Why Trust Science? by Naomi Oreskes | ARI Bookshelf
Apr 1, 2025
auto_awesome
Explore the critical question of when non-experts should trust science. Panelists dive into the role of scientific consensus and specialization in fostering public confidence. They tackle the skepticism surrounding climate science and anti-vaccine claims, examining how personal biases impact perceptions. The discussion also highlights the interplay of culture and ideology in the acceptance of scientific theories like continental drift. Join the conversation as they advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration and informed decision-making in navigating scientific claims.
Trust in science is strengthened through a combination of expert consensus, openness to evidence, and self-correcting mechanisms within scientific communities.
The podcast emphasizes the impact of societal values and past historical missteps on public distrust in scientific findings, highlighting the need for critical evaluation of contemporary claims.
Engaging lay perspectives in scientific discourse is vital as it can bridge gaps between expert consensus and public perception, enhancing trust in science.
Deep dives
Understanding Reliable Science
Reliable science is characterized by a combination of expert consensus, openness to evidence, and self-correcting mechanisms within the scientific community. The podcast discusses how individuals can trust scientific findings, particularly when they are not experts in a given field. It highlights that a consensus reached through proper scientific practices is generally more trustworthy, as it indicates that errors have been identified and biases addressed. If the scientific process is functioning healthily, the community's response to evidence strengthens the case for trusting its results.
Historical Context and Lessons
The podcast references Naomi Oreskes' exploration of historical incidents where science has misled society, shedding light on the conditions that can trigger distrust in scientific findings. It emphasizes the importance of considering how societal values and ideologies have historically influenced scientific discourse, including cases like climate change and the theory of evolution. By analyzing historical missteps, the discussion illustrates that understanding past failures can help establish criteria for determining reliable science today. These reflections aim to equip listeners with a framework to evaluate contemporary scientific claims critically.
The Role of Consensus in Science
In the conversation, consensus is presented as a crucial factor in assessing scientific reliability. However, the podcast discusses scenarios where consensus may be misleading or influenced by biases, raising concerns about its validity. It is noted that merely having a majority agreement among scientists does not inherently guarantee the truth of a scientific claim, particularly if dissenting voices or alternative perspectives are marginalized. Listeners are encouraged to remain vigilant and aware of the dynamics surrounding consensus, advocating for a critical approach when evaluating scientific claims.
Expertise and Value of Lay Perspectives
The conversation highlights that laypeople can possess valuable insights, particularly when engaging with scientific claims that affect their lives directly. Experts and scientists should not disregard the experiences and opinions of non-experts as they may provide essential perspectives on scientific findings. The podcast discusses instances where a divergence between expert consensus and public perception led to a disconnect, emphasizing the importance of communication and transparency. Incorporating lay perspectives can enhance the scientific community's legitimacy and foster trust in their findings.
Challenges in Scientific Methodology
The discussion addresses methodological fetishism, stressing that a rigid adherence to a single scientific method can hinder progress and obscure truth. Arguments are made for a more flexible approach that acknowledges the diversity of methods applicable across various scientific disciplines. The podcast suggests that scientists should remain open to alternative methodologies and theories to foster robust, integrative scientific dialogue. Recognizing the complexity of scientific practice can ultimately lead to a more nuanced and accurate understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry.
https://youtu.be/HtOmp-fh-Pk
Podcast audio:
This episode of ARI Bookshelf features Naomi Oreskes’s bookWhy Trust Science? Panelists include Ben Bayer, Jason Rheins, Mike Mazza, and Daniel Schwartz.
Why Trust Science? asks when and why non-experts can trust science. It argues that it is the social character of science that makes it trustworthy.
Our panelists judge whether the arguments Oreskes gives are convincing and examine her views about the value of consensus and diversity in scientists’ beliefs and values. They also discuss the philosophy of science more generally and consider how laypeople should evaluate climate science and anti-vaccine claims.
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode