Scientific illiteracy/ignorance in the US.

A bit of background: Navy Nuke, BS in Physics (Cosmology / Particle Physics), Born-Again Christian.

Major, I agree wholeheartedly that "science" is a process, not a collection of facts and results (hence the "scientific method" is perfection, "science" is incomplete). Herein lies the problem with some of the topics you pointed out. All theories remain theories, unless PROVEN to be a "law" (e.g., the three "Laws of Motion" and the three "Laws of Thermodynamics"). As theories - whether they are well-supported or not - they cannot be treated as irrefutable.

But why not? Because all that's required to posit a refutation is to find ONE instance where observation does not match the hypothesis. Such ideas are relegated to status as a theory - not as a law - and therefore still subject to modification. And yet, we treat theories as laws unless proven otherwise!

We often hear "[insert hot topic here] is a fact." Really? For example, can we really say that 100 years of research and data make human-generated climate change irrefutable? A true follower of the scientific method has to "No. At least not yet!" And this is not the same as proving a negative (which is, as has been stated, essentially impossible). Every time a theory is questioned, it's the theorist's responsibility to DEFEND the theory, not to deny the question outright.

The problem today is that people/groups/organizations have based their reputations (and funding) on RESULTS rather than the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The scientific method demands that when observation is clearly contradictory to theory, the theory must be reviewed, modified or abandoned. This does NOT happen with climate change, evolution, sexual orientation, etc. Too many people are too heavily invested on BOTH sides. So arises the name-calling.

When Einstein questioned quantum mechanics, Heisenberg and Schrodinger didn't denounce Albert as a "quantum denier" - they actively and professionally answered his questions about the theory. That does NOT happen today.

These theories you mentioned are not debated by scientists - we have scientific experts who defend their theories like vultures defend their carrion.

And finally - in response to your conspiracy point: Theoretically, you're right. Practically, see my comments above. We've all heard - or said - "When all else fails, manipulate the data..."

MAJ (Join to see) Sir, I welcome your post and concur with the advocacy of scientific method. I recognize your confusion about people's beliefs on some issues, particularly ones that seem to be hot button political issues with strong findings on one side of the debate and weak findings on the other. I would recommend reducing the personal nature of the language, it seems a lot of people often take offense at many of your posts.

I really don't have the time to become conversationally intelligent about most topics of heavy scientific debate. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this forum is actively engaged in original research on any of the issues at the highest peer reviewed levels either. Therefore we are all choosing to place our trust in others. It is the process of how we choose others to believe that merits some examination. What relationships, biases, education systems, thought processes do we imbue with trust as a proxy for our own understanding?

As an example: I'll trust an Marine Corporal who has seen combat to tell me about the personal experience of war before I trust a PhD Professor who has carefully studied books like The Red Badge of Courage and The Forgotten Soldier. The Cpl has the markers of personal experience that in this case supersede training and method. But I will trust a LtCol Dave Grossman, PhD. to tell me about a broader description of the average personal experience of war more than that Corporal. He has been in the military, and rigorously studied the scientific Psychological method and interviewed countless Veterans, he can expand beyond the individual and do so with his methods, and communicate them effectively to a broader range of people. He has every marker I trust.

Within the American Statistical Association, we have a saying "Without verifiable data, you are just another agenda-driven S.O.B. with an opinion."
However, I do take some issue with the assertion that "There is NO POSSIBILITY of a conspiracy in science." Based on personal experience, I think that is a somewhat naive belief in the spotless character and integrity of scientists and scientific publications. As one who has both been peer reviewed and been a peer reviewer, I would only agree with that statement if one is assured that the peer reviewing is both totally independent and totally impartial (both qualities are as rare today as honesty in a "successful" politician). It is difficult to keep one's own ideas and understandings from biasing your review either in unduly supportive or adversarial interpretations. It is orders of magnitude more difficult if your own research funding would be potentially impacted. I have been witness to at least one instance where all the "peer" reviewing was performed by other members of the same department at a university that depended heavily on continued government grants that were (unstated but known) highly predicated upon demonstrating the desired result. Often the raw data is withheld as being proprietary to the funding agency and not available for independent verification/replication. Granted, eventually the "truth" may become known but the "conspirators" count on that occurring after the funding stream has gone away.