Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Uncertainty is endemic to science. Even when scientists have strong confidence in a particular research finding, that result is always open to revision in light of new evidence. What we think we know using the powerful tools of science is not absolute, but probabilistic. No single study ever proves anything. Conclusions are contingent, dependent on populations studied, measures taken, instrumentation used, and many other factors. Absolute “proof” is elusive.

Scientists make room for uncertainties when they report their findings to one another in journal articles and conference presentations. Even though many express personal confidence in the findings, they are obligated by the norms of communication within the scientific community to point out at least some of the ways their conclusions may be premature. This means that scientists routinely include qualifiers and caveats in their formal reports to other scientists—words and statements that soften the certainties of the findings and spell out ways in which conclusions they have drawn may be dependent on the methods they have used and other factors.

Unwarranted Certainty in Much Science News

But when science moves out of the scientific community into the community at large, such qualifiers and caveats often disappear, according to science communication scholars. Moreover, media accounts often present only the interpretations of the scientists who did the studies, neglecting those of other scientists who might disagree with the findings. Many also fail to mention the methods of studies, which could reveal the limitations of the research. Finally, studies of science news suggest that a sizable minority of media accounts ignore the scientific context of the research, context that could speak to whether or not conclusions conform to those of studies that have previously been conducted on the topic. As a result, the findings of emerging scientific studies, as reported to the public at large, often appear as far more certain than they in fact may be.

The certainty of much science news is of more than academic interest. It can be particularly problematic when it fuels unwarranted hope for a remedy to a life-threatening disease or for the benefits of a new technology. It can also be problematic when it generates more—or less—fear of a hazard than is warranted. In addition, when findings reported by the media appear to flip-flop, as they do when one apparently certain account of science is followed in quick succession by an equally certain but contradictory account, such reports can undermine the public's confidence in science itself. For example, when a certain-sounding study concludes one day that a common agricultural additive is highly toxic and then shortly thereafter another study with equal certainty concludes that the additive may not be as toxic as many feared, it can be easy for an uninformed public to conclude that scientists do not know what they are talking about.

Unwarranted Uncertainty in Some Science News

Though much science news magnifies certainty in ways that are problematic, it would be a mistake to infer from these findings that news media always convey more scientific certainty than is warranted. In many other instances, science news conveys less certainty than the research warrants.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading