Since the days when Isaac Newton formed his theory of gravity by observing a falling apple, science has been intricately woven into our modern society.

This process, in which the truths of the universe are observed, is ambiguous to many.

The ambiguity of scientific results is partially a result of the process. To ensure that the outcome of an experiment is valid, scientists try to control as many variables as possible.

This process can lead to meaningless results. Reality is so much more complex than a carefully controlled experiment, where assuming the whole is simply a sum of its parts is not always correct.

One good example is climate change, where individual pieces combine in unexpected ways. Complicated models are used to try to understand these interactions, but result in an unclear conclusion. That is why predictions of the future global temperature can vary by as much as seven degrees Fahrenheit.

Uncertainty about the natural world is only a part of the misinterpretation. Many people understand that predicting the global temperature is problematic. The language of science can lead to confusion. Nearly every scientific term found in textbooks, journals and reports have a specific and well-defined definition. This terminology has not always been correctly translated to the general public. A good example is the word “theory.”

“Theory” conjures up the image of someone making an unsubstantiated opinion. A scientific theory is nearly the opposite.

For example, the theory of evolution almost sounds like the fanciful sentiments of Charles Darwin during a Galapagos vacation. In reality, this theory is the result of the careful observation and verification by countless generations.

This distinction would remain a primarily academic dispute if it did not have serious consequences.

The best example of this is the rise and fall of a simple compound called tetraethyl lead. Tetraethyl lead is the gasoline additive that produced leaded gasoline. The health effects of lead were well known in the 1920s as tetraethyl lead began commercial production. Several deaths in the additive’s production facility led to a year-long moratorium as the impacts were studied by scientists. These experts concluded that the environmental impacts of leaded gasoline were negligible.

Uncertainty related to the low concentrations of lead emitted from the tailpipe let production of the additive resume at top speed. The rest is history.

This lack of certainty has also been used to prevent action. Numerous groups have used the ambiguity in climate change models to resist action. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report is full of phrases such as “more likely than not” and “medium evidence” that make it sound like the hours of research and millions of dollars spent have resulted in a definitive “maybe” for climate change. The gap in understanding between scientists and the general public has led to numerous problems.

With scientific inquiry deeply ingrained in our decision making process, we need to make a better effort to ensure that important concepts and ideas are not lost in translation to the detriment of us all.

Reach columnist Mike Noon at opinion@dailyuw.com.