Some Canadians think science is a matter of opinion

[Tahuyaman]

Some Canadians think science is a matter of opinion

These are the same people who think scientists seek consensus.

[Archer0915]

Canadians are confused about science vs. opinion, poll suggests - CBC News

This is interesting. I think that Canadians sometimes give Americans a hard time over "science" related issues like climate change, yet 4 in 10 apparently think it's a matter of opinion and a fair amount hold "opinions" that have been scientifically shown to be incorrect.

Science is like engineering... Or should I say a scientist is like an engineer with one major difference, agenda!

[Dangermouse]

A scientific theory is the best most accurate summary/description of the data available at the time. It's not a guess, even an educated one, by any reasoned description. It's also testable.

[Chris]

A scientific theory is the best most accurate summary/description of the data available at the time. It's not a guess, even an educated one, by any reasoned description. It's also testable.

The key is testability. Falsifiabilty.

[Hoosier8]

Canadians are confused about science vs. opinion, poll suggests - CBC News

This is interesting. I think that Canadians sometimes give Americans a hard time over "science" related issues like climate change, yet 4 in 10 apparently think it's a matter of opinion and a fair amount hold "opinions" that have been scientifically shown to be incorrect.

Actually science is full of opinion which are called hypothesis. Until they are falsified they stay opinion. All the IPCC does is provide various ratings of opinion on the science. AGW is unfalsifiable and far from having any clear unequivocal answers thus remains opinion. Consensus is not science.

[Standing Wolf]

A scientific theory is the best most accurate summary/description of the data available at the time. It's not a guess, even an educated one, by any reasoned description. It's also testable.

"Opinion", as the word is commonly and informally used today, can describe anything from the informed judgment of the world's foremost authority on a given topic, to the completely random, uninformed guesswork of someone who has no clue what is even being discussed. The lines between having an opinion that means something and is based on actual knowledge or experience, and just having an opinion have been blurred by things like talk radio, social media, and the Internet generally. A good example would be the "polls" that media frequently conducts about current events in the news: "Do you believe that O.J. is guilty?" "Do you believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?" "Do you believe that Scott Petersen murdered his wife?" We have arrived at a place where it is widely assumed that virtually anyone's opinion about almost anything is as valid and important as anyone else's.

[The Xl]

Science isn't a matter of opinion, but human understanding and interpretation of science is limited, which leads to false findings that are given scientific credibility.

[Chris]

"Opinion", as the word is commonly and informally used today, can describe anything from the informed judgment of the world's foremost authority on a given topic, to the completely random, uninformed guesswork of someone who has no clue what is even being discussed. The lines between having an opinion that means something and is based on actual knowledge or experience, and just having an opinion have been blurred by things like talk radio, social media, and the Internet generally. A good example would be the "polls" that media frequently conducts about current events in the news: "Do you believe that O.J. is guilty?" "Do you believe that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?" "Do you believe that Scott Petersen murdered his wife?" We have arrived at a place where it is widely assumed that virtually anyone's opinion about almost anything is as valid and important as anyone else's.

The line has not been blurred, the line is, as Dangermouse said, testability, or, as Popper put it, the line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is falsificability.

Note that what Popper meant was not that a theory or hypothesis must have been tested but that the theory or hypothesis must state clearly how it could be falsified.

[MisterVeritis]

The line has not been blurred, the line is, as Dangermouse said, testability, or, as Popper put it, the line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is falsificability.

Note that what Popper meant was not that a theory or hypothesis must have been tested but that the theory or hypothesis must state clearly how it could be falsified.

If no test can show a thing false it is not science, it is religion.

[Kalkin]

Scientific fact: The climate changes.
Scientific opinion: Mankind is the primary cause of climate change.