The Promise of Science: “…truth [will emerge] as a large number of flawed and limited minds battle it out.” (Jonathan Haidt).

The Method of Science: come up with testable hypotheses, make sure they’re falsifiable, and systematically test each one. Be transparent about data and procedures, so others can critique your approach or try to replicate your findings.  

The Spirit of Science:

Awareness of assumptions: A good scientist starts by defining terms, making all assumptions very clear, and reducing necessary assumptions to the smallest number possible. Often we want scientists to make broad statements about a complex world. But scientists are usually very specific about what they "know" or will say with certainty: "When these conditions hold true, the usual outcome is such-and-such."

Intellectual Humility: “It is integral to science, as a self-correcting discipline, to receive criticism, and to be prepared to admit that some particular theory or practice is incomplete or incorrect. Suitably humble scientists are alive to the possibility that their expectations about how nature should behave may be wrong.” W. Jay Wood

Skepticism: Skepticism is a questioning attitude towards truth claims. It is not a knee-jerk or stubborn rejection of such claims but a hesitation to simply accept statements as true without further scrutiny. A skeptical attitude subjects truth claims to standards of evidence and scientific process: What is the evidence? How was it measured? Are there alternative interpretations of the evidence?  Is the claim falsifiable? And so on.

Suspended judgment: Scientists need hunches and theories to generate hypotheses. However, it’s important that they work to prevent these hunches and theories from becoming opinions without strong evidence. "A scientist tries hard not to form an opinion on a given issue until he has investigated it, because it is so hard to give up opinion already formed, and they tend to make us find facts that support the opinions."  Paul Diederich

Willingness to change opinions: Of course, opinions may be justified by the evidence to date. But opinions pertaining to complex cause-and-effect interactions should be held gingerly, as more data, better explanations, or improved computer modeling become available.

The Spirit of Science applied to Climate Change

Climate change models use assumptions and a limited set of inputs. Before accepting the results of studies based on climate modeling, know the model’s assumptions and inputs. For example, many dire climate change predictions are based on assumptions of minimal reduction of greenhouse gases and minimal adaptation to the changing climate.

Avoid the attitude that the safest way to prepare for climate change is to assume the worst case scenario and that other scenarios simply don’t matter* (the “better safe-than-sorry” heuristic). Make yourself familiar with the range of scenarios in the scientific literature, from the manageable to catastrophic.

Accept that climate science is still evolving and the certainties of today may dissolve in a few years. None of this is to justify inaction. But there are ways to plan for climate change that incorporate uncertainty and the range of possible futures that do not lock-in unsustainable pathways, early-stage technologies, or costly and disruptive “structural” reforms that end up hurting more people than they help..

Above all, be open to changing your mind.

—

* See, for instance, Matthew Neidell, Shinsuke Uchida and Marcella Veronesi, “Be Cautious with the Precautionary Principle: Evidence from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident” or Richard Long, “The Drawbacks of Planning for a Worst-Case Scenario”.

PS: After writing this post, I came across Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change are Wrong by Michael Shellenberger. Highly recommended.