If anyone on the left was paying attention they would know that it isn't science -v- anti-science as they demonize it but politicized science -v- independent science. It is amazing to me that the same people that dismiss "tobacco" or "soda industry" science/scientists have no problem accepting "government" science at face value. That govt now funds the vast majority of scientific research in the world it should come as no surprise that a lot of it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power. This is not an explicit policy or devious strategy but implicit outcome of govt funded science performed by real human beings who respond to incentives. Read Ayn Rand's "The Establishing of an Establishment" in "Philosophy:Who Needs It" for a good explanation of the process. The politicization of science is destroying the credibility of science which should come as no surprise.
NB: Before anyone jumps to conclusions; not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him. Also, I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest.
If you dismiss government funded science and industry funded science as both being conflicted there is not much left.
> "a lot of it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power."
Is this really true, or does the science suggest actionable outcomes that you are confusing with power. I suppose the scientists could just say do nothing, but with so much to learn that would seem very regressive.
Why would you dismiss either? Accepting an argument as being produced solely for the purpose of advancing the agendas of the people financing that argument isn't a reason to dismiss any argument that is not statistical in nature.
Statistical arguments, however, are sensitive to the suppression of negative results, fuzzy classification schemes, and p-hacking.
> If you dismiss government funded science and industry funded science as both being conflicted there is not much left.
With good science, one can anonymize the authorship and still have something useful to work with. I want to eliminate argument ad hominem, not pick a better ad hominem.
<Good luck doing any kind of fundamental science without government funding.>
This is exactly the issue that Rand addressed in her article regarding the Establishment. It is insidious and (eventually) undercuts even an honest researcher.
The fact that you need the disclaimer at the end of your post is discouraging. I think you did well to put it in there, but it doesn't bode well for objective reason and thoughtful discourse. And that is directly relevant to the skepticism surrounding science in pop culture and mass media.
> I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest.
Based on what? I'm asking seriously.
I assume you're not a climate scientist. So, 95%+ of climate scientists (and realistically, more than that) believe that the threat is dire and also believe that our current models are accurate within reasonable margins of error. Given this, isn't it hubris to think you know more about this topic than they?
Consider Dunning-Kruger. The people who've spent their lives studying the climate are the ones most skeptical of their own understanding of the problem, and yet they're also the ones sounding the alarm as loud as they can.
What's the tipping point where you decide to accept the findings of essentially everyone in the field?
Why do you say 95%? Where is that number from? My own estimate is 15%, if you substract people who make these claims only so as to get grant funding which they would not get otherwise.
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire.
The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different.
Those are statements about the CAUSE of global warming, which doesn't say much about its effects (which are widely agreed to be dire).
Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group II has concluded that global warming of 2.5˚C would cost the equivalent to losing between 0.2-2.0% of annual income.
Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
That cost is primarily borne by those in undeveloped regions, where 0.2-2.0% of average global annual income can easily equal >= 100% of local income.
Further, from the report (emphasis theirs):
> It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations.
It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
stouset didn't cite the IPCC. While that admits the possiblity that they implicitly referred to the IPCC, there are many other sources of variables in the climate debate that are in the 95% range. The mere fact that one is 95% does not exclude the possiblity that others are 95%. Thus the most likely situation here is that you constructed a strawman in your mind, and implicitly argued against it.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists funded by the government agree: The government should fund more climate research"
FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed. How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment" for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest man.
If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man.
Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.
> If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man.
This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the wrong direction.
I have used first-principle, space/time discrete models solving the mass and energy equations related to nuclear reactors and reactor fuel during transients (got my MSME in this area). The climate models are of the same type.
I am not discounting the researcher's expertise but I am skeptical of some of the assumptions and methodology (of what I have read) used to create models that can actually be solved on today's computers. This is a huge constraint and the model designers have to make compromises to fit the problem into today's computational resources. They are trying to model the whole earth. To create solvable models the researchers have to use large space elements (of order 1KM^3) and averaged energy inputs (primarily the sun) to keep the time steps up. Such models are notoriously sensitive to such inputs and assumptions. So I am skeptical that we have not only a complete understanding of the climate but the computer power to do the job and make reliable predictions with any confidence.
