Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists

Summary

This script explores the public's skepticism towards scientific claims, such as climate change and vaccine safety, despite scientific consensus. It challenges the traditional view of the scientific method and highlights the actual practices of scientists, including inductive reasoning and modeling. The speaker emphasizes that trust in science is rooted in the collective wisdom and rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community, akin to the reliability of technology resulting from cumulative expertise.

Takeaways

• 🌡️ Climate change and vaccine safety are topics where public trust in scientific information is crucial but often questioned.
• 🤔 The general public's skepticism towards scientific claims is highlighted by polls showing significant doubt about climate change, evolution, and vaccines.
• 🔬 Scientists differentiate their work from faith, emphasizing that belief is not the foundation of scientific inquiry but evidence and reason.
• 📚 The scientific method, as commonly taught, is the hypothetical-deductive method, which involves forming hypotheses, deducing predictions, and testing these predictions.
• 🌌 Einstein's theory of general relativity serves as an example of successful scientific prediction and testing, with light bending around the sun as a confirmation of his theory.
• ❌ The textbook model of the scientific method is flawed, as it can lead to false predictions and is not the only way science is conducted.
• 🔍 Auxiliary hypotheses, or additional assumptions scientists make, can affect the outcome of scientific tests and are a common issue in scientific practice.
• 🔄 Inductive reasoning in science, as demonstrated by Charles Darwin's work, often starts with observations and data collection before forming a theory.
• 📊 Scientific models and computer simulations are tools used to understand complex phenomena like climate change and help determine causality.
• 👥 The consensus of scientific experts, reached through collective scrutiny and evidence evaluation, forms the basis of scientific knowledge.
• 🧠 Trust in science is akin to trust in technology, based on the collective work and wisdom of the scientific community rather than individual genius.

Q & A

Why is it important to trust scientific information when making decisions about issues like climate change and vaccine safety?

Trusting scientific information is crucial because it provides evidence-based guidance for addressing complex issues that impact society and the environment. Scientific findings are derived from rigorous research and analysis, offering a reliable foundation for informed decision-making.

What is the difference between faith and science as discussed in the script?

Faith is based on belief without requiring empirical evidence, often associated with religious beliefs. In contrast, science is grounded in empirical evidence, testable hypotheses, and relies on the scientific method to establish facts and theories.

Can you explain Blaise Pascal's wager and how it relates to the discussion on faith versus science?

Pascal's wager is a philosophical argument that suggests it is more beneficial to believe in God's existence because the potential gains outweigh the losses. It illustrates the concept of making a leap of faith. The script contrasts this with science, which relies on evidence and reason rather than belief.

What is the 'textbook method' of science that the script refers to and why is it problematic?

The 'textbook method,' also known as the hypothetical deductive method, involves scientists developing hypotheses, deducing consequences, and testing these in the natural world. The script argues that this method is oversimplified and does not accurately represent how science is conducted, as it fails to account for the complexity and inductive reasoning often used in scientific research.

What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent and why does it present a problem for the textbook model of science?

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is a logical error where the truth of a prediction is mistakenly taken as proof of the truth of the theory that predicted it. This is problematic because even false theories can make true predictions, so successful predictions do not necessarily validate a scientific theory.

How do auxiliary hypotheses complicate the relationship between predictions and scientific theories?

Auxiliary hypotheses are additional assumptions made during scientific investigations that may not be explicitly stated. They can complicate the validation of a theory because if these assumptions are incorrect, even accurate predictions may not support the original theory as intended.

What is the role of inductive reasoning in scientific research, as opposed to the deductive reasoning suggested by the textbook model?

Inductive reasoning involves drawing general conclusions from specific observations. Unlike deductive reasoning, which goes from general premises to specific conclusions, inductive reasoning is more about forming hypotheses from patterns observed in data, as exemplified by Charles Darwin's work on natural selection.

Why do scientists often rely on computer simulations to understand complex phenomena like climate change?

Computer simulations allow scientists to model and analyze complex systems with multiple variables. They can reproduce real-world observations and test the impact of different factors, helping to identify the causes of phenomena such as climate change.

What does the script suggest as the ultimate determinant of scientific truth?

The script suggests that scientific truth is determined by the consensus of experts within the scientific community. This consensus is reached through a process of organized skepticism, where evidence is collectively scrutinized and evaluated.

How does the script address the concern that trusting science might be an 'appeal to authority'?

The script acknowledges the concern but explains that in science, the appeal to authority is not based on the authority of an individual but on the collective wisdom and work of the scientific community. This collective authority is built on evidence and shared knowledge.

What is the 'organized skepticism' mentioned in the script, and how does it contribute to the scientific process?

Organized skepticism is a term used to describe the systematic and collective approach scientists use to scrutinize and challenge each other's findings. It contributes to the scientific process by ensuring that claims are rigorously tested and verified, maintaining the integrity and reliability of scientific knowledge.

What is the script's final argument for why we should trust scientific findings?

The script argues that we should trust scientific findings because they are the result of collective work, experience, and evidence-based conclusions of the scientific community. This trust is similar to the trust we place in technology, which is also based on accumulated knowledge and experience.