Philosophy of science is based on the idea that we are flawed. We look for evidence to confirm what we already know or already believe, this is a very old idea. But if you could do an experiment that you think is a crucial experiment, but if it fails, then you can come up with all kinds of reasons,. some bad, but some good, about why that periment might have failed. It doesn't necessarily prove that the idea was wrong. And so pauper very famously said that the the method of scienceis falsification. That's not really true. Because, as i just said, we could do a great experiment, the experiment might fail, but it
In this interview, based on her landmark book, Why Trust Science?, historian of science Naomi Oreskes offers a bold and compelling defense of science, revealing why the social character of scientific knowledge is its greatest strength — and the greatest reason we can trust it. Drawing vital lessons from cases where scientists got it wrong, Oreskes shows how consensus is a crucial indicator of when a scientific matter has been settled, and when the knowledge produced is likely to be trustworthy.