In the nuclear business we struggled to get meaningful results from modeling just 15cm of a fuel bundle during a transient. I think the climate is at least an order of magnitude more complex than 15cm of a fuel bundle and we don't fully understand the climate and how it works. In contrast, we had all the design measurements, test data, materials properties of the fuel, cladding, coolant, heat rates, etc as input to reactor fuel models and it was still very difficult.
Regarding test data, the conservation of mass and energy equations only get you so far as there are many physical processes and phenomenon that we don't really understand and that can't be solved analytically (cf. Navier-Stokes equation on the Clay Math Inst. list) and yet the model results are very sensitive to your assumptions and inputs regarding highly non-linear effects like turbulence, viscosity, phase transitions, etc. and their impact on energy flows.
To be clear, I am skeptical but not a skeptic regarding computer models, they have their use. But extrapolating results out decades is almost certainly fraught with error. In the end, eventually man will have to control the climate if we want to survive so I am a supporter (of non-govt funded) climate research. My bigger concern is that the level of scaremongering on this issue is such that a staffer stormed out of a DNC meeting claiming he would be dead in 40 years due to global warming because the Dems lost the election. My fear is that such fears will lead to an environmental dictatorship to force people to sacrifice, not for the fatherland this time, but for mother earth.
> It is amazing to me that the same people that dismiss "tobacco" or "soda industry" science/scientists have no problem accepting "government" science at face value.
When a scientist working at a lab in a tobacco company gets a result that puts tobacco in a bad light, the result likely won't get published.
When a scientist working at an academic lab gets government funding, and gets a result the government doesn't like, the result likely will get published.
The notable lack of very many papers from tobacco company labs reporting results that go against the interests of the company that owns the lab, and the large number of papers from academic scientists whose results are against the interests of the governments that funded them.
Do you have examples of goverment-negative papers? Do you have data to back up the other claim? I don't think you've grasped the concept of "evidence" here.
Not to mention the anti-vaccine people on all sides of the political and religious spectrum.
This article really suggests to me a long term trend in the establishments loosing their credibility across multiple groups of people or at least that is the real issue.
It's also important to hold science accountable with a healthy level of skepticism.
There have only been a few reports on HN of bad science, journal bias, biased studies, and even potentially coverups (Theranos), but there are a lot more that occur that we don't notice. Science is not always real. Read past the headline, compare results, and follow the money.
This post has little to do with science. You're talking about healthy media consumption with a misunderstanding on what being a published paper means. There's this huge disconnect among laypeople, which is probably the cause of the antiscience movement, that subscribes to the idea that once something is written down it becomes SCIENCE LAW. When infact all a peer reviewed article means is a group of qualifed folks couldn't see anything immediately wrong with your experimental setup that would color your results and so enter it into the total body of work. Then, when the next group wants to study in that field, they'll compare their results to yours, and either add credence to the established lexicon, or provide a competing hypothesis and body of evidence. With the exception of blatantly fraudulent studies (vaccines link to autism, early cold reports, etc) the idea that "science isn't always real" doesn't make much sense. Experiments can be flawed, conclusions can be faulty or incorrect, but the process behind them is still the same. There's neither anything stopping you from presenting a counter experiment; infact the community wants that. Just because the ideas behind good science doesn't sell papers, doesn't mean that it's not near 100% of the science being done.
If you don't think 'follow the money' isn't a significant factor in how people (scientists included) work then you don't understand how human nature works.
> Science is all about fine tuning that healthy level of skepticism. That's what science does.
Science is a method. It doesn't do anything. Good science is an answer to honest skepticism. It doesn't create planets, change minds, or fly airplanes. It's a way to determine what is true and communicate our findings convincingly.
Science has no mass or energy. It doesn't do anything. Talking about science as doing things (like changing minds) just confuses what it's about. This phrasing is popular and poetic, but in this case, the poetry confuses people, even scientists and science enthusiasts.
Science doesn't save lives. Doctors do. We've used scientific methods to understand all sorts of things about the world. And we've used that understanding in all sorts of pursuits, good and bad, including curing diseases and transplanting organs.
Saying science changes minds is like saying understanding, wisdom, technique, or knowledge do.
Let us not turn science into a religion. Common sense goes a long way. The more politically controversial the topic, the less likely it is that science on it will be unbiased or valid at all. Religious organisations I don't even comment on.
