Presenting scientific consensus as “fact” is harmful, because it means that it will be harder to change that “fact” when more data is available.
Scientists are humans, but what makes their consensus trustworthy is their commitment to a process of forming testable hypotheses, gathering data, getting rid of confounding noise, and publishing their results. Thence, a model of reality is constructed, and a consensus—a belief—is agreed upon.
But NEW DATA MUST RESULT IN REVISED MODELS. That is good, and that defines progress.
Labeling consensus as “fact” undermines the idea that MODELS WILL CHANGE as more data come in. A “fact” is an immutable truth, and a reporting a change in scientific “facts” over time will undermine trust in scientists much more than the phrase “scientists believe”.
The problem with the phrase “scientists believe” is not the “believe” part. It’s the “scientists” part, which has lost public credibility.
