As a follow up to our most recent Five Friday Facts about the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Summary for Policy Makers (PDF), National Public Radio’s Science Friday program had a wonderful discussion of science and how it is portrayed in the media. The panel, which included a Pulitzer Prize winner, a professor of journalism, and a climatologist among others, focused on the reporting of science in the media, especially given the decline in readership and funding for reporters covering science.

Last semester as part of my doctoral studies, I took a class titled “The Nature of Science.” Science often has the connotation of being inaccessible to the masses. Regardless of this statement’s validity, western science tends to follow strict guidelines, with an aim of being reproducible and trying to explain the natural world. After all, science is a human endeavor. The climatologist from Science Friday’s discussion – Stephen Schneider from Stanford University – stated it eloquently. He said he “doesn’t like to use the word [accurate] because science is not in the . . . business of total accuracy.” This is difficult for people to ascertain and accept. Science is often seen by the public as providing exact answers. Science is a human activity – what Schneider calls “a human institution” in the case of the IPCC – and subsequently is impacted by our abilities and inabilities.

Attacking the data and the methodology of a claim is not the avenue to refute it. Science does not prove concepts. Rather it provides evidence in support of an idea. This lack of certainty can be difficult for people to accept, especially in light of a desire to have a specific, concrete response. In the case of the climate, Schneider’s point that the system involved has innumerable facets does not give us an excuse to automatically deny or refute a claim. Instead, scientists try to consider all the possibilities they can, inevitably failing to cover all aspects of a system. This does not negate the validity or value of their findings. Questioning these positions is healthy, but flat out denying them without substantiation is not acceptable.

Schneider wraps up the argument succinctly. He says that “we approximate” in science. “[Y]ou take a complicated problem like climate and break it down into the same components you would . . . in other complex systems.” He argues that “end of the world” and “good for you” extremes represent the two least likelihood outcomes; the fringes of a bell-shaped curve.

- Eric Wilson

[image source: Science Friday]