Actually, I'd prefer if science, the worship of knowledge and the quest for enlightenment, WERE a religion. That is, if it were recognized as a /belief system/ and had the same tax benefits that religious organizations have.
I'm sure that those above who feel like the climate science that suggests man is contributing to global warming somehow benefits the government, would still suggest that the religious funding science gets is still clouding it's judgement. Funny that this never comes up when discussing the political agenda of Evangelicals...
Common sense: Everything that moves eventually stops.
Science: LOL no.
Common sense: When you drop something heavy, it falls faster.
Science: Not really.
Common sense: The sun circles us: it rises in the morning, and then sets in the evening.
Science: Turns out you got that backwards.
Common sense: Animals are the way they are, they don't change.
Science: Actually they do.
Common sense: Either this thing called "electron" passes this slit or that slit. Come on, they can't pass both slits at the same time, are you freaking kidding me?
I feel like there are some specific results from behavioral genetics that you think would be controversial among Left-leaning people. Would you care to elaborate?
There are specific results that are especially unpalatable, but I'm thinking more of the general conclusion that all human behavioral traits are heritable.
People treat science like it's a religious text, or a set of unalterable truths, and it's not.
Science is a method; period.
Science is a method humans use in order to produce a reproducible experiment -or sets of experiments- in order to collect data. The collected data is only as good as the tools we utilize to do our measuring. As such, when our tools improve, so does accuracy of the data we collect.
There are a number of issues with this. The data can be incorrect, or incorrectly attributed as a causation instead of a correlation. The data can be manipulated in order to prove a bad theory. The tools can be flawed or not precise enough. The peers reviewing the data can be manipulated into consensus. The theory itself may be fundamentally flawed, but the inaccuracies of the tools used can seem to prove the theory (see: electron shells and superposition).
Science -at its most basic- is a checklist. That checklist ensures that an experiment is both reproducible and as accurate as our data gathering tools allow -at the time.
When our tools improve, change, or become obsolete our understanding must also. That's why to some people science always seems to have two heads and is double-tongued.
As with most other things, education is the key to solving this bad-perception of science, scientists, and the data collected from experimentation and observation.
By the definition of science you are using, wouldn't much of climate science, oceanography, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, and archaeology not be science? In all of those fields we have limited if any ability to conduct experiments.
The conflation of experimentally verifiable science and observational science (and, even more so, social sciences) is the crux of the issue. This is not to say that observational or social sciences are useless, but that they are less authoritative and more open to confounding variables than experimental science. People use the results of the later as if they have the authority of the former.
It is quite useful rhetorically and, unfortunately, as is so often the case, good rhetoric wins.
Whole fields have been devoted to defining science; I don't think experiment is necessary to the scientific endeavor. Experiments in many fields, for example, often suffer from problems related to generalizability or applicability to real-world scenarios. It's a major reason for observational science, although not the only one. Problems with replicability have also been shown to be just as endemic to fields dominated by experiments as those more influenced by observation, if not more so, across different scales of analysis from the molecular to the societal.
I think a better definition of what science is is broader, something like "logical argument based on empirical observations," although that too isn't right. I think the appeal of experiments is in line with that, to the extent that you accept that the experimental rationale involves a logical argument pertaining to randomization over potential confounds.
The underlying problem being discussed in the article, to me, is the denial by scientists that science is fundamentally a human endeavor, subject to all the problems of humans: things like greed, deceit, ideology, and so forth. Scientists like to pretend that they are somehow above all that, which means they pretend it doesn't exist, which makes the effects of human weaknesses in science all the more insidious. We see this play out with the problems in academics, financial conflicts of interest, and so forth.
What happens is that a certain cultural subgroup, already primed to be skeptical of science through their social context, recognizes the human weaknesses of science. They then make the mistake of rejecting science wholesale because of this. Scientists, in turn, often make the mistake of rejecting the notion of human influences on science, thereby placing undue confidence in their conclusions, leading to a lack of accountability or explanation when failures occur. Some degree of evolution in scientific theory is due to random variation, or lack of appropriate data, but some of it is due to human factors.
