evolving scientific evidence
science is the study of uncertainty. never has that been more apparent than during a global health crisis. since the first emergence of this novel virus less than two years ago, we’ve seen the science evolve on mask wearing, hand washing and the spread of sars-cov-2 through aerosols, to name a few.
in her foreword to the best american science and nature writing 2021, jamie green writes: “the pandemic revealed to us, over and over, the messy, fitful work of science. hopefully anyone who once satisfiedly intoned, ‘i believe science,’ now sees that science is not a monolith but a process.”
while scientists are used to this process of discovery, failed experiments and scientific debates, the public has struggled to keep up with rapidly changing guidelines and confusing messaging. scientists have, at times, failed to come to a consensus and effectively communicate this uncertainty to the public.
our current scientific dogma is one of refutation, or the act of proving something to be wrong. rather than seek out the “truth,” scientists under a refutationist paradigm attempt to disprove a current hypothesis and generate new ones.
in statistics, the status quo (for example, that there is no difference in outcomes between two groups receiving treatment a versus treatment b) is referred to as the null hypothesis; its counterargument (that there is a difference) is called the alternative hypothesis. under this paradigm, you can never prove the alternative hypothesis, rather you generate enough evidence to reject (or fail to reject) the null hypothesis.