Is Science Meant for Certainty? Discourse for 2025 Health Debates

Current political movements, such as RFK Jr.'s health reform initiatives and the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign, aim to eliminate chronic health conditions. But are they asking the right questions? Health reform is often framed around finding definitive solutions—curing diseases, eliminating risk factors, and prescribing universal health strategies. However, such approaches frequently overlook the complexity of human biology, neurodiversity, and environmental interactions. Science must move beyond seeking absolute certainty and instead focus on understanding conditional truths—those that depend on context, individual variability, and systemic balances.

Science is often seen as the pursuit of certainty—an accumulation of facts that bring us closer to an objective truth. But this perception is misleading. Science is not about absolute certainty; rather, it is about refining our understanding within structured uncertainties, continuously testing assumptions, and adapting to new evidence.

To ask meaningful scientific questions, we must consider the systems in which they operate. Are we investigating a linear or nonlinear system? Are we reducing a phenomenon into isolated variables, or are we acknowledging the complex interconnections that shape outcomes? Good science is not about labeling something as universally true or false but about understanding when, where, and for whom a particular model or explanation applies.

The Case of Dietary Fats: Context Over Certainty

One example of how science struggles with certainty is the shifting perspective on dietary fats. For decades, fats were demonized as harmful to health, contributing to heart disease and obesity. Yet, more recent research has revealed a more nuanced picture: different types of fats interact with the body in distinct ways, and their effects depend on a person's metabolism, genetics, stress levels, and overall diet.

The issue is not simply whether fats are "good" or "bad"—it is about the conditions under which they have different effects.

• Saturated fats, once widely condemned, can have neutral or even beneficial effects in some contexts, particularly when consumed in whole-food forms rather than processed ones.
• Omega-3 fatty acids are generally praised for their anti-inflammatory properties, but their benefits can vary depending on individual needs and dietary balance.
• Some individuals thrive on high-fat diets, like ketogenic or Mediterranean diets, while others experience metabolic dysfunction under the same conditions.

These variations occur because the body is a dynamic system, constantly balancing energy demands, stress responses, and nutrient availability. What is beneficial for one neurotype under certain conditions may be detrimental under others. The binary thinking of "good vs. bad" fails to capture the complexity of these interactions.

Science, Stress, and Contextual Balances

This brings us to a deeper realization: whether something is beneficial or harmful depends not just on the person, timing, and context, but also on the transactional relationship between internal systems and external environments. Stress plays a crucial role in determining how our bodies respond to fats, nutrients, and other environmental factors.

• Under high stress, the body prioritizes immediate energy sources, altering how it processes fats and carbohydrates.
• In low-stress, well-regulated states, the body can efficiently metabolize a broader range of nutrients, including fats, without triggering negative consequences.
• Neurotypes that evolved under conditions requiring higher metabolic flexibility may respond differently to dietary fats compared to neurotypes adapted for lower-energy environments.

Science, therefore, should not aim to dictate absolute rules but to explore conditional truths—ones that recognize individual variability and the shifting dynamics of stress, adaptation, and energy balance.

Asking the Right Questions

Rather than asking, “Are fats bad for us?” we should ask:

• Under what conditions do different types of fats support or hinder health?
• How do different neurotypes metabolize fats based on their evolutionary and stress-adaptive profiles?
• How do environmental and lifestyle factors shift the balance of risk and benefit for a given nutrient?

Science should not be about rigid certainty but about refining our understanding of complex systems. The real question is not what is true but what is true under what circumstances, for whom, and why.

By shifting from a certainty-driven approach to a systems-based inquiry, we can move beyond simplistic "good vs. bad" narratives and toward a science that acknowledges the full spectrum of biological diversity and adaptability.

This is how we ensure that the questions we ask lead to meaningful, applicable, and evolutionarily informed answers.