There are within science actually two types of "science". The one makes precise models and therefore predictions and treats failures of those models and predictions as a big deal, and takes verification so seriously that they would rather delay publication to make sure they results are absolutely correct and not a statistical anomaly. Examples of the first include the LHC and Higgs-Boson and LIGO and gravitional wave detection.
The other type of science practically believes that "science" exists as a purely social construct where you convince others that you have ideas that are true. This science gives p-hacking, and irreproducible studies, and models and predictions that are wrong but that's ok because the over-arching theory is just fine. Examples of this are social sciences.
Also, the second type of "science" seems to insert itself into media and be involved with telling people how they should live their lives. An example of this is the dietary industry with "science" backing.
It turns out, the news media gives heavy preference to the second type of "science", the one with crappy models and predictions, but which the media feel can more easily become clickbait. Which article would you think most people would click on - "An explanation of gravity waves", or "Scientists say eating <common food> is killing you". In addition, because there is less dependence on precise models, the inherent bias of the "scientist" comes into play.
Because of this, the science that most people see in popular media is not where precise models get refined, but one where outlandish predictions are made and then discarded for the opposite outlandish prediction.
After being exposed to this, people decide that science changes from day to day, and that "scientists" are just really influence hungry people just out to tell people how to live their lives and claiming they should be listened to because they have some special knowledge or qualification - just like the "clergy" in the Middle Ages.
PS: The left also has a low opinion of science. You can see this when you see people critiquing studies because they come from oil companies, tobacco companies, or sugar companies. If they really believed in science, they would know that science works regardless of the background of the people involved.
51 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadNB: Before anyone jumps to conclusions; not a Trump supporter and did not vote for him. Also, I think that global warming is probably true based on historical and temperature records (but I put almost zero confidence in "climate models") but it is not nearly as dire as the scaremongers suggest.
> "a lot of it such "science" is used to justify increasing govt power." Is this really true, or does the science suggest actionable outcomes that you are confusing with power. I suppose the scientists could just say do nothing, but with so much to learn that would seem very regressive.
Statistical arguments, however, are sensitive to the suppression of negative results, fuzzy classification schemes, and p-hacking.
With good science, one can anonymize the authorship and still have something useful to work with. I want to eliminate argument ad hominem, not pick a better ad hominem.
> Read Ayn Rand's [...] for a good explanation of the process
lol
That pretty much explains it.
This is exactly the issue that Rand addressed in her article regarding the Establishment. It is insidious and (eventually) undercuts even an honest researcher.
<That pretty much explains it.>
Yes, yes she did.
Based on what? I'm asking seriously.
I assume you're not a climate scientist. So, 95%+ of climate scientists (and realistically, more than that) believe that the threat is dire and also believe that our current models are accurate within reasonable margins of error. Given this, isn't it hubris to think you know more about this topic than they?
Consider Dunning-Kruger. The people who've spent their lives studying the climate are the ones most skeptical of their own understanding of the problem, and yet they're also the ones sounding the alarm as loud as they can.
What's the tipping point where you decide to accept the findings of essentially everyone in the field?
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
That is very different from 95% of climate scientists think that the threat is dire.
The IPCC says that perhaps 51% of the increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gasses AND other anthropogenic forcings, you're saying something quite different.
That is the consensus.
Knowing that 50 percent is anthropogenic means that we can reasonably look for anthropogenic solutions. Though so far game theory has outweighed rationality...
Again, the actual consensus on damage is lower than what people imagine and scenarios propagated in grey literature by Environmental organisations.
Further, from the report (emphasis theirs):
> It is very likely that globally aggregated figures underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include many non-quantifiable impacts. It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations.
It's extremely disingenuous to provide the 0.2-2.0% figure without the massive footnote that this is a stark underestimate.
From http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
FTFY. I am joking but I think there is a serious credibility issue here. I forget who but some famous science researcher (not in climate research) once said that the conclusion of every research paper is, more funding is needed. How does that institutionalized mindset impact objectivity and who is paying for most of the research today? As I mentioned this is not an overt policy or strategy but just the way things work out once the government takes over funding science research. Read Rand on "The Establishing of the Establishment" for a clear discussion of how it works insidiously to corrupt even an honest man.
