Trust the Process, Not the Consensus

🌱 The problem with making science a belief system

What if I told you that science is a process—not a belief system, not a political stance, and certainly not an unquestionable truth?

Okay, wait.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines science as:

“The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against evidence.”

Although this topic is hyper-politicized, that’s not what this essay is about. I don’t want to discuss politics, mine or yours.

I am interested in exploring new ideas.

I am interested in hearing out differing points of view from my own (avoiding the echo chamber).

I’m interested in changing my mind or admitting I am wrong.

I’m interested in critical thinking.

I’m interested in asking questions.

I’m NOT interested in identifying with my ideas.

And yet, that’s exactly what I see happening when it comes to conversations about science.

For example, say I am identified with my ideas, and if someone disagrees with me (friend, family, or stranger), I’m likely to feel personally affronted or hurt. That’s dangerous territory. That’s when fights happen. That’s when the critical mind shuts down before it even gets a chance.

(Ever have a disagreement then two hours later you’re like, “damn, I wish I would’ve said this-other-thing instead”?)

It might be unpleasant to disagree. However, I’m in the practice of noticing why I might feel upset and exploring my views—and theirs—further.

But lately, disagreement itself feels like a risk.

When did we start treating disagreement as something to avoid?

Why does it feel harder to have real conversations?

What changed?

We’ve stopped seeing ideas as things to examine and started seeing them as extensions of ourselves.

Remember: You are NOT your thoughts.

These days it’s common to hear people say “trust the science” or “I believe in science” online, on bumper stickers, yard signs, etc. Most of the time it feels like this is shared with good intentions—to signal confidence in research, medicine, or expert consensus.

But there is a rigidity that I’ve picked up on, too—the sense that if you’re at all skeptical or critical of something in the science realm, you’re automatically on the wrong side.

This disturbs me.

Let’s look at this a different way.

Science isn’t a belief system, and it isn’t a fixed set of absolute truths. It’s a process—a method of questioning, testing, and refining our understanding.

It evolves through testing and refinement. Therefore, the way I currently see it (open to changing my mind!), “trusting the science” should instead mean trusting the scientific method—the process of asking a bunch of questions in a bunch of different ways to help us get closer to the truth.

Unfortunately, from what I observe these days, it appears to mean “trusting the current consensus without question.”

Before you jump to conclusions—no, this isn’t an argument for rejecting science.

It’s not about dismissing experts or pretending all opinions carry the same weight.

And it’s definitely not an excuse for conspiracy theories.

This is about keeping intellectual humility alive in a time when certainty and absolutism seem to be the default.

Skepticism isn’t the enemy of science—certainty is.

Science works because of questioning, testing, and refinement—not because it’s immune to being wrong. The fact that we can fly planes and develop medicine isn’t proof that science should never be questioned—it’s proof that questioning and refining is what makes it work.

What happened to being vigilant about where our information comes from?

What happened to the natural invitation to question things first?

And I get it, a lot of folks who emphasize “trusting the science” are often reacting to the potential dangers of misinformation.

What is misinformation really?

Real quick:

The Oxford English Dictionary defines misinformation as:

“False or misleading information, regardless of intent.”

Key aspects of misinformation that are relevant:

• It is incorrect or misleading but not necessarily spread with bad intentions.

• It differs from disinformation, which is deliberately deceptive.

Important to Note: What is labeled as “misinformation” can sometimes be a scientific conclusion in progress.

History has shown that some ideas once dismissed as wrong or fringe later turned out to be correct (just look up Ignaz Semmelweis, the Austrian doctor who was mocked for insisting doctors should wash their hands).

But that doesn’t mean all rejected ideas will eventually be vindicated—it just means we should leave room for scientific humility. What is “true” today might evolve with new evidence, and that’s the strength of science, not a weakness.

The core issue then isn’t misinformation, but the unwillingness to be uncertain.

The human need for an absolute.

Maybe a better way to frame it while keeping an open mind and not being ideologically wedded to an idea would be:

“I trust the process of science, which includes skepticism, debate, and refinement.”

A lot of “pro-science” folks might be thinking, yeah, that’s exactly what I mean.

But do they? Or is it signaling a side?

If questioning science, or aligning with someone who does, gets you branded as an enemy of science, something has gone wrong.

Here’s how to know if something is politicized. Which color (red or blue) do you think of when you read:

• I believe in science.

• Vaccines are 100% safe and effective.

• We don’t need gun control.

Sides are dangerous places to live considering how nuanced and complicated all of our lives are. They inherently divide people, weakening our compassion for one another.

(…meanwhile, as we fight each other…)

People in power don’t reject science; they just use it differently. Sometimes they use it to inform. Sometimes they use it to control.

I’ll bet there are people you love that have different opinions from you. And if they don’t, that might be stunting your ability to think critically.

Here are some people that actually exist:

Tulsi Gabbard – Hindu, military veteran, anti-war, pro-gun rights, 8-year Democratic congresswoman for Hawaii, pro-free speech, anti-identity politics, critical of U.S. foreign intervention, supporter of religious freedom, advocate for election integrity, advocate for women’s rights and most LGBTQ+ rights.

Caitlyn Jenner – Trans woman, Olympic gold medalist, Republican, anti-trans sports laws, pro-gun rights, fiscal conservative, pro-LGBTQ rights, climate-conscious, critical of progressive policies.

Bill Maher – Liberal, pro-universal healthcare, pro-free speech, anti-woke, pro-weed legalization, critic of extreme progressivism, anti-cancel culture, anti-religion, pro-Israel, supports some conservative views.

It’s impossible to divide life into only two sides. And boring.

When people identify too strongly with a particular stance, whether it’s “vaccines are 100% safe and effective” or “vaccines are dangerous and ineffective” they stop engaging with new information critically.

They dig their heels in on the “correct side” and shut others out.

Personally, I don’t want to live in a world where everyone has the same opinions and ideas as I do. And I don’t think it’s wise to trust the news or any institution implicitly without doing some of your own homework before arriving at a decision.

Here’s the irony (especially for science evangelists):

By identifying with “I believe in mainstream science” or “I reject mainstream science” they’ve stopped thinking scientifically.

To me, the most rational stance is flexible: trust but verify, and always leave room for the possibility that what we believe now could be refined or even proven wrong.

Early science once claimed the Earth was flat and at the center of our solar system. Newton described gravity as a force acting at a distance and then Einstein blew that theory up over 250 years later. Let’s not forget how ubiquitous lead, mercury, and radium were in medicine and consumer products until fairly recently.

Also, if you told my grandfather, who was born in 1912, that in one hundred years a device that could fit in your pocket would allow you to have a crystal clear video call with anyone almost anywhere in the world that had a signal he’d have thought you were delusional.

We are learning new things every single day. And there is so much more we don’t understand than we think we do.

That’s the beauty of science. And life, really.

But whether it’s vaccines or something else, having a strong feeling about a product of the scientific method shouldn’t divide us from our neighbors.

What’s scrutinized today might be accepted next year, and things people fight over—sometimes even die for—might eventually be proven wrong.

It’s a process. Life is a process.

Stay open and curious.

-Natalie