I believe in fact, that it is more or less hidden. The public is commonly not informed about the controversies behind certain findings. Scientific findings get presented with a somewhat authoritarian attitude - scientists "show", "proof" or whatever. In general the public representation of scientific findings is much stronger - due to scientific journalism - than the results mostly are.
Btw. science does not only not communicate this uncertain nature of its own findings towards the layperson, but also not towards its own students. The Philosopher of Science and medial scientist Ludwik Fleck called this the difference between "exoteric" and "esoteric" science. Esoteric science is controversial, but it remains rather unaccessable from the outside and is practised by a small group of experts - which Fleck called the "thought-collective". Exoteric science on the other hand is broadly accessible but presents it self as a coherent, unified bodý of knowledge. You just have to look at a standard textbook to get exactly this impression. Textbooks normally do not present the controversial nature of their own statements but instead present their statements a more or less certain body of facts.
Therefore I think his critcism is more or less correct. But his example is misleading. It is not about the sameness of conditions in the repetition of experiments. It is the inner drive of scientific theories to form collective social instituions that present and defend certain findings as fact towards outsider which in their nature are controversial. The problematic thing about this tendency is that relvant alternatives remain unseen or surpressed.
I think one has to see the two sides of science. Its ideal-type of rational inquiriy which only limits itself through experiment and its social reality with its rational-conservatism that is utterly hostile twoards innovation insofar as innovation is not absolutly necessary.
Thanks for your reply!
I still think his criticism incorrect - unless (despite the clearly described topic in the thread title and the OP) the point of this thread was a general "there are things that are problematic with science and its presentation".
Your points are completely different than that of the OP, and they don´t refer to the scientific method, but its faulty application and inaccurate description.
I am not a scientist nor in the science business. Thus I can not adequately determine whether your points of criticism are accurate.
Nonetheless, allow me to summarize your points as I have understood them and make a few remarks.
I´d also like to point out that during my education I have never been made believe that science is inerrant, can not be subject to corruption or that its purpose is to proclaim EternalTruths.
Argument 1:
The self-correcting mechanisms of science do not function properly or not as good as expected.
If this is so (which I am not in the position to tell, and on top am not sure what criteria to apply in order to come to a verdict of that kind), this is a valid concern, and I would be all for finding ways to improve it. (However, attacking the scientific method itself is certainly not the way to do it).
Argument 2:
There is a conspiracy of an incrowd scientific community that purposely and intentionally suppresses findings that are not to their liking.
Again, if this is so (which I can´t tell), this is inacceptable and needs to be changed, but it doesn´t discredit the scientific method itself.
Like with any established circle of persons, such developments are certainly possible (if not even likely). Nonetheless I would expect more than the mere claim that there is such a conspiracy.
(On another note, usually I see this criticism popping up when demonstrably non-scientific ideas - e.g. "creationism" - aren´t taken seriously by scientists. But, of course, that doesn´t mean that there isn´t such a conspiracy. [The fact that I´m paranoid doesn´t mean they aren´t out to get me.
]).
Argument 3:
The media present scientific findings as something they aren´t (cut in stone truths, uncontradicted facts) and doesn´t mention possible or factual limitations of their validity. They don´t inform the public in a way that allows the public to skeptically investigate the findings and the validity of the way they were gained.
I am, practically and pragmatically, wondering what alternative you have in mind. Personally (and maybe I am a bit too naive there) I used to think that
if I wanted to investigate scientific processes and finding I could do that quite fine. First thing would be to buy myself scientific journals, and from there I could follow the references to the respective studies.
Only thing is: I don´t do it (I don´t even make the first step), and pretty much everyone I know doesn´t do it. Scientific journals aren´t best sellers, after all. And a second thing is: I wouldn´t even have the knowledge required to understand most of them, lest investigate their validity. (Heck, even if it affects me personally, I usually don´t go to the sources. If my doctor prescribes a medication, I´ll at best try to find some articles about it on the internet, and then usually take it and be done with it).
Of course my newspaper usually just says "Scientists have found that..."(and adds a bit of information). Do you expect newspapers and TV news to exhaustively discuss the details of every scientific process? Leaving aside for a moment that the TVnews (even if they were broadcasted 24/7) wouldn´t have the time to do that and that your daily newspaper probably would have the dimensions of the bible, and also leaving aside that nobody would read this stuff, anyways: Who should write all those articles?
Scientists? (Which would only take the same problem to another level)
Independent non-scientists (Where do we get an armada of non-scientists who have the scientific knowledge to judge the process and results from?
On another note, I tend to think that the presentation of scientific results is often misunderstood because people don´t even have a clue what words like "hypothesis", "theory", "fact" and "proof" mean in scientific method and terminology.
Bottom line: If there is indeed no way for an interested person to investigate the studies that led to scientific results (which, again, I am not in the position to tell), this is indeed a problem. The fact that these discussions don´t take place in public media is not really a problem.