What is Science?

What is science or, perhaps, more importantly, how does science progress? A rudimentary understanding of the answers to these questions is necessary to fully participate in the any debate concerning scientific issues. While, for years it has been clear to me, as a science educator, that there are many misconceptions among the general population of nonscientists regarding the very nature of science, I was finally moved to write about this after listening to a recent exchange between Horace Cooper of Project 21 and Bill Maher on the June 28, 2013 episode of HBO’s Real Time. After Maher stated that 97% of climatologists agreed that global warming existed (we may discuss the source of this number in a future blog) and that human cause was a factor, representing a clear scientific consensus, Cooper responded that the small percentage of dissenters should not be ignored. He went on to state that scientific progress occurs when an individual stands up against consensus. Mr. Cooper said, “I don’t want to hear about consensus, I want to hear about science.”  Setting aside the motives for his support of the counter prevailing view, let’s examine the validity of Mr. Cooper’s argument by asking the following questions:

• How does science progress?
• Is dissension important for scientific progress?
• May we use dissenting views as justification to refute scientific consensus?

While the nature of scientific progress has been studied extensively by philosophers of science, I will explore these questions from my perspective as a practicing scientist.

I start by examining the role of the scientist. In my view, a scientist must be an open-minded skeptic. Does this descriptor seem counter-intuitive? Perhaps. But, let's take a closer look. How does a scientist go about the task of doing science? She collects and analyzes data, developing a theory if warranted. When presented with new data or a new theory, she must be naturally skeptical, asking questions about methodology and analysis. Are the data reproducible? Are there alternative interpretations? Can new experiments be developed that test these interpretations? If the data and/or theories survive these stages of skepticism, then the scientist must be open-minded enough to accept the results as possible, even those which may contradict a currently held view. The ensuing scientific debate can be messy, but as additional data are presented that support a new theory, more scientists come to accept it and consensus is built. However, the process does not stop there; theories are constantly tested as more data are gathered. If inconsistencies develop, then the process begins anew and the old theory may be modified or rejected outright. Occasionally, an individual or small group may present a radical alternative that, while being met with resistance from the scientific community, may ultimately, through the process discussed above, build acceptance. Thomas Kuhn, noted philosopher of science, described such revolutionary developments—which have become known as paradigm shifts—in his seminal work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So, although scientists are human and may be resistant to change, science itself is a dynamic, anti-dogmatic process. Consensus is critical to this process because it is the best way to assess the validity of an argument. Is consensus sometimes wrong? Yes? Is the process occasionally messy? Yes. But, without consensus, how are we to distinguish between the many theories that may be presented? We cannot deny the plausibility of a theory based on personal beliefs. Hence, Mr. Cooper’s statement about wanting to hear about the science and not the consensus is fundamentally wrong; consensus is a necessary part of the scientific process.