I really hate the term "settled science"

Let me just get this out of the way quick. If you say the term "settled science", "the science is settled, or some other variation of that phrase you are WRONG. There are ZERO topics within science that are settled. Science is expanding its knowledgebase for EVERY theory on the books. This includes controversial theories such as evolution or climate change as well as accepted ones such as cell theory or the theory of gravity.

Now, normally I see this phrase coming from scientific illiterate people as a derisive way to sarcastically mock a specific scientific theory, but I've seen science minded people use it before. So this thread is ranting at everyone who uses it. First, if you are against a certain theory (say Climate Change or Evolution) and are trying to be cute by using the term "settled science" followed by a situation where science has moved on, you only are highlighting your scientific illiteracy instead of making a sick burn against science. If you are a science minded person and use this phrase, you look like a fool.

Now I can accept that some science minded people try to use that term as a way to suggest that a theory is correct. I DO understand what you mean there, but keep in mind, most people on these forums who debate against science aren't reading the evidence correctly. And you are trying to relay a phrase that requires the listener to understand the subtle nuances of how you are saying it. Just don't do it. Find another phrase. It just gives science deniers ammo to continue the strawman debates they create around whatever theory they don't believe in.

Science deniers, science doesn't have to be settled to be accurate. If you find an instance where a small part of a theory turns out to be wrong, that DOESN'T mean that the theory is flawed. That is how science works. Everything in science is incomplete. So if you have a problem with a theory because it doesn't answer such and such question, your reasoning is flawed. No theory answers every question. If it did, it would be called the "Theory of Everything".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, that settles that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Talk about lumping people together, AGW skepticism is hardly "anti-science". On the contrary, it is those who challenge the alarmists who insist upon the scientific method, not the other way around.

It is the alarmists who use the term "settled science".

I hope I'm not wrong here, am I misunderstanding you?

I can think of a couple of examples of settled science...

Water and oxygen being a biological necessity for Humans to survive on Earth is settled.


But I'm being a little facetious, and agree with you wholeheartedly to be honest.


You feel better after that rant, Krazy?

You should, it was excellently scribed.

a reply to: greencmp

Forgive my acronymical ignorance, but what is AGW, greencmp?

I've no doubt I'll kick myself once I find out.

a reply to: greencmp

People from ALL camps use the term settled science to try to prove their points. The term is just inaccurate all around.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: greencmp

Forgive my acronymical ignorance, but what is AGW, greencmp?

I've no doubt I'll kick myself once I find out.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

People from ALL camps use the term settled science to try to prove their points. The term is just inaccurate all around.

I'll agree with that.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Water and oxygen being a biological necessity for Humans to survive on Earth is settled

To be honest, I hesitate to even say THAT is settled science. Did you know that H2O is one of the least understood liquids in science?

Revealing water’s secrets

We drink it, swim in it, and our bodies are largely made of it. But as ubiquitous as water is, there is much that science still doesn't understand about this life-sustaining substance.

For example, unlike almost all other compounds, which typically shrink as they get colder, water expands when it freezes — which is why ice floats on water. Yet even the reasons for this unusual fundamental property remain elusive.

a reply to: greencmp

Thank you, buddy.




Even as a believer in Human influenced climate change, I have to agree with your assessment...

It is often the believers who describe it as settled.

I think Krazy would agree too.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I mostly see believers use the term to try to shut up a denier's arguments, but it is still sloppy reasoning.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

For sure, but I was generally just implying that the fact that we need it is settled...

The whys and hows of course will take a little longer to decipher.


Not to drift, but it now makes sense why people freeze to death so quickly (hypothermia, pneumonia etc) when considering we freeze from the inside out.
Also brain freeze, being a large percentage water, it's no wonder cold ice cream or drinks can cause this reaction.




But back to settled science, I'm definitely in agreement...
All sides use it incorrectly.

Bias I guess.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You never know. We may invent a substance down the road that could work as a perfect substitute for water. Then we WOULDN'T need water to survive.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's true, it's a bit of a neener neener reaction as well imo...

Rather than listen to opposing arguments many will just say "nope 97% of the scientific field agree it's settled" and to be honest I've heard decent discourse against CC but nothing convincing enough.

Again not to drift and make it about CC. Just another example.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes lol that did come to mind to be honest...

But then would we be Human or some kind of hybrid?

Interesting take though.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Exactly. I see why they use that term in that regard. They are trying to bend the definition of "settled" a bit (obviously they recognize that CC isn't a finished science since it is being added to and subtracted from all the time), but science isn't supposed to ALLOW for bending of a words' definitions. That is something that religion does. Science works with precision. So saying the term "settled science" when you really mean that the evidence is so overwhelming that the theory is currently indisputable is being non-scientific minded. It's a violation of the skepticism that science is founded on.

Many times, I've talked about "Believers". Those who have drunk the kool-aid.

People feel comfortable when they belong to a group. Whether it is a football team's group of fans, or a political party. Or belief in Angels, UFO's, Aliens, or...for that matter...Science.


There was a time where Cocaine was available over the counter. As was Laudanum. Scientists and Doctors willingly said that smoking was good for you.

Today, it's Vaccines. A pill for what ails you. The Government is out for your best interest. So are the corporations that run your favorite local TV news.


A healthy mind takes all things in. It weighs out merit and potential for truth. It knows not to take any one thing as absolute truth.

If you screen out any one source...you're asking to ignore possibilities.

And it could be the making of a fool.


I know for one, do not know everything. And I am not a "Believer".

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Well if it's just us inventing a new substance to replace water, we'd still be human. If we actually modify the human body to require a different substance, THEN we can have a discussion about being hybrids.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good point.

a reply to: greencmp

AGW skepticism is hardly "anti-science".

It is. And the term is Anthropogenic Climate Change.