions suspect. Historical instances, such as the tobacco industry manipulating research, lead many to generalize that all science is untrustworthy, particularly when funded by ethically questionable entities.

This perspective has been misapplied across various scientific domains, with claims that any funded research must be biased:

• Agricultural researchers are seen as being in league with Monsanto.
• Bee scientists are thought to be aligned with Bayer.
• Climate researchers are accused of being funded by government entities.
• Vaccine trials are often said to be conducted for the pharmaceutical industry.

These assertions are baseless. Research relies on funding, but that doesn’t inherently create bias toward specific outcomes. Ethically conducted research is in everyone's best interest, as:

• Peer reviews will uncover any discrepancies.
• Fraudulent studies can lead to legal repercussions for the funding entity.
• Incorrect conclusions will ultimately be corrected as new evidence emerges.

While fraudulent research does occur, particularly among certain fringe groups, dismissing findings as fraudulent simply because one disagrees with them reflects a serious flaw in scientific communication.

2. Science is swayed by public opinion. This misconception has gained traction in the 21st century. When scientific conclusions conflict with personal beliefs or corporate interests, detractors often resort to emotionally charged yet scientifically unfounded claims aimed at the general public. Those lacking the expertise to evaluate scientific assertions may be easily swayed by familiar faces promoting misleading arguments.

Take the supplement industry, for example. It remains largely unregulated, allowing vendors to make dubious health claims, a practice rooted in disinformation campaigns from decades past. Many supplements are:

• Unproven,
• Ineffective, and
• Poorly researched.

Some have even resulted in poisoning, leading to legal consequences for their promoters. Yet, under the guise of “personal freedom,” companies persist in marketing these products, often devoid of the advertised ingredients.

Similarly, some individuals dismiss the existence of SARS-CoV-2, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Others reject the germ theory of disease or the correlation between HIV and AIDS. The belief that natural substances are inherently beneficial, while synthetic ones are detrimental, persists. Even as raw milk advocates stock up on a potential vector for disease, scientific truths, such as the Big Bang, evolution, and the Earth's roundness, face baseless dissent.

It’s often said that “science doesn’t care what you believe,” and indeed, it remains indifferent to human beliefs. The universe adheres to specific principles, and the results of experiments are available for anyone to replicate. Scientific outcomes are dictated by nature, rendering personal opinions irrelevant.

3. Science is confined to mere facts. Some argue that science presents only facts, and any interpretations or recommendations exceed its scope. This viewpoint suggests that scientists engaging in advocacy overstep their bounds. While this perspective aligns with participatory democracy, it misrepresents the nature of science.

Science is not merely a collection of facts; it comprises:

1. A comprehensive body of knowledge, which incorporates all data collected through human observation and experimentation. New findings must be interpreted in light of existing knowledge.
2. A process of continuous inquiry, where we investigate various phenomena in controlled settings. Understanding the interplay of different factors is crucial for accurate outcomes.

Thus, to conduct responsible science, proper evaluation is essential. This requires expertise and skills that scientists develop over time, which most of us lack. For example:

• Many did not recognize the ozone layer issue and its connection to aerosol products.
• Some still doubt global warming, while others fail to see carbon dioxide's role.
• Many resist wearing masks to curb airborne disease transmission, despite public health consequences.

Scientists provide recommendations because they possess the knowledge to guide effective interventions. Science elucidates how the universe functions, predicting outcomes under varying conditions. As Galileo stated centuries ago, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Today, we hold the most comprehensive knowledge ever, but it is our responsibility to utilize it wisely.

4. Science is impervious to legitimate challenges. Many reject the notion that science can reach settled conclusions, often citing historical examples of scientific revolutions. However, such instances have become rarer as our understanding deepens. Layperson critiques of established scientific theories are often dismissed for valid reasons.

Science welcomes challenges, especially from experts in the field. A scientific theory's validity is established through experiments and observations, and is only as strong as its empirical support. Testing involves:

• Making predictions based on a theory,
• Conducting relevant experiments, and
• Comparing outcomes to theoretical expectations.

This methodology lies at the heart of meaningful scientific discoveries.

Historical challenges have sparked scientific revolutions. Einstein's theories supplanted Newton's, validated through critical experiments. The Big Bang, evolution, and genetic theories have undergone countless challenges, with a consensus emerging only after rigorous testing.

The primary obstacle we face, when lacking expertise, is ignorance of past challenges and their implications. We often cannot discern legitimate from illegitimate critiques; many theories have been invalidated based on scientific evidence. Science flourishes when genuine challenges arise, and humanity gains wisdom from investigating these inquiries.

Many possess a profound respect for science: for its nature, its achievements, and its capacity to illuminate the world. The challenge lies in humility: can we prioritize expert evaluations over personal biases? When we lack the requisite skills to assess a claim, will we seek guidance from qualified individuals? If committed to uncovering the truth, will we engage with comprehensive background information before forming conclusions?

The reality is clear: we cannot dictate our own reality. It is defined by our observations and measurements. While human imperfections may influence our interpretations, science's self-correcting nature helps mitigate these biases over time. We should advocate for transparent science and accept scientifically derived conclusions as our best approximation of truth. If we fail to "trust the science," we forfeit our most reliable source of factual information about reality. These facts, regardless of personal beliefs, should unite us.

Starts With A Bang is authored by Ethan Siegel, Ph.D., writer of Beyond The Galaxy, Treknology, and The Littlest Girl Goes Inside An Atom. New releases, including the Encyclopaedia Cosmologica, are on the horizon!