Three things we know for sure.
- Scott Adams doesn't understand how science works.
- Dilbert was never funny.
- Scott Adams is kind of dumb.
Smug Adams does make a humorous and skeptical point with his Twitter post, but I am going to rain just a little on his fallacious syllogistic anti-science parade. Technically, all science is regarded as provisional — it’s subject to change, and often expected to change. Problems can (and do) arise when this aspect of the scientific method is disregarded or ignored. Science as a methodology is self-correcting. What uncovers most scientific errors? More science! This is the grounding notion and strength of science, not its weakness — it permits and encourages change as additional evidence is brought to light.
There is an element of confidence or trust depending on the maturity of the scientific precept in question. No matter how many times we make observations confirming a scientific law, it could still fail the very next test. Will the sun rise tomorrow? We have extremely valid reasons and evidence to believe so. But it might not! This point is sometimes confused with healthy scientific skepticism by non-experts. Science that is wrong is still science — it’s just bad science. Notwithstanding the Alan Sokal Hoax (and what Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian did), whenever I see a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, I tend to be less skeptical about it, yet maintain “Interesting If True” agnosticism on the topic if I'm not sure. All humans are fallible and suspending judgement can be a virtue. It's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know" when you don't know.
Having said that, there is what we would call settled science. Technologies spawned from such science that we use every day that rendered smart phones, advances in transportation, robotic surgery, automotive safety, home defibrillators, safe food production, and more — science that sustains and saves lives. From quantum mechanics to particle physics and cosmology, science has shown us how vast and complex our Universe is. No other species on Earth knows what we know about the Cosmos. Naturally, this is not to say that even settled science can’t be modified. But such robust scientific principles are merely enhanced over time and almost never overturned. The methodologies that were employed to discover and create these amazing things are the same being criticized by those who fall prey to notions of confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and just plain ignorance.
Think about this: There has never been a single tenet, precept, theory, or law of science that has ever been overturned by pseudoscience, mysticism, spiritualism, paranormalism, supernaturalism, etc. But science has overturned plenty of explanations and ideas from these alleged branches of knowledge. For better or worse, we have all personally benefited from science, including Mr. Adams, and he knows this despite his callow jibe. Science aficionados should still strive to maintain a humble attitude to avoid the excessive overreach of scientism. So, yes, follow the science, but retain rational skepticism and think for yourself. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
So, duh, Scott Adams.