Debate over the phrase “science is never settled” has intensified as politicians invoke it to question established scientific consensus, particularly regarding climate change and public health. This rhetoric serves to legitimize fringe scientific positions and create doubt about well-supported theories, a tactic exemplified by U.S. politicians such as Representative Nancy Mace and Senator Roger Marshall.
In 2020, Mace dismissed the consensus that climate change is driven by human activity, stating, “The science is never settled.” Similarly, in February, Marshall advocated for further funding into discredited theories linking vaccines to autism, insisting that “science is never settled.” Such statements reflect a growing trend where political figures challenge mainstream science in favor of narratives that align with their agendas.
The phrase has gained traction beyond the United States. In the U.K., Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party, exhibited a similar stance when questioned about President Donald Trump‘s claims regarding Tylenol and autism. Farage stated, “When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody… because science is never settled.”
Understanding Established Scientific Consensus
The assertion that “science is never settled” misrepresents the current understanding of scientific inquiry. In fields such as climate science, evolution, and gravity, significant consensus exists based on extensive research and evidence. For instance, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is primarily caused by greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.
Despite claims to the contrary, the notion of “global cooling” in the 1970s was never a scientific consensus. Reviews of contemporary literature indicate that scientists were predominantly focused on global warming and its implications for Earth’s climate future. The prevailing understanding today is that climate change is an urgent issue requiring immediate action.
Kit Yates, a professor of mathematical biology at the University of Bath, emphasizes that while scientific knowledge can evolve, it does not negate the validity of established theories. Gravity, for example, was first described by Galileo Galilei and later expanded upon by Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein. Each new theory has built upon its predecessors, refining our understanding of gravitational forces without rendering earlier theories obsolete.
The Role of Certainty in Science
The distinction between scientific facts and absolute certainty is crucial. While science cannot provide 100% certainty—unlike mathematics, which operates on axioms—it can offer robust evidence that supports specific hypotheses. For example, the assertion that Earth is round is supported by overwhelming evidence, making it a “settled” scientific fact, even if absolute certainty cannot be claimed.
The scientific method relies on openness to new evidence and the willingness to revise theories as necessary. This flexibility does not imply that established theories are invalid; rather, it indicates that they are subject to refinement as new data emerges. Theories such as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy always increases, have withstood rigorous testing and can be considered settled within their domains.
The misuse of scientific terminology by politicians can undermine public understanding of critical issues, particularly in climate and health discussions. When public figures claim that “science is never settled,” they often seek to undermine consensus on important topics, creating opportunities for misinformation to flourish.
Ultimately, while scientific understanding is always open to updates and revisions, this should not be conflated with the idea that all scientific claims are equally valid. The burden of proof lies with those challenging established knowledge, and when evidence overwhelmingly supports a theory, it can be regarded as settled within the scientific community.
As discussions around climate change and public health continue to evolve, it is essential to distinguish between legitimate scientific inquiry and political rhetoric that seeks to distort the facts. Understanding the nature of scientific consensus and the iterative process of knowledge formation remains vital in navigating these complex discussions.
