The Problem With ‘Trusting the Science’

The scientific method is a wonderfully useful tool for understanding our universe. Its socio-benefits are self-apparent. I’m certainly not anti-science; if anything, I’m a big fan. My life is better because of it.

But I’m also aware of its limitations.

For starters, science is not synonymous with truth — and the scientific method is an extremely limited tool. Yes, we’ve used it with great success to understand our universe, but its utility is not universal.

Woe to the man who only understands the universe via the scientific method. You’d miss the most important things in life!

In its purest, axiomatic sense, the scientific method (i.e. attaching a hypothesis to an observation, developing a replicable test, and recording the results) is self-correcting, because future experiments should address any incongruities. As the quality and frequency of experiments improve, better data should arise.

At least that’s the theory.

But in actuality, the problem with “trusting the science” is threefold:

1. Scientists are just people, and people are biased. The scientific community is not immune to bias, political pressures, the lure of career advancements, or the impact of preconceived agendas.
2. The scientific method is only as good as the quality of its experiments, and far too many things (climate change, evolution, biological studies, health) are challenging to directly experiment. For example, it would be extraordinarily useful to know what our current temperature would be without any manmade greenhouse emissions whatsoever. (Hey, maybe the Global Warming alarmists are 100% right.) But we don’t know because it’s not something we can directly test. Instead, we’re left with cherry-picking clusters of facts and using them to build various arguments. And that leads to...
3. Our current usage of “science” has led to a ridiculously large number of false positives. That’s because it’s far too easy for biased scientists to generate media attention (and raise money) by publicizing a conclusion that’s centered on cherry-picked data. It happens all the time, and it’s gotten to the point that it’s practically a cliché: One week, a “scientific study” is announced that says chocolate (or whatever) is the secret to weight loss. Next week, the study is denounced. It's practically a weekly occurrence.

Too many unethical scientists are wearing the cloak of “science” to lend the veneer of credibility to utterly unscientific conclusions. Chief among them is Scientific American magazine, which announced last month that it was endorsing Kamala Harris for president. In the magazine’s illustrious 179-year history, it has made presidential endorsements exactly twice — in 2020 and 2024 — and both times, they were anti-Trump. (Very odd, eh?)

Scientific American explained its “logic” in an article released today: “The 2024 Presidential Election Will Make or Break U.S. Climate Action.” It’s worth reading because it’s absolutely NOT a scientific piece. It’s an aggressively liberal screed on public policy. And because you can’t test planetary climate cycles via direct experimentations, the Scientific American “scientists” did the next best thing: They used a computer program that spits out whatever data it’s been designed to regurgitate.

Indeed, that’s exactly what they did. In their article:

To provide a broad look at how potential policies under Harris or Trump would shape future U.S. [greenhouse] emissions, Orvis’s team at EI used its Energy Policy Simulator, an open-source computer model. The researcher compared current policies under the Biden-Harris administration with more ambitious policies that achieve a target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and with the policies laid out in Project 2025. The found that the latter scenario ‘basically stops the progress that’s been made’…

How scientific! They relied on Project 2025 — which Trump has repeatedly disavowed — as their sole basis for GOP action. And then they found a computer model that gave them the pro-Harris results they sought. 

Presto: Here’s the science!

It’s silly and disingenuous. But it’s also deeply damaging to actual science because it sullies its reputation. By contorting “science” into something it’s not, liberal activists are actually engaging in a very specific form of Climate Denial: Their unabashed dishonesty, political manipulations, and brazen opportunism have created a climate where scientists can no longer be trusted.

It’s too bad. If you’re a true fan of science, this is not at all what you want. But that’s the reality today.

As it turns out, the biggest problems with science are the scientists.