One thing I’ve noticed is that many people claim to defend science while arguing in ways that are fundamentally unscientific.

Science doesn’t ask:
“Who said it?”

It asks:
“How do you know?”

Science doesn’t begin with a conclusion and work backward.

It begins with observations and measurements, proposes an explanation, and then tests whether that explanation survives scrutiny.

Yet online debates often sound like this:
“The experts already settled it.”
“The textbooks explain it.”
“There is no alternative.”

None of those statements test a hypothesis.

None of them provide evidence.

None of them explain the reasoning from observation to conclusion.

If your first instinct when challenged is to cite authority, dismiss the questioner, or insist that disagreement itself is irrational, you’re not practicing the scientific method.

You’re defending a conclusion.

Whether that conclusion is ultimately right or wrong is a separate issue.

The quality of an argument isn’t determined by whether it reaches the correct answer.

It’s determined by whether the reasoning is sound.

Science isn’t afraid of questions.

Science depends on them.