Faith, or more practically, trust in science manifests itself in all sorts of professions

OPINION:

Does science involve faith? You bet!

Science can be defined as “knowledge,” or what we think we know about the world around us. And a huge portion of what we think we know is based on faith. Even the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in the publication of “The Evolution Dialogues” by Catherine Baker (2006), has endorsed the idea that “you have to believe something in order to know anything. All knowledge systems depend on faith of some sort.” Furthermore, since no one has complete knowledge of the myriad areas of science specialties, “[w]hat any one individual knows about just about anything, therefore, is built upon a trust or faith in the accuracy of others’ reports.”

Faith, or more practically, trust in science and scientists manifests itself in all sorts of professions, and the field of atmospheric science is certainly no exception. A good example of unavoidable trust comes from my own experience. My first professional assignment as a meteorologist was as a weather observer in Cape Lisburne, Alaska, in 1977. Cape Lisburne is 160 miles above the Arctic Circle on the shores of the Chukchi Sea. My teletyped observations transmitted from the cape became the official record of the weather in that remote corner of the world. I was meticulous in my observations and expected my data entries were accurate. Regardless, as the lone observer, the weather I monitored is now in the trusted record for the site.

Basic observations, like those from Cape Lisburne, are used in a variety of ways. For example, observations can be input to mathematical models that are constructed to simulate complex, real-world weather and climate conditions. Again, from my own decadeslong practice in atmospheric modeling, I can attest to the fact that much trust is required for such modeling. Trust that the model input data is valid. Trust that assumptions are reasonable. Trust that mathematical formulas sufficiently represent real-world conditions. Trust that modeling results are properly applied. And overall, trust that no undetected bias is introduced in any step of the modeling process.

Whether it’s observation, modeling, experimentation, basic research, or any of the various aspects of scientific practice, bias is a big problem to be avoided while attempting to ascertain objective knowledge, or “the truth.” But people tend to believe what they want to believe, or are compelled to believe. Many create their own reality or “my truth” and rely on confirmation bias to avoid challenges to their truth, thus unwisely distorting scientific discovery.

Science is supposed to be objective, so when politics via philosophy, policy, regulations or funding enters the mix, impartiality exits.

Perhaps the pernicious influence of politics is why contemporary science endorses or is silent about so much nonsense including the inference that XX and XY are a continuum rather than a distinction and that claims of “settled science” and “science denier” are appropriate to distain reasonable challenges to arrogant authoritative assertions.

For example, early declarations from ruling-class scientists that it was highly unlikely that COVID-19 originated from a Chinese lab were unfortunately counterproductive. To shut down knowledgeable scientists who defied official pronouncements and to label them conspiracy theorists is not how problems get solved. Quickly discovering the origin of a pandemic goes a long way to its mitigation and saving of lives, so exploring all reasonable avenues early on just makes sense.

Blacklisting or shadow-banning those who challenge modeling results that predict disastrous worldwide climate change is not good science practice, either. Given the iffy nature of atmospheric modeling, especially for predictions decades ahead, it is reasonable to question reliance on computer-generated futures for trillion-dollar decisions to limit the lifestyles of the populace. And claims that every bomb cyclone, highest-temperature-on-record, extreme dry spell, excessive rainfall, land-falling hurricane, and similar weather event is proof of human culpability for their comfortable living can simply be a demonstration of confirmation bias at work.

Conformance to consensus urged on by the tenacious tentacles of politics may explain much of the present misguided situation in scientific theory and practice, but it must not be an ultimatum in future scientific advancement. Eight billion people and their well-being are counting on faith and the devotion to true science.

• Anthony J. Sadar is an adjunct associate professor at Geneva College and co-author of “Environmental Risk Communication: Principles and Practices for Industry, 2nd Edition” (CRC Press, 2021).