Intro. The Myth of Scientific Uncertainty
An introduction to a series of posts that will define what science we know for sure, what can change, and how we can view and discuss scientific knowledge.
We have created many myths over time—stories that help us understand ourselves and the world around us. These have increased in sophistication and evolved from folk tales to declarations of scientists, philosophers, and other professional pundits.
But when a story or myth teaches an incorrect lesson, it can harm, rather than enlighten. And we have propounded, analyzed, extended, and justified such a myth for the last three hundred years. And that myth is the uncertainty of all scientific laws and conclusions.
Technology and industry have given us more things we depend on as well as more ways things can go wrong. And the harm enabled by this myth has correspondingly multiplied. We accept the efficiency, comfort, and entertainment of advancing technology while those inconvenienced by recommended alleviations to its downside use the myth of uncertainty to prevent or delay taking remedial action.
The analysis of what we know for sure has largely been the domain of philosophers who, while providing provisional support for science, continue their discourse on the ways science can be questioned[i], but some of them[ii],[iii],[iv] are calling for a rethinking and re-imagining of the arguments that deter the identification of the science we can trust.
When scientists make observations that are at odds with current knowledge, they go back to the drawing board to produce an explanation that fits the new data as well as the old. That is exactly where scientific epistemology is now and has been for the last century. The astounding success of science, the reliability of our technological devices all points to the fact that there must be things that we know for sure because they work.
We don’t act like it’s all up for grabs. We trust science-based technology to keep our vehicles running, our planes flying, our cellphones communicating. We rely on these and countless other devices for health, comfort, work, and entertainment. We don’t worry about waking up to find that a crucial device no longer works because a law it is based on no longer works.
Similarly, in my work as an academic scientist, I assumed the laws I used in research and taught in the classroom would continue to survive every test. But as distrust in science, unassuaged by our failure to claim plausible certainty, has become an increasingly harmful social phenomenon, I looked to the philosophy of science for solid arguments to resolve the dissonance between the concept scientific uncertainty and the fact that it works every day.
Many philosophers (the realists) agree there must be some things we know for sure. But which things? Thinkers have addressed this question in stages over centuries. Putting the pieces of this puzzle together, each of them suggested by others, has led me to a satisfying and logical identification of the parts of science we know for sure and why that is so. It has also clarified which parts of our current knowledge are subject to change and disproof.
In the following posts, we’ll take a critical look at the three pillars supporting the conclusion that nothing scientists claim today is certain to remain valid. They are:
1. History is rife with the shards of scientific theories proven wrong. How can we be certain that this time we’re right?
2. Consistency is no proof of certainty. An exception to any regularity or uniformity (i.e., law) could be found at any time.
3. Our ‘simple’ laws do not apply in the real world where multiple factors can affect the outcome.
And when we have confirmed the parts of scientific knowledge that are certain and which parts are subject to change, we will look at how this might affect how we go about science and portray it to the public.
If you are a scientist, a teacher of science, a journalist, a science buff, or a formulator of policy based on science, please follow along in this inquiry. We’ll take on the three pillars of uncertainty one by one over the remaining 16 postings.
[i] Lange, Marc, In Naomi Oreskes’ Why Trust Science? Princeton U Press, 2019, p. 190.
[ii] Lange, Marc, ibid., p. 190
[iii] Lindee, Susan, ibid., p.180
[iv] Laura Snyder, Wanted: Another Scientific Revolution, an article in Faculty of 1000, The Scientist.