“Trust the Science” Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does

What critics get wrong about evidence, scientific consensus, and how we make progress.

---

Hi - I write this to cut through the noise and bring you the truth about what’s happening in science and public health. If that matters to you, please consider upgrading to become a paid subscriber. Every new subscriber helps me reach more people and do more of this work.

---

Someone sent me a clip the other day of a fairly well-known comedian and political commentator critically discussing science. In the clip, he put “trust the science” in air quotes, using a patronizing tone to suggest we shouldn’t put much weight in science because science doesn’t always get things right.

This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this person make this argument. In fact, it’s a regular occurrence and something I suspect became a fixture in his commentary after the Covid-19 pandemic. And he’s not alone in the way he talks about science. I’ve noticed many people, particularly those who are not themselves scientists, using the same tone and language. And while it might sound clever or rightfully cautious at first pass, what it actually reflects is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, and what “trust the science” really means when a scientist says it.

What “Trust the Science” Actually Means

When people say “trust the science,” they don’t mean science is perfect or that it always gets things exactly right the first time. They don’t mean that scientists are infallible or that our current understanding is the final word. They mean: trust the information we currently have, because it was produced through the scientific method, which is the most reliable tool we have for understanding the world around us.

In other words, it’s about recognizing that the conclusions we draw from science are based on tested hypotheses, replicated studies, and an ongoing process of refinement. That, of course, doesn’t mean we stop asking questions. It means we trust the weight of evidence we have right now, while staying open to updates as new or better data emerges.

Importantly, science itself is not a belief system or a fixed set of truths. It’s a method for understanding the world around us. A disciplined, transparent, and self-correcting process for figuring out what’s real. And it helps us separate fact from opinion, causation from coincidence, and evidence from gut feeling or dare I say, “common sense.”

And scientific conclusions do change, particularly when we’re early in the process of understanding something new. That’s by design because the method is built to evolve, which is how we make progress. The ability to revise what we thought we knew in light of new evidence is what gives science its credibility, not what takes it away.

So when a scientist says “trust the science,” they’re not saying “trust every individual study” or “never question authority.” They’re saying to trust the conclusions that are supported by the best available evidence and filtered through a process that’s meant to catch errors. Not because it's perfect or absolute truth, but because it’s the most reliable way we’ve found to get closer to the truth.

What Happens Without It

Before the scientific method, humans relied on tradition, intuition, authority, and anecdote to understand the world. And for thousands of years, what we accepted as “truth” often came from religious leaders, monarchs, and charismatic figures whose power or confidence substituted for actual evidence.

As an example, for a couple thousand years, medicine was often based on humoral theory, which was the idea that illness was caused by imbalances in four bodily fluids: blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile. This theory wasn’t based on experiment or observation but on the writings of ancient physicians like Galen, whose work was treated as unquestionable based on beliefs.

As a result, practices like bloodletting became widespread. Physicians believed that removing blood could restore balance and cure everything from fevers to pneumonia. In fact, George Washington, the first president of the United States, died after being bled of nearly 40% of his blood volume by his physicians in an attempt to treat a sore throat. Importantly, this wasn’t fringe medicine. It was standard of care based on tradition. And the outcomes reflected that.

For most of human history, life expectancy hovered around 30 to 35 years (up until the early 20th century in many parts of the world, and even later in others). Infants and young children routinely died from diarrhea, respiratory infections, malnutrition, or common viruses that we can now prevent or treat with basic medical care. Women routinely died in childbirth. A simple cut could be fatal. People believed disease came from bad air or curses. And treatments included bloodletting, mercury, leeches, or some “natural” cure that someone powerful or convincing said would help.

There, of course, was no system in place to rigorously test these ideas or weed out what didn’t hold up, and beliefs often stuck solely because they were repeated enough times. And if you challenged them, you were often labeled a heretic, or someone threatening power.

This is the world we lived in before the scientific method. And while we’ve come a long way, the temptation to fall back on gut instinct, groupthink, or persuasive rhetoric is still very much with us.

We like certainty. We’re drawn to confidence. And in moments of fear or confusion, it’s easy to mistake strong opinions for solid evidence. But history shows us what happens when we let belief guide us more than evidence. Progress stalls, bad ideas linger much longer than they should, and far more lives are lost.

The Scientific Method Changed Everything

The turning point came when humans stopped relying solely on tradition or authority and started systematically testing their ideas against the real world.

What we now call the scientific method began to take shape during the Scientific Revolution in the 16th and 17th centuries. Thinkers like Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and later Isaac Newton helped formalize a new approach to knowledge that emphasized observation, measurement, experimentation, and the willingness to revise ideas based on evidence.

This shift didn’t happen quickly, and it certainly wasn’t always welcomed because challenging long-held beliefs meant challenging powerful institutions and people. But over time, this new method began to gain ground because it undeniably worked. It offered a way to figure out not just what people believed was true, but what could actually be observed, tested, and consistently supported by evidence.

