Scientists spend their careers trying to understand the world, but a new study suggests they have surprisingly different ideas about what science itself is. The study, published in Royal Society Open Science, found that scientists disagree about the meaning and purpose of science even more than the general public does. Of the 18 descriptions of science examined, few received unqualified endorsement from scientists, who often expressed reservations even about ideas they generally agreed with.
"What was surprising to me was that there was quite a bit of disagreement between scientists, including scientists who are in the same subfield," says Marina Dubova, a former Santa Fe Institute postdoctoral researcher who led the study. The public, meanwhile, tended to have a more uniform and idealized view of science as a reliable process for uncovering objective truths, with less emphasis on creativity or uncertainty.
The findings suggest these differences could influence which discoveries scientists pursue and how the public judges their work. They could also help explain why people become frustrated when scientists cannot provide definitive answers or revise their conclusions as new evidence emerges. Dubova, now an assistant professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, conducted the research with Princeton University researcher Qiawen E. Liu. They surveyed 91 scientists and 99 members of the public, asking them to evaluate 18 historical descriptions of science, including science as detective work, a search for truth, or a mirror reflecting reality.
Participants broadly agreed that science involves curiosity-driven exploration and solving mysteries. Beyond that common ground, however, scientists held widely differing views. Some saw science as a search for objective truth, while others emphasized the role of human judgment and creativity. They also disagreed about whether research follows established methods or requires improvisation. Dubova suspects these differences arise partly because scientists develop their own approaches through experience. Like chefs who disagree about cooking, researchers don't necessarily share the same ideas about how best to do their jobs.
Interestingly, the public's views were closer to those of physicists and biologists than researchers in psychology or the social sciences. One possible explanation is that physics and biology feature more prominently in science education, though Dubova cautions that more research is needed to confirm that connection.
The findings also raise questions about artificial intelligence. As researchers develop AI systems capable of conducting scientific research, Dubova worries that automating discovery could reinforce one narrow understanding of science at the expense of other valuable approaches.
The research was supported by SFI's Lou Schuyler Seed Grant Fund, established in 2022 to support exploratory research by early-career scientists. Dubova used the funding to compensate study participants, helping make the research possible. For Dubova, the study is an early step toward understanding how different conceptions of science shape research itself. "Don't take the common understanding of science for granted," she says. "Always ask. Always be curious about what someone has in mind."
Royal Society Open Science
Everyone knows what science is…until you ask
11-Nov-2026