š§ŖScience is not 'Absolute'
All of us talk about science. We all invoke it in our daily lives: in conversations, in debates, in our thoughts. And I say we āinvokeā it because most of the time when the word āscienceā draws itself in our minds with a firm categorical stroke.
-What is matter made of? Atoms, science says.
-Does gravity exist? Yes, science says so.
-What is the formula for water? H2O, science says
But science does not say anything for itself, because it is not an inscrutable deterministic power that comes from something higher. And thatās the key, because it is precisely why science is not indisputable, not fixed, not absolute, and certainly not entirely objective.
Science was not revealed to humans; it emerges from humankind.
āļøAtomic Model
Let me start with a confession; although it is one of my favourite theories in both science and its history, it leaves me with a bit of a scientific existential crisis:
It began in ancient Greece with Leucippus and his student Democritus, who proposed that all matter is made of indivisible particles called atoms that move in a void. But it did not end there.
In 1803, John Dalton revisited the idea, arguing that matter is made of solid, spherical atoms that are identical for each element. Still, it did not end there.
In 1904, J. J. Thomson discovered the electron and proposed the plum pudding model, where electrons are embedded in a sphere of positive charge. Yet it did not end there.
In 1911, Ernest Rutherford showed that the atom has a dense, positively charged nucleus at its centre, with electrons orbiting around it, which changed our understanding of atomic structure. And it did not end there.
In 1913, Niels Bohr introduced quantised energy levels for electrons, suggesting that they orbit in fixed paths around the nucleus. And again, it did not end there.
In 1926, the quantum mechanical model was developed from the wave equation, describing electrons as probability distributions around the nucleus. Those ideas kept evolving and now form the basis of the current model. Does it end here? No. We will keep redefining reality as more advanced technology becomes available.
And of course, thinking about what Iāve learned, I realise something: reality isnāt a fixed point. It isnāt that the models of Dalton, Thomson, Rutherford, or Bohr were simply āwrongā; each served its purpose in its historical context and offered a useful, predictive picture of reality. The same is true of the quantum mechanical model: it is complex, more complete and accurate than its predecessors, and still evolving.
Just as our knowledge advances, so too do our models.
This is why I do not like to speak of science as if it provided absolute truths. In practice, we try to understand and predict reality through definitions and models, knowing that these will change over time, because change is the intrinsic property of science.
āļøScientific Revolution, Sir Isaac Newton
The scientific revolution is a progressive rejection of entrenched dogmas that gradually separated other systems from empirically testable knowledge. Alchemy, astrology, physiognomy, numerology, humoralismā¦ drifted away from what we now call scientific knowledge. Change defined the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
It is well known that Isaac Newton, one of the most influential scientists in history, referred to himself as an alchemist. He produced a substantial corpus of over a million words on alchemy. A compilation that far exceeds the combined volume of his work in mathematics, optics and physics.
With these statements, I donāt want to dismiss Newton; I admire him deeply. What I want to highlight is that. Even though he dedicates most of his life exploring ideas that lack a modern rational foundation, None could dare that his discoveries are unmatched, being considered by many (including myself) as the best science ever born.
āAnd now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle Spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which Spirit the particles of bodies mutually attract one another at near distancesā¦ and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will.ā ā Principia
š§ Biases
There is nothing more human than an opinion, but science is the discipline of shaping opinions through methods. Bias can slip in at every step: the questions we ask, the measures we utilise, the results we publish, and the findings we silently dismiss.
A quick example: A famous paper on pluripotent cells was cited 4,482 times. Later, a detailed audit found two figures with identical regions shown in different contexts. In plain terms, the images had been altered, so those panels contained falsified data. By then, the paper had already been echoed through thousands of articles as background or support, showing how errors or misconduct can survive peer review and propagate across a field.
Another example is the sugar industryās influence in the 1960s. The Sugar Research Foundation funded Harvard researchers to write a high-profile review that downplayed links between sugar and heart disease while shifting blame to saturated fat. The payments werenāt disclosed (journals didnāt require it at the time), and the review shaped decades of public debate and policy. Decades later, internal documents surfaced showing the funderās role, and re-analyses have painted a more mixed picture of sugarās risks. Itās a textbook case of how well-funded interests can seed the literature and public messaging to tilt opinion.
š§ A Living Method
Science is not a catalogue of final answers. It is a way of asking better questions, building models that predict, and replacing them when a better one comes along. Because it is human work, it grows with our tools, our data, and our imagination.
So letās keep our grip light. Hold theories firmly enough to use them, lightly enough to improve them. Be curious, test ideas, welcome surprises, and resist turning methods into dogmas :)