The scientific method is simple in structure, but profound in impact. It follows a basic sequence:

1. Ask a question

2. Form a hypothesis

3. Test it through observation or experiment

4. Analyze the results

5. Revise the hypothesis if necessary

6. Repeat

It’s self-correcting, transparent, measurable, and, crucially, requires doubt and skepticism. You don’t get to skip to belief. You have to earn it with evidence.

And that shift, from belief to testable evidence, transformed the world.

In just the past 150 years, the scientific method has helped us more than double global life expectancy. It gave us vaccines and antibiotics, wiping out or controlling diseases that once killed millions. Smallpox has been eradicated. Polio is nearly gone.

It gave us clean water systems and modern sanitation, both of which did more to reduce child mortality than any single medical intervention. It helped us understand germ theory, so we could stop blaming disease on bad air or bad energy, which paved the way for antiseptic practices, modern sanitation, and eventually, the development of antibiotics that could treat infections that once routinely killed people.

It led to the discovery of insulin, saving the lives of people with type 1 diabetes who once had no hope of survival. It gave us anesthesia, making surgery safe and survivable. It gave us radiology, targeted cancer therapies, and the ability to detect and treat disease early.

It revolutionized childbirth and maternal care, making pregnancy and delivery dramatically safer through sterile technique, cesarean sections, and neonatal intensive care, transforming what was once a leading cause of death into something far more survivable.

It let us map the human genome, making it possible to diagnose rare diseases, identify inherited risks, and develop treatments tailored to a person’s unique genetic makeup. It also gave us a deeper understanding of how nutrition, environment, and genetics interact to impact disease risk and health.

None of this came from instinct, ideology, belief, or common sense. It came from a process, a method, designed to test what works and discard what doesn’t.

What Anti-Science Looks Like Today

Despite everything the scientific method has made possible, today we’re seeing a growing wave of distrust in science, especially when the evidence feels inconvenient, unfamiliar, or politically charged. Part of the problem is that many people don’t actually understand how the scientific method works. They see science as a set of fixed beliefs or absolute truths, rather than a process of gathering evidence, testing ideas, and updating conclusions as we learn more.

That misunderstanding creates an opening for bad actors. Influencers, politicians, and self-proclaimed experts use that gap to sow doubt, distort evidence, or position themselves as brave truth-tellers simply for rejecting consensus. They often frame changing guidance as a sign of failure rather than progress. And in doing so, they erode trust in the very process that got us here.

And we’re seeing the consequences of that today.

It shows up in the denial of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It shows up when supplement influencers make sweeping health claims without clinical data, or when wellness grifters dismiss peer-reviewed research in favor of whatever product or protocol happens to line their pockets.

It shows up when people elevate “ancient wisdom” as inherently superior to modern medicine because it feels more natural or pure. It shows up in climate change denial, despite near-universal scientific consensus and mountains of data showing the impact of human activity on the planet.

And while attempting to discredit science, misguided voices will often say something like: “Well, science has been wrong before.”

Yes. It has. That’s the point. Science isn’t about being right all the time. It’s about being willing to update when new evidence emerges, which is precisely what makes science better than guesswork.

The difference is that bad actors can (and often do) throw out dozens of unsupported claims. And eventually, one likely will turn out to be right. But that’s just guesswork. If you say enough things with confidence, odds are something will land.

Science doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t rely on who speaks first or loudest. It takes longer because it requires testing, replication, and real evidence that something actually works, not just something that sounds good or feels like it might be the answer (in science, that’s called a hypothesis, and it still actually has to be tested.)

The scientific method is at a particular disadvantage in today’s media environment. It’s a long, tested process that’s often slow, methodical, and complex. It can be arduous, but the payoff is enormous with real, measurable progress that improves lives.

The challenge is that this kind of rigor doesn’t translate easily in a world driven by virality and instant gratification. Today’s platforms reward speed, certainty, and sensationalism, especially when something feels true or fits neatly into someone’s personal brand or ideology, which often persuades more effectively than actual evidence.

Why Trusting the Science Still Makes Sense

Trusting the science is just about trusting a method, a process, that is transparent, testable, and self-correcting. One that has delivered extraordinary progress over a relatively short amount of time. It’s about understanding that this is the only system we have that consistently works to get us closer to the truth.

The scientific method is slow and often unsatisfying to those looking for quick answers. That’s what gives it power, but it’s also what makes it vulnerable to bad actors who twist complexity into confusion, and use that confusion to push misinformation, sell products, or discredit science altogether.

No one is suggesting that science is perfect or doesn’t have weaknesses that need to be improved upon. But look at the alternative. When we rely on instinct, ideology, or influencers over evidence, we invite in confusion, grift, and misinformation. We lose the very process that has allowed us to live longer, healthier, and more informed lives. And ironically, we lose it at a time when we’re privileged enough to not respect it. To call science a “cult,” to mock consensus science, or to frame evolving guidance as weakness instead of what it truly is, which is progress.

Ultimately, trusting the science isn’t about believing it has all the answers. It’s about recognizing that it’s the best chance we have at finding them.