If you’ve ever heard someone say, “The science isn’t settled,” particularly in discussions about climate change, you’ve witnessed a misunderstanding of how science works.
The statement is often wielded as a way to cast doubt on well-supported scientific conclusions, but it reflects a deeper issue: a widespread misconception about the nature of scientific inquiry.
Here’s the key insight: science thrives in uncertainty, but uncertainty doesn’t mean inaction.
Think about Einstein’s theories of relativity—considered “settled” yet not “proven” in an absolute sense.
Still, would we dismiss them when planning a mission to Mars? Of course not.
This nuance is crucial, especially when we face challenges like climate change that demand decisions in the face of evolving evidence.
But why is this distinction so misunderstood? The answer lies in how science operates—and how our reasoning often misinterprets it.
It’s Not Just One Thing
The scientific method is not a single, rigid process. In fact, it’s more like a toolkit with different approaches tailored to the problem at hand.
At its core, science is a way of reasoning—and humans reason in two primary ways: deduction and induction.
Untangling What’s Already Known
Deduction is about working with what you already know to reach conclusions.
For example, if I tell you Will is older than Cate but younger than Abby, you can deduce their age order without additional information.
This type of reasoning is common in mathematics and logic puzzles like Sudoku.
In science, deduction helps us test hypotheses.
For instance, if a theory predicts that a certain chemical reaction will release heat, and it doesn’t, we can conclude the theory is flawed—assuming our experiment was conducted properly.
Expanding Knowledge Beyond the Known
Induction, on the other hand, is about making generalizations based on observations.
If every crow you’ve ever seen is black, you might induce that all crows are black.
Similarly, scientists observe patterns in nature to create general laws, like gravity or thermodynamics.
Inductive reasoning also relies on analogies. If a fossilized animal has sharp teeth, we might compare it to modern predators and infer it was likely a carnivore.
It’s this type of reasoning that allows science to explore uncharted territory, from ancient fossils to distant galaxies.
However, there’s a catch: no amount of inductive success can “prove” a theory.
As Einstein famously said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
The Misconception of “Settled Science”
Here’s where many people go wrong: they assume “settled” science means absolute proof. But proof is the domain of deduction, not induction.
In science, a theory is considered “settled” when it consistently aligns with evidence and helps guide further inquiry—not because it’s immune to revision.
Take climate change, for example. The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that human activity is warming the planet.
Yet detractors often demand “more proof” or dismiss data as flawed. This attitude misunderstands the iterative nature of science.
A powerful example of this misunderstanding came from Australian climate denialist Malcolm Roberts.
During a televised debate, Roberts dismissed authoritative evidence of human-induced climate change, claiming it was corrupted.
His refusal to accept data he didn’t agree with made his stance untestable—and therefore unscientific.
As philosopher Karl Popper put it, a scientific claim must be falsifiable to be valid.
This brings us to a key point: science is not about proving something true; it’s about proving it not false.
If a theory stands up to repeated attempts at falsification, our confidence in it grows—but it’s never beyond question.
How Science Handles Uncertainty
One of the reasons science is so powerful is that it embraces uncertainty. Unlike rigid belief systems, science evolves as new evidence emerges.
Take Einstein’s theories of relativity. T
hey’ve been tested repeatedly under different conditions and remain some of the most robust scientific models we have.
Yet, they’re not “proven” in the way a mathematical equation might be.
If an experiment tomorrow provided irrefutable evidence that contradicted relativity, scientists would adjust or replace the theory accordingly.
This adaptability is what makes science so effective at describing reality. When inputs to a theory produce outputs that match the real world, we consider it a good model.
If they don’t, we refine or replace it. This process has led to everything from lifesaving medical breakthroughs to the technology powering your smartphone.
Why Uncertainty Doesn’t Mean Inaction
Let’s return to climate change, a topic often mired in calls for “settled science.”
Critics argue that uncertainty in specific details—like exact temperature increases by a certain year—means we shouldn’t act. But this logic is deeply flawed.
Imagine you’re driving toward a cliff in thick fog. You’re 90% sure it’s there but can’t see it yet.
Would you keep driving at full speed, demanding 100% certainty before hitting the brakes? Of course not.
Acting with less-than-absolute certainty is a hallmark of intelligent decision-making.
Climate science operates the same way.
While exact predictions may vary, the overarching conclusion is clear: the planet is warming, and human activity is a significant driver.
To wait for perfect certainty before taking action would be, as philosopher John Dewey put it, “utter folly.”
Why “Settled” Science Still Leaves Room for Debate
Even when science appears “settled,” debates often continue—but they’re usually about details, not fundamentals.
For instance, the fact of evolution is beyond dispute among rational observers. But scientists still debate the finer mechanisms of natural selection.
Similarly, while it’s clear that human activity is warming the planet, researchers continue to refine models to predict how different factors—like deforestation or methane emissions—affect the rate of warming.
These debates are signs of progress, not weakness. They show that science is alive and self-correcting, constantly pushing the boundaries of what we know.
Acting in an Uncertain World
The true strength of science lies in its ability to guide action in the face of uncertainty.
From climate change to public health, scientific theories give us a foundation to make informed decisions—even when all the details aren’t fully understood.
Demanding deductive certainty before acting doesn’t make us rational; it makes us paralyzed.
The mark of intelligence is the ability to move forward in an uncertain world, armed with the best knowledge available.
As the science of climate change continues to evolve, one thing remains clear: waiting for absolute proof is not an option. The planet won’t wait for us to settle our debates.
What Do You Think?
Do you believe society should act based on the best available science, even if uncertainty remains?
Or should we wait for more evidence before making big decisions? Share your thoughts below!
This revised version maintains the original article’s depth but adds engaging examples, clearer explanations, and a call to action for readers.
It’s designed to resonate with an audience curious about science and its role in addressing global challenges.
