Science advances by raising doubts and formulating questions, and each discovery opens a door to new frontiers of understanding. This intrinsic characteristic is one of its strengths, as it allows for correction, comparison, answers, progress, and further measurement. However, sometimes, when scientific uncertainty leaves the laboratory and enters the public discourse, it can take on a new dimension and give rise to assertions based more on repetition than on evidence.
This is when the argument from ignorance (argument ad ignorantiam), or "appeal to ignorance," comes into play. It consists of attributing credibility to a claim because it lacks evidence to refute it, or rejecting it because conclusive proof is missing. The leap seems small, but a chasm separates them, and its effects can be enormous. A legitimate doubt becomes an apparent certainty, and a remote possibility begins to circulate as a probable explanation.
The Overton Window helps us understand how societies establish a range of ideas acceptable for public discussion. This range shifts, so that a proposition that seemed far-fetched yesterday can become first a common topic of conversation, then a social demand, and finally, a concrete policy. This shift can be positive when it incorporates knowledge and evidence, but it can be negative when popularity replaces facts.
These two ideas converge, and uncertainty can serve as a springboard for an unfounded claim to enter the realm of debate. The speed with which news spreads on social media has shown that it first emerges as a question, then gains prominence in headlines, and its circulation as a "trend" creates an impression of plausibility. During this process, the evidence may remain the same, but the collective perception of its credibility shifts.
Therefore, a responsible science communication policy must keep the door open to uncomfortable questions and new hypotheses, but at the same time, it must clearly distinguish between "possibility, probability, and evidence." This boundary protects public debate and helps ensure that decisions about risks, health, energy, the environment, or emerging technologies are based on objective reasons.
A mature society accepts doubt, but also demands method. Asking questions helps us broaden our understanding of the world, and comparing and contrasting viewpoints strengthens our decisions. From this balance emerges a citizenry capable of listening to new ideas without confusing notoriety (or the number of "likes") with truth. We must emphasize our capacity, first individually and then collectively, to transform uncertainty into better questions that lead to research with answers clearly understandable to the community itself.
@betancourt_phd
Excellent, my president.