What is "science"? Both definitions below apply.
1. Science is a systematically/methodically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
2. It's also an activity involving the systematic study of the structure and function of various aspects of the physical/natural world.
................................
What Some People Don't Seem to Understand
1. Science and scientists deal in degrees of probability, not certainty. In other words, science is not absolute. Why? There are too many variables (known and unknown) to be accounted for in any scientific investigation. Because of that, when new discoveries are made in a particular area of research, the previous theory is likely to be modified or even discarded. With new research, past conclusions change.
At any particular time, our knowledge is limited. Even some theoretical physicists have said (paraphrased): we humans have barely scratched the surface of reality. That runs contrary to what many, perhaps most, people think regarding what we know. In short, we are not as knowledgeable as we generally believe. One of the biggest problems in the world today is that too many times we jump to conclusions based upon insufficient/inadequate information.
2. Scientists sometimes do not arrive at the same conclusion regarding any particular topic of research. Why? The reasons are many and varied. For instance, scientist A may have a vested interest in a particular outcome, while scientist B may be more objective. Or, scientist A may understand the technical aspects of the study much better than scientist B. Or... etc.
All the above is why science relies on many investigations, rigorous peer review, and constant challenging of results before accepting any theory as the closest known approximation to what's "true". Even then, the future may hold some surprises concerning accepted beliefs.
....................................
Why A Lack of Understanding of the Above Items Can be Problematic
- Too many people appear to want instant answers nowadays. Worse than that, they seem to expect absolutes. When they get neither, too many migrate over to nonscientific, emotional positions held by autocrat wannabes, corporatists, and others with destructive vested interests.
- Their misunderstandings of science often lead them to reject scientific warnings of damage to natural systems which is not immediately and blatantly visible. They can experience damage to the economy. When it comes to the complexity of ecosystem damage, that's not always so visible.
- When new research results in a modification to some particular theory, instead of accepting that as normal, I suspect that too many people tend to reject science in total. A trivial example--- A fictitious person with little science knowledge speaking: "First their research claims that drinking coffee is bad for you, then more research says it's good for you, and now it's back to bad for you. They don't know what's what."
Conclusion
Every time I've read a research article, a "journal article", I've again been impressed with the dedication, the rigor, and the discipline that goes into scientific investigations. Because of my interests, that's especially true for the natural sciences. So, for decades I've been amazed and somewhat dismayed by too many people seemingly rejecting the warnings by scientists of the damage being done to natural systems... and of the ever-increasing impact on humans and society in general.
I believe this essay explains a part of that rejection. Other things are instrumental, too... propaganda/advertising, materialism, the wanting of more & more & more, a lack of education, distractions due to "bread and circuses", etc. If organized human existence is to thrive on our finite planet, then all that has to change.
Some people believe the answer is for humanity to migrate to another celestial body. I'm open-minded, but consider the following. Exactly how are we going to transport billions of people to this new home. More importantly, who do you think would get to make the trip (should it ever be a possible choice)? My guess is: the Super-Rich, and a small contingent of "workers". Not many others. So, I don't think that's a viable option.
Though the obstacles are great, a much better option is to change our ethics, change our economic system (which is destroying our life support), and clean up the mess we've made. Some countries, Germany comes to mind, are already starting that whole process. Europe, in general, is light-years ahead of the USA in that regard. Kudos.
.............................................
Not only my opinion. Stay Well