If you saw my reply to stouset then imagine that I tried to have a career in climate research. If you aren't "all in" on the validity of the models you don't get jobs, you don't get published and you don't have a career. And that's just questioning the validity of the models not even questioning that global warming is caused by man.
Moreover, the qualifier "peer-reviewed" is one of the standards being undercut by government funded science. If all your peers have to "go along to get along" then the independence of their review has to be questioned. There was the email leaks a few years back where it was revealed that climate researchers were publicly telling other researchers who disagreed with the methods or conclusions to publish in peer-reviewed journals if they wanted to be heard. But privately, through back channels and political pull, they got papers spiked and opponents blackballed and threatened boycotts of journals that published any "anti" papers. This is not science, it is politics.
This sort of problem has historically corrected itself[1]. Unfortunately for us, with regard to the climate, the numbers keep "correcting" themself in the wrong direction.
[1]: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
I have used first-principle, space/time discrete models solving the mass and energy equations related to nuclear reactors and reactor fuel during transients (got my MSME in this area). The climate models are of the same type.
I am not discounting the researcher's expertise but I am skeptical of some of the assumptions and methodology (of what I have read) used to create models that can actually be solved on today's computers. This is a huge constraint and the model designers have to make compromises to fit the problem into today's computational resources. They are trying to model the whole earth. To create solvable models the researchers have to use large space elements (of order 1KM^3) and averaged energy inputs (primarily the sun) to keep the time steps up. Such models are notoriously sensitive to such inputs and assumptions. So I am skeptical that we have not only a complete understanding of the climate but the computer power to do the job and make reliable predictions with any confidence.
In the nuclear business we struggled to get meaningful results from modeling just 15cm of a fuel bundle during a transient. I think the climate is at least an order of magnitude more complex than 15cm of a fuel bundle and we don't fully understand the climate and how it works. In contrast, we had all the design measurements, test data, materials properties of the fuel, cladding, coolant, heat rates, etc as input to reactor fuel models and it was still very difficult.
Regarding test data, the conservation of mass and energy equations only get you so far as there are many physical processes and phenomenon that we don't really understand and that can't be solved analytically (cf. Navier-Stokes equation on the Clay Math Inst. list) and yet the model results are very sensitive to your assumptions and inputs regarding highly non-linear effects like turbulence, viscosity, phase transitions, etc. and their impact on energy flows.
To be clear, I am skeptical but not a skeptic regarding computer models, they have their use. But extrapolating results out decades is almost certainly fraught with error. In the end, eventually man will have to control the climate if we want to survive so I am a supporter (of non-govt funded) climate research. My bigger concern is that the level of scaremongering on this issue is such that a staffer stormed out of a DNC meeting claiming he would be dead in 40 years due to global warming because the Dems lost the election. My fear is that such fears will lead to an environmental dictatorship to force people to sacrifice, not for the fatherland this time, but for mother earth.
> Consider Dunning-Kruger.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12918362
When a scientist working at a lab in a tobacco company gets a result that puts tobacco in a bad light, the result likely won't get published.
When a scientist working at an academic lab gets government funding, and gets a result the government doesn't like, the result likely will get published.
That's a huge difference.
The Food Pyramid That Made Us Fat http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/29/934261/-
Not to mention the anti-vaccine people on all sides of the political and religious spectrum.
This article really suggests to me a long term trend in the establishments loosing their credibility across multiple groups of people or at least that is the real issue.
I just re-submitted it to HN for another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13058847
There have only been a few reports on HN of bad science, journal bias, biased studies, and even potentially coverups (Theranos), but there are a lot more that occur that we don't notice. Science is not always real. Read past the headline, compare results, and follow the money.
Science is all about fine tuning that healthy level of skepticism. That's what science does.
Science is a method. It doesn't do anything. Good science is an answer to honest skepticism. It doesn't create planets, change minds, or fly airplanes. It's a way to determine what is true and communicate our findings convincingly.
Science doesn't save lives. Doctors do. We've used scientific methods to understand all sorts of things about the world. And we've used that understanding in all sorts of pursuits, good and bad, including curing diseases and transplanting organs.
Saying science changes minds is like saying understanding, wisdom, technique, or knowledge do.
Science: LOL no.
Common sense: When you drop something heavy, it falls faster.
Science: Not really.
