I really am going to start up long discussions about scientific topics themselves. However, I think it is very necessary to set up some more foundation before going into such things.

Much of the charlatanism of the politicized science “debate” rests on exploiting common misunderstandings of what science actually is, how it works and the words scientists use. It creates an atmosphere of willful confusion and misdirection.

Science has many terms, that when used, mean very specific and carefully (frequently mathematically) defined ideas. Precise language is essential because without it, one can quickly lose the point, or be led to understand something completely different than what is being said. Scientific writing does not have very many synonyms. If there are two different words, they almost certainly represent two different concepts. Unfortunately, everyday communication is rarely so technical. Much unnecessary conflict between scientists and everyday people comes from the misuse of technical words by confabulating them with their everyday meanings. Consider the following (painfully inadequate to a scientist) definition provided by a popular dictionary.

Science is, according to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary: “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

So science does not address specific truths and specific laws as well?
What is this scientific method anyway? Worst of all, is the phrase especially as obtained by the scientific method, because this implies there is at least some science that was not obtained and tested through the scientific method. I don’t recommend suggesting this definition to a scientist any more than I would recommend suggesting that some pork is kosher to a rabbi.

Definition: Science means the body of knowledge about, and consistent models of, natural phenomena as only obtained and rigorously tested through the scientific method, or the act of obtaining such knowledge or creating such models through the scientific method.

This immediately implies that something which is outside of the scientific method is automatically neither science nor scientific. Now, “not scientific” does not necessarily mean bad, wrong, useless or untrue. For instance, the notion that one should treat animals compassionately has nothing to do with the definition of science, but has everything to do with ethics. Even though Shakespeare’s sonnets are not taught in Physics 101, they do beautifully express how some people feel about their spouses. On the other hand, “not scientific” means just that, and it can cut two ways. If an idea can not be approached by the scientific method, then it can never be either supported or denied by science.

Definition: The scientific method is the four step process by which the scientific community collectively gathers and analyzes observations of the natural world in order to create tested, consistent, predictive and falsifiable models of natural phenomena. Further, this process demands that the final arbiter of any scientific dispute is observation.

In other words, if you believe that God made the universe, then the universe He set up, and hence Him, Himself is the final arbiter.

Before getting to the four steps, it is important to note that nowhere in this definition is there any room for democracy, personal preference or being “even handed” with the other side. In a scientific debate, once sufficient data comes in, there is always a winner and a loser.

Amongst professional scientists, these debates generally take two forms. Firstly, “does this really mean what you think it means?” Secondly, “did you really see what you think you saw?” Once those debates are settled, you have clarity. Both debates are closed by more data and/or better analysis. Eventually, the evidence mounts and consensus is reached. An open debate implies that there is, as yet, insufficient data, incomplete analysis or both. The final word always goes to the physical evidence itself. There is no “second place.” This is as it should be. Good scientists do not say that the universe is some way that it isn’t to please anyone, ever.

The four steps:

1. An interesting phenomenon is observed and described.

2. A hypothesis is formed to explain the phenomenon. A hypothesis usually takes the form of positing: a new or refined picture of some situation, a causal relationship or a mathematical description. It is an “educated guess.” It is patently not a theory.

3. If the hypothesis actually reflects what is going on, it will not contradict other observed phenomena and the existence of new phenomena will be predicted as consequences of the hypothesis. These consequences are identified and searched for. In this step, the new predictions will be the subject of experiment. If the universe does not comply with the prediction then, the hypothesis can not be the correct explanation.

For example, if your hypothesis is that the Earth is round, it is implied that one could go west from England, go all the way around the world, and eventually come back to England from the east. The experiment would be to get on a ship or a plane and try it. If you fall off the edge, then the hypothesis was wrong. This is what we mean by falsifiable.

4. Evidence mounts. Experiments and analyses are done by multiple independent observers. If the predictions of the hypothesis keep coming true and the hypothesis continues to be consistent with observed phenomena, it starts to become accepted by consensus as a correct model of the physical world. If new evidence comes in, that challenges the model, the model is either refined to incorporate the new evidence, and thus, once again, be consistent with known observation, or the model is completely rejected and a new hypothesis must be started back at step one. The latest, refined version of the model, which is consistent with all tested predictions and available observations, is called a theory. Theory does not mean here what it does in everyday use.

Please note that at each step, there is a connection with the real, observable, physical world. Many people have the false conception that somehow science is disconnected from reality. This could not be further from the truth. All those people are saying is that they don’t get it and that they want to sop their egos by pretending that science isn’t important.

Once something has been established as theory in the scientific sense, it is as true as the entire scientific community can tell, to a standard far more strict, than any court of law. The whole point of the independent observers doing independent trials is to remove human error and bias from the process. If 1,000 people show that something happened in 1,000 different ways, what are the odds that all the 1,000 observers were biased and that all of the 1,000 experiments were flawed?

Some theories, once established, go for centuries without needing to be refined. By that point, the evidence literally comprises millions of observations and man-years of work. Refining does not mean throwing out either. For instance Newton’s theory of gravity was refined by Einstein’s theory of gravity. However, Einstein’s theory contains Newton’s theory, and after over 300 years, Newton’s math is still all that one needs to put a satellite into orbit or a man on the moon. As another example, many think that the Earth is round, means that the Earth is a sphere. For many problems, this is a perfectly acceptable model. In reality, spheres don’t have mountains or valleys, but the Earth’s shape is still round, if not a perfect sphere. “The Earth is round” is an example of a valid scientific theory.

One of the most hurtful things that can be said to a scientist is to try to dismiss a theory in the scientific sense of the word as “only a theory” in the common sense of the word. This statement not only demonstrates that the speaker has no understanding of how science works, let alone the scientific point they are about to get wrong, but implies that all those years of observation, careful work and painstaking analysis by diligent people meant nothing. It is as obnoxious as saying to a rabbi that “the Torah is just a story”.