In contemporary media, the term “science” often fails to convey the depth we expect from it.

The phrases "science says" and "according to science" have become ubiquitous in headlines, leading many to wonder what these statements truly promise and what actual content they deliver.

Focusing on articles from 2019 published in well-known outlets, we begin with a piece from Time Magazine titled, “This Is the Best Time of Day to Work Out, According to Science.” This article features an interview with a UNC-CH exercise professor and references various studies. Yet, its conclusion is surprisingly simple:

> "There’s really no bad time to exercise […] and the most important thing is finding the time to do so, whenever works for you."

The content primarily consists of speculations about physiology and exercise effectiveness, based on limited and often inconclusive evidence. Reading it added little to my previous knowledge—what a waste of time, Time.

Next, consider an article from Women’s Health (UK), dated March, titled, “Is the Sun Good for Your Skin? Here’s What the Science Says.” For those unaware of the sun's effects over the past four decades, this might be useful. However, the article falls short of citing substantial scientific findings, instead offering generic advice about Vitamin D and sunscreen from the British National Health Service and dermatologists. The lack of specific peer-reviewed studies makes it quite general—thankfully, most of us understand that sunburn is undesirable.

For a lighter example, consider an article from iHeartRadio dated July 1, 2019, referencing a Daily Mail (UK) piece from 2015: “Science Says Smells Like Teen Spirit Is the Most Iconic Song Ever.” This article's significance is questionable, as it reflects on a song's appeal thirty years later and was funded by Fiat to market a new vehicle. The scientist's conclusion?

> "Even by applying scientific process, what is considered iconic is ultimately up to the individual."

In this context, “scientific process” merely involves analyzing musical elements, which seems more like a basic analysis than rigorous research. Rather than relying on an expensive study, Fiat could have simply consulted existing top song lists.

A more serious concern arises from a CNBC.com article dated March 5, titled, “Want To Raise Mentally Strong Kids? Science Says Stop Telling Them ‘Everything Will Be Okay’ — here are 5 things to do instead.” However, this piece lacks any credible scientific backing for its claims. It references a single study and survey suggesting that socially adept kindergartners may have better college prospects, but the evidence is based on small sample sizes and does not substantiate the main assertion. The author, a licensed clinical social worker, presents five alternatives from her own book, raising questions about her authority to represent “science.”

There are numerous similar articles, such as one from Parents.com stating “Science Says You Only Need to Work Out for 13 Minutes to Make a Difference,” and another from Real Simple, asserting, “Science Says Bathing before Bed Could Be the Key to Great Sleep.” While some claims are misleading and others somewhat accurate, only the piece from Business Insider provides enough detail on the evidence and its shortcomings to be considered reliable. Yet, the titles of these articles, often using the catchy phrase “science says,” obscure the truth behind their findings.

Using “the science” is not a new tactic. References to scientific authority have long been employed in arguments to appeal to audiences seeking credible support. Some authors maintain care and accuracy, yet the audience should always critically evaluate the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

In objective journalism, reporters must strive for accuracy, ensuring that sources are correctly represented and claims are substantiated. When articles lead with phrases like “science says,” they imply certainty, yet many fail to provide adequate backing. This trend makes it increasingly difficult to distinguish between genuine reporting and sensationalized content, as the phrase “science says” becomes a catch-all.

Thus, the term “science” has transformed into a buzzword. While it has a legitimate meaning related to various methodologies, using it as a standalone argument diminishes its value. When presented as “science says” or “according to science,” it conflates the researchers, methods, and institutions, suggesting trustworthiness to some while triggering skepticism in others.

Buzzwords serve as markers of belonging and can spread rapidly in popular discourse. They often infiltrate popular media, creating a barrier of understanding. As “science” becomes a rhetorical tool detached from its true significance, I find myself questioning the legitimacy of claims I encounter. I now perceive “science” with skepticism, wary of being misled by superficial or manipulative journalism.

When a single term wields influence over us without our awareness, it poses a risk. Even those who consider themselves rational and evidence-driven can fall prey to the allure of information presented in the name of science. This susceptibility extends to everyone, as buzzwords can be politicized, turning terms like “science” into symbols for entire political agendas. The trustworthiness of information may hinge on context and personal affiliations rather than the validity of the scientific method.

Fortunately, buzzwords are often short-lived. The phrase “science says” may be nearing its end, and the term “science” could return to its foundational meaning. In the interim, we should exercise caution and refrain from engaging with every “science says” headline we encounter—better yet, we should avoid crafting such titles ourselves.

We owe it to ourselves to approach reading critically and to write with responsibility. Language is inherently fluid, evolving over time and context, and effective communication relies on our awareness of word usage. When taken at face value, language can mislead and diminish our understanding, akin to counterfeit currency.