Common sense: The sun circles us: it rises in the morning, and then sets in the evening.
Science: Turns out you got that backwards.
Common sense: Animals are the way they are, they don't change.
Science: Actually they do.
Common sense: Either this thing called "electron" passes this slit or that slit. Come on, they can't pass both slits at the same time, are you freaking kidding me?
Science: Well, you're not gonna like this, but...
Common sense, not even once.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/all-human-behaviora...
The actual paper, since this chain has been largely derailed for the confused to come in and conflate media/reporting with science.
Science is a method; period.
Science is a method humans use in order to produce a reproducible experiment -or sets of experiments- in order to collect data. The collected data is only as good as the tools we utilize to do our measuring. As such, when our tools improve, so does accuracy of the data we collect.
There are a number of issues with this. The data can be incorrect, or incorrectly attributed as a causation instead of a correlation. The data can be manipulated in order to prove a bad theory. The tools can be flawed or not precise enough. The peers reviewing the data can be manipulated into consensus. The theory itself may be fundamentally flawed, but the inaccuracies of the tools used can seem to prove the theory (see: electron shells and superposition).
Science -at its most basic- is a checklist. That checklist ensures that an experiment is both reproducible and as accurate as our data gathering tools allow -at the time.
When our tools improve, change, or become obsolete our understanding must also. That's why to some people science always seems to have two heads and is double-tongued.
As with most other things, education is the key to solving this bad-perception of science, scientists, and the data collected from experimentation and observation.
The conflation of experimentally verifiable science and observational science (and, even more so, social sciences) is the crux of the issue. This is not to say that observational or social sciences are useless, but that they are less authoritative and more open to confounding variables than experimental science. People use the results of the later as if they have the authority of the former.
It is quite useful rhetorically and, unfortunately, as is so often the case, good rhetoric wins.
What, do you hate science?
I think a better definition of what science is is broader, something like "logical argument based on empirical observations," although that too isn't right. I think the appeal of experiments is in line with that, to the extent that you accept that the experimental rationale involves a logical argument pertaining to randomization over potential confounds.
The underlying problem being discussed in the article, to me, is the denial by scientists that science is fundamentally a human endeavor, subject to all the problems of humans: things like greed, deceit, ideology, and so forth. Scientists like to pretend that they are somehow above all that, which means they pretend it doesn't exist, which makes the effects of human weaknesses in science all the more insidious. We see this play out with the problems in academics, financial conflicts of interest, and so forth.
What happens is that a certain cultural subgroup, already primed to be skeptical of science through their social context, recognizes the human weaknesses of science. They then make the mistake of rejecting science wholesale because of this. Scientists, in turn, often make the mistake of rejecting the notion of human influences on science, thereby placing undue confidence in their conclusions, leading to a lack of accountability or explanation when failures occur. Some degree of evolution in scientific theory is due to random variation, or lack of appropriate data, but some of it is due to human factors.
See how easy it is?
Why do you hate a broad, inclusive definition of science?
The other type of science practically believes that "science" exists as a purely social construct where you convince others that you have ideas that are true. This science gives p-hacking, and irreproducible studies, and models and predictions that are wrong but that's ok because the over-arching theory is just fine. Examples of this are social sciences.
Also, the second type of "science" seems to insert itself into media and be involved with telling people how they should live their lives. An example of this is the dietary industry with "science" backing.
It turns out, the news media gives heavy preference to the second type of "science", the one with crappy models and predictions, but which the media feel can more easily become clickbait. Which article would you think most people would click on - "An explanation of gravity waves", or "Scientists say eating <common food> is killing you". In addition, because there is less dependence on precise models, the inherent bias of the "scientist" comes into play.
Because of this, the science that most people see in popular media is not where precise models get refined, but one where outlandish predictions are made and then discarded for the opposite outlandish prediction.
After being exposed to this, people decide that science changes from day to day, and that "scientists" are just really influence hungry people just out to tell people how to live their lives and claiming they should be listened to because they have some special knowledge or qualification - just like the "clergy" in the Middle Ages.
PS: The left also has a low opinion of science. You can see this when you see people critiquing studies because they come from oil companies, tobacco companies, or sugar companies. If they really believed in science, they would know that science works regardless of the background of the people involved.