

Why Trust Science? by Naomi Oreskes | ARI Bookshelf
Apr 1, 2025
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.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
Social Nature of Science
- Oreskes emphasizes the social aspect of science for trustworthiness, prioritizing consensus over individual methods.
- However, she overlooks common methodological considerations across scientific disciplines, like integration and reduction.
Oreskes vs. Quine
- Oreskes doesn't fully accept Quine's radical underdetermination thesis, suggesting judgment plays a role in identifying errors.
- She acknowledges truth and evidence's importance in good science, contrasting with Quine's pragmatism.
Oreskes' Realism
- Oreskes rejects pragmatism by arguing utility doesn't equal truth, opposing Lindy's viewpoint.
- She values evidence and aims for realism, diverging from some anti-realist philosophies of science.