The Role (or Lack Thereof) of "Truthiness" in Science Writing

According to this video clip of Stephen Colbert's Colbert Report about the concept of "Truthiness," it is different from fact because it implies some kind of internal feeling where the consumer of facts decides what to believe. Colbert says that we live in a "country divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart." He takes a comedic look at the notion that consumers of news and science have a tendency to believe some information and disregard other facts as untrue. Truthiness is, more or less, the information that is developed between fact and public belief, where people take facts and choose to believe them, bend them, or disregard them completely.

Personally, when I make my life decisions, many of them are based on gut feelings, or simply what I feel like I should do at any given moment in any given situation. The thing about most decisions, though, is that most of them do not involve science. Should I go to lunch now or after class? Do I have time to put gas in the car before work, or should I go after? Upper Wismer for dinner or lower? These are not the types of decisions that require consult of science. Therefor, in cases like this I am fine with relying on my own personal conceptions of the "truthiness" of the situation.

When it comes to science, I admit that I also have a tendency to create my own truthiness. I know that scientific evidence says that I should wash my hands with warm water for at least thirty seconds, but my average is probably more like somewhere between five and fifteen seconds. I know that I should eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, but sometimes I need a double bacon cheeseburger for lunch, and no, I do not want a salad with that. I know that my car's gas light is on, but I'm going to try to make it to my destination anyway even though there's a scientific probability that I won't make it all the way to the gas station.

This being said, I believe that scientific facts are just that, facts, and am generally trusting of scientific findings. I think that scientific writers have an obligation to their readers to report facts rather than adding any form of truthiness. Journalists have a responsibility to report the truth in an objective manner, once all sides of the story have been considered. Science is science, and should be written about as such, without personal opinions interfering. Every individual obviously has the right to develop his/her own truthiness when it comes to the information they have received, but the important part is that they receive true information. What they do with it afterwards is completely up to them.