Search results
Oct 11, 2019 · Th erefore, to the extent that we should trust anyone to tell us about the world, we should trust scientists. Th is is not the same as faith: We do (or should) check the references of our plumbers and we should do the same for our scientists. If a scientist has a track record of error, underestimation, or exaggeration, this might be grounds for ...
- Common Arguments
- Popper and The Scientific Method
- Majority Rules
- The Bottom Line
One thought that might initially spring to mind is we ought to trust scientists because what they say is true. But there are problems with this. One is the question of whether what a scientist says is, in fact, the truth. Sceptics will point out scientists are just humans and remain prone to making mistakes. Also, if we look at the history of scien...
One influential answer to the question of why we should trust scientists is because they use the scientific method. This, of course, raises the question: what is the scientific method? Possibly the best-known account is offered by science philosopher Karl Popper, who has influenced an Einstein Medal-winning mathematical physicist and Nobel Prize wi...
Recently, an answer to the question was further articulated in a bookby science historian Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes acknowledges the importance Popper placed on the role of attempting to refute a theory, but also emphasises the social and consensual element of scientific practice. For Oreskes, we have reason to trust science because, or to the extent ...
This does not necessarily mean we ought to uncritically accept everything scientists say. There is of course a difference between a single isolated scientist or small group saying something, and there being a consensus within the scientific community that something is true. And, of course, for a variety of reasons – some practical, some financial, ...
Scientists must be free to learn, to speak and to challenge. Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists -- but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry -- and ...
1 day ago · Protecting science protects us all. Science is a big part of how the federal government carries out its responsibilities to the public. Efforts to undermine trust in scientists, especially federal science and scientists, can in turn weaken evidence-based decision making. This is why scientific integrity is so important.
Oct 22, 2019 · In the past, a lot of my work was about the history of climate science and telling the story of how and why scientists even got interested in this question about whether greenhouse gases would change the Earth’s climate. Part of the point of telling the story this way was to show our concern wasn’t some fad or the latest environmental anxiety.
- Harvardgazette
Nov 13, 2019 · Why should we trust science when our own politicians don’t? In this landmark book, 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. You argue that the social character of scientific knowledge makes it ...
Dec 16, 2021 · 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. Tracing the history and philosophy of science from the late nineteenth century to today, this timely and provocative book features a new preface by Oreskes ...
