By Saanvi Mazumdar, Staff Writer
Photo source: The Harvard Gazette
Scientific information is often conveyed to be a permanent truth, the solid ground in a world of uncertainty. At least that is what we learn in classrooms, what informs official policies, and what we see again and again in health, technological, and environmental contexts. But ever since the beginning of the scientific revolution, there have been constant waves of controversies where so-called “facts” are challenged or even overturned. A very recent example of this was when the Environmental Protection Agency wanted to revisit conclusions regarding greenhouse gases and their effects on human health. This raises an even deeper question: if scientific knowledge can evolve, what actually makes knowledge a fact?
A scientific fact is often described as an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed through evidence. It differs from a hypothesis, which is a testable theory; a fact is that the observed reality is not just a simple statement that is considered true. In addition, factual information can only be interpreted in a context of larger systems, not just in isolation. This means that although a single observation may remain the same, the way we understand it can shift.
The legitimacy of science is based on several key principles. First is empirical evidence: claims must be supported by measurable and observable data. The next is reproducibility: if an experiment is valid, other scientists should be able to replicate the results independently. Information should also be peer-reviewed. For instance, an overwhelming majority of scientists are in agreement about climate change because of decades of data and evidence collection. Lastly, there is falsification, originally introduced by philosopher Karl Popper, who believed that scientific claims should be testable and open to being proven wrong.
Despite having such strong foundations, trust in science is not always guaranteed. So far, the trust is generally high worldwide (average ~3.6/5) according to a recent study conducted in 2025. Most people see scientists as competent and believe scientific methods are reliable. There is no global “crisis of trust. However, variation exists within different groups of people depending on age, gender, and culture. Furthermore, international organizations like UNESCO have warned that maintaining scientific credibility requires protecting academic freedom, which ensures that scientists can conduct and communicate research without political, economic, or social pressure.
In reality, these pressures exist almost everywhere. Scientific research are not only shaped by evidence but also by funding priorities, institutional incentives, and public opinion. Industrial and political interests can influence which questions are asked, which studies are funded, and how results are interpreted. Even within academia, increasing competition and the urgency to publish can seriously compromise the quality and credibility of research. Some researchers argue that these systems prioritize output over thoroughness, and even imply that the need to publish and gain recognition is turning knowledge into a commodity. The value of scientific research is becoming less important for its truth and more for economic gain.
Currently, this entanglement between science and power is capable of creating a dangerous feedback loop. Governments often rely on scientific findings to justify policies, while at the same time, those policies shape which scientific findings are elevated or ignored. During crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, shifting guidelines were frequently interpreted as failures of science rather than what they often were: adjustments based on new data. Scientists, meanwhile, found themselves caught between presenting objective findings and being perceived as political actors.
Importantly, the fact that scientific conclusions can change does not mean science is unreliable. On the contrary, it reflects one of its greatest strengths: its ability to self-correct. History provides clear examples. The shift from a geocentric model of the universe to Heliocentrism was not a failure of science, but a refinement of understanding based on better evidence.
The real danger lies not in this evolution, but in misunderstanding it. When changes in scientific consensus are framed as inconsistency, or when all perspectives are treated as equally valid regardless of evidence, the distinction between fact and opinion begins to collapse. This erosion of trust can have serious consequences, from weakened environmental protections to public health risks.
So what, ultimately, makes a fact a fact? It is not a certainty or permanence; rather, it is the strength of the evidence behind it, the ability of others to reproduce it, the scrutiny it has undergone and the freedom of scientists to pursue truth without interference. As current debates around academic freedom suggest, maintaining the legitimacy of science depends not only on method, but on the conditions under which knowledge is produced.
Science remains a reliable system we have for understanding the world, but it is not infallible. Facts may evolve, but the integrity of the process that produces them is what ensures that, over time, we move closer to the truth.
