On Science

Make Science great again.

Welcome to Better Short - Ideas expressed in 500 words or less. You can find other essays here.

A recent tweet that triggered me enormously:

It wasn't the woo-woo first half (I indulge in my woo-woos too) but rather the casual misuse of "science backs this up." I loathe this casual stamping of science for credibility on random ideas and worse, feelings.

Corruption of Science.

Science has taken a serious beating in the last two decades. With social media, pop-science, pseudo-science and the constant dragging of scientific sounding nonsense into random areas like astrology or religion, science feels shaky.

Three troubling trends:

1. Blatant misuse of "science" to validate feelings and made-up theories.

2. Growing disbelief in science itself (‘western science’, ‘fake science’).

3. Corruption of the scientific method by those with vested interests.

As countries turn religious and nationalistic, the war on science seems to have ratcheted up.

The fake science sequence.

The fake science sequence usually goes like this:

• Start with a gut feeling or intuition.

• Find confirmation through personal experiences (confirmation bias).

• Stumble across a vaguely science-adjacent statement.

• Combine the two, confidently asserting that science supports their feeling.

This is precisely the opposite of science. Science has no room for selectively choosing bits that fit our narratives.

Even intelligent people aren't immune. Smart people sometimes combine interesting research to form compelling narratives—Kris Ashok's food theories are a good example. He tells fascinating stories but blurs the line between science and pop-science.

Misuse and Skepticism

Every time I hear phrases like "Western science," I cringe. Science isn't culturally subjective (although cultural biases affect what’s studied)—no one refers to "Western gravity" or "Western bacteria." Labeling science this way reflects deep-seated fears, often from cultures worried that science might dismantle long-held beliefs.

Yet skepticism isn't entirely unfounded. Industries, from tobacco to pharmaceuticals, have corrupted research for profit. Remember when smoking was "scientifically" safe? This commercial hijacking has seeded some well-justified mistrust. If "science" can be bought, who do we trust?

Does it mean we should stop trusting all science? That would be disastrous.

Just what the hell is science, anyway?

One of the best science communicators of our time (and a spoiler of movies), Neil deGrasse Tyson simplifies this idea through a coffee shop anecdote:

Put very simply, science is the act of employing the scientific method.

It’s the process through which we observe, hypothesize, experiment, and refine. Science thrives on structured skepticism; the belief that most hypotheses will be wrong and must be disproven. Any conclusions or opinions that didn’t emerge from this backbone isn’t science.

Science isn’t everything.

Science doesn’t claim absolute certainty. It thrives on unanswered questions and new discoveries.

Also, science isn’t meant to be the only tool humans should rely on.

There's a vital role for stories, myths, and philosophies beyond science. Humans are storytelling animals, and our lives often need the warmth, awe, and mystery that science alone can't provide. We can believe in things that defy explanation and find meaning in ways science cannot approve. Even some of the best scientists had an almost religious/mystical awe of our universe.

But know the difference!

Recognizing the distinction between belief and scientific truth is critical. Claiming these beliefs as universal truths or using them to exploit others for profit is unethical. Using science to lend more credibility for your beliefs is stupid at best or malevolent at worst. Discrediting proven science because it doesn’t fit your narrative is dangerous to the world.

The scientific method is one of humanity’s greatest inventions - we destroy its credibility to our peril.

Better Short,

Tyag