A Good Scientist Flip-Flops. You Should, Too.

Flip-flopper.

The mere mention of the word can cloud a politician in a mist of doubt and uncertainty. When the murmurings grow torrential, the storm of aspersions can singlehandedly muddle the reputation of any leader. In most respects, the term "flip-flopper" is pure poison. But when ascribed to a scientist, it's entirely the opposite.

That's because a good scientist is a flip-flopper. Or, more accurately, a good scientist is willing to flip-flop.

In any scientific study, a researcher will enter the investigation with a hypothesis or a preconceived notion of what they think might happen. Many times, they may even secretly want their hypothesis to be true. At the same time, good scientists realize that the goal of scientific exploration is not solely to prove or disprove the hypothesis, but to seek knowledge. Even if the evidence shows the hypothesis to be incorrect, the study can still be a success. Views may have had to change, but new knowledge was attained.

Examples from the Past

Imagine if the scientists of past centuries rigidly clung to their ideology as many politicians do now. We might still believe that:
 

• A substance called phlogiston is the source of all combustion.
• Everything is composed of earth, air, water, and fire.
• Life can spontaneously spring from inanimate sources.
• The age of the Earth is only 400 million years old, not 4.54 billion.

These widely held scientific beliefs were swept away with the tide of novel information. At the time, it probably wasn't easy to move to new modes of thinking. Mindsets had to be changed. Rules had to be rewritten. But humanity moved forward. After all, it's the fluidity of knowledge that drives positive change, not intractability. At a time where science can have a world of impact and is subject to politicizing, scientists -- and indeed all of us -- would do well to remember this.

An Open Mind is the Key

In today's world, a scientist should never begin a study on climate change with a fixed mindset or a political agenda. This can only damage their reputation and cast doubt upon their research. The same goes for studies on such issues as hydraulic fracturing or genetically modified organisms.

Last July, anti-frackers were angry with New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. (AP Photo)

In that same vein, many ordinary people outside the science community may not want to give up the freedom to drive inefficient vehicles or the freedom to pay for cheap, dirty power, even if an overwhelming consensus of scientists informs us that the Earth is getting getting warmer. If that may potentially have disastrous consequences, perhaps we shouldn't be so obstinate in our ways.

Or on the other end of the spectrum: A non-scientific HBO documentary convinced many of us that fracking means fire will come out of our kitchen faucets. But, when a scientific study emerges from the University of Texas that contradicts that, maybe we should be willing to listen?

It feels great to be confident in one's beliefs, but an excess of sureness can be an enemy of progress. Good scientists know that it's okay to be unsure. It's okay to listen to new information. And it's okay to flip-flop.