Most of us accept science as a reliable guide to what we should believe – but not all of us.
Distrust of science has led to skepticism on a number of important issues, from climate change denial to the reluctance to protect during the COVID pandemic. And although many of us would like to dismiss such skepticism as irrational, it raises the question: Why should we trust science?
As a philosopher who focuses on the philosophy of science, I am particularly interested in this question. As it turns out, delving into the works of great thinkers can help provide answers.
Common arguments
Another thought that may start to come to mind is that we should trust scientists because what they say is true. This may interest you : Translating the hidden language of nature through science.
But there are problems with this. Another question is whether what science says is true. Critics will point out that scientists are only human and continue to have a tendency to make mistakes.
Also, if we look at the history of science, we see that what scientists believed in the past often turned out to be false. And this shows what scientists believe now may one day turn out to be false. After all, there were times in history when people thought that mercury could cure syphilis, and that bumps on a person’s skull could reveal their personality.
Another tempting idea as to why we should trust science is because it is based on “facts and logic”.
This may be true, but unfortunately it is of little help in persuading someone who wants to deny what scientists say. Both sides in a dispute will claim that they have the truth on their side; it is unknown to climate change deniers that global warming is just a “theory”.
À lire aussi :
Popper and the scientific method
Vaccine hesitancy: Why ‘doing your own research’ doesn’t work, but reason alone won’t change minds. This may interest you : Breaking barriers through science and summer enrichment | UNC-Chapel Hill.
One powerful 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?
Perhaps the most famous account is given by the philosopher of science Karl Popper, who influenced Einstein Medal-winning mathematical physicist and Nobel Prize in biology and physiology and medicine.
For Popper, science proceeds with what he calls “hypothesis and skepticism”. Scientists focus on one question, and provide a possible answer. This answer is speculative in the sense that, at first, it is not known whether it is good or bad.
Popper says that scientists then do their best to disprove this hypothesis, or prove it false. Often it is rejected, rejected, and replaced by a better one. These too will be tested, and eventually replaced by a better one. This is how science progresses.
Sometimes this process can be incredibly slow. Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves over a century ago, as part of his general theory of relativity. But only in 2015 scientists were able to observe it.
For Popper, the principle of the scientific method is to try to deny or contradict a theory, which is called the “falsification principle”. If scientists have not been able to reject the theory for a long time, despite their best efforts, then in Popper’s terminology the theory is “confirmed”.
Majority rules
This provides a possible answer to the question of why we should trust what scientists tell us. Read also : Power & Politics Full Show: A deep dive into Connecticut’s primary elections. It is because, despite their best efforts, they have not been able to deny the idea that they are telling us is true.
Recently, the answer to the question was discussed again in a book written by science writer Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes acknowledges the importance Popper placed on the task of trying to refute theories, but also emphasizes the social and consensual element of scientific practice.
For Oreskes, we have reason to trust science because, or to the extent that, there is a consensus among the (proper) scientific community that a certain proposition is true – in which the scientific community has done its best to challenge it, and failed. .
Here’s a brief overview of what often happens before a scientific idea becomes a consensus.
A scientist can present a paper on an idea to his colleagues, who then discuss it. Another purpose of this discussion is to find something wrong with it. If the paper passes the test, the scientist can write a peer-reviewed paper on a particular concept. If the owners think it has enough character, it is published.
Others may then put this idea to the test. If it exceeds a sufficient number of these, the consensus may turn out to be true.
A good example of a theory that is undergoing this change is the theory of global warming and human impact on it. It had been suggested as early as 1896 that an increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could cause global warming.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a theory emerged that this is not only natural, but carbon dioxide released from human activities (ie fossil fuel burning) can quickly increase global warming. It gained some support at the time, but many scientists remained skeptical.
The bottom line
However, during the second half of the 20th century and into the 21st, the theory of human-caused climate change has so successfully passed ongoing tests that one recent meta-analysis found more than 99% of the scientific community to be correct. accept its truth. It began perhaps as a simple hypothesis, successfully passed the test for more than 100 years, and now it is near-universal acceptance.
This does not necessarily mean that we should uncritically accept everything that science says. Of course there is a difference between a scientist alone or a small group saying something, and there is consensus among scientists that something is true.
And, of course, for a variety of reasons – some practical, some financial, some otherwise – scientists may not have done their best to disprove an idea. And even if scientists have tried many times, but failed, to deny the given theory, the history of science shows that at some point in the future it may remain false if new evidence comes to light.
So when should we trust science? The view that seems to emerge from Popper, Oreskes and other writers in this field is that we have a good, but flawed, reason to trust what science says when, despite their efforts to challenge the idea, there is still consensus that it is true. .
