Writing about science is hard. To start with, it’s complicated. Scientists deal in concepts which most people outside their field don’t understand. Most of us have no more than a vague idea of what a boson is (my spell checker doesn’t even recognize the word) or what the difference is between a brontosaurus and an apatosaurus (they’re the same beast).

An even bigger complication is the way science works. Scientists accumulate information, form hypotheses, and try to find out if their hypotheses explain the data. If they do, hypotheses build up into a theory. The term “theory” doesn’t mean a tentative guess, as it does in ordinary speech; it means a set of ideas which is the best explanation available.

Theories can be very solid, but scientists are willing to throw them out if new information shows they’re wrong. Or at least they’re supposed to be willing. Like other people, scientists sometimes cling to their ideas even when the arguments for them are breaking down. Scientists sometimes debate fiercely over their theories.

“Trust science” isn’t supposed to mean “Trust scientists.” They can be wrong individually. If an idea is really entrenched and a new theory is counterintuitive, the majority may hang onto the old one for a long time. Continental drift is an example; the idea that continents move around over the Earth’s mantle seems strange, but by now the evidence that they do is strong.

The average writer isn’t able to take an informed position on these debates. Usually we’re best off going with the majority of scientists in the relevant field. But it can be worth going out on a limb to present a minority view. Things to look out for are whether the issue is really within their expertise, whether they have a vested interest in a conclusion, and whether their arguments at least sound reasoned. Asking another expert for comments can help in raising questions and spotting unsound arguments.

There are many specialties. An organic chemist has the advantage of general scientific training when talking about any topic but usually is far from an expert on, say, climate science. Some areas have partial overlap. A cellular biologist can talk authoritatively about some aspects of evolution but not necessarily about others.

Scientists often present tentative conclusions, saying there’s an “indication” or “some evidence” that something is true. Sloppy writers turn those statements into certainties. I’ve seen that a lot with the effectiveness of COVID health measures and vaccines. Conversely, some writers take lack of confidence as an indication that an idea isn’t true, when it indicates only a lack of sufficient data.

Avoid the notion that what “science says” is a definitive source of truth. Science is an ongoing project, and what today’s scientists agree on could be overturned in fifty years, or even in one. When a project is moving fast, such as the development of a vaccine, the science can change from week to week.

Writing about science is challenging, and those who can do it well are in demand. All of us can try to avoid serious blunders when addressing scientific topics.