Why Trust Science?
Jan 22, 2023According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, the number of Americans who trust in science is steadily declining.
This week we’re asking why we should trust science—which may sound like a weird question. After all, why would we doubt the method that helps us build bridges and skyscrapers, formulate life saving medicines, and understand the cosmos?
A first question here is why some people don't trust good science. Ignaz Semmelweis, a doctor in 19th-century Vienna, had a revolutionary idea. Everybody around him thought that patients were dying because they had “an imbalance of humors”; Semmelweis gathered data to show that washing your hands between patients was a great way to keep them alive. That should have disproven the “imbalance of humors” theory, but Semmelweis' colleagues were not impressed. He couldn’t convince them that disease is caused by tiny blobs you can’t see. So scientific discoveries sometimes have a hard time being trusted when they're well-grounded, well-argued, and even life-saving. People don't always want to face the facts.
But there's a deeper, more philosophical question about trust in science. Should we think that any of our scientific claims and theories are true? After all, scientists have had a lot of theories over the centuries, and most of them were wrong. Astronomers used to think the sun revolved around the earth; doctors used to think leeches could cure disease; history is littered with disproven theories.
One response to this is to say that this history argues in favor of science, not against it: after all, the reason scientists don’t think those things any more is because they proved them wrong, using the scientific method. And yes, some of what we believe now will likely be proven wrong in the future, but if we just keep gathering evidence and testing hypotheses, maybe we can hope to reach the truth eventually. Like Sherlock Holmes at a crime scene, we just keep on rejecting bad ideas until what we're left with is the truth, my dear Watson.
But just how reliable is the scientific method? Galileo used it, and he ended up concluding that the tides were caused by the Earth’s rotation, rather than by the moon's gravitational pull.
And how reliable is testing? Part of the problem here is that we don't always know what our tests are showing us. If your measurements don’t match your theory, that could just mean your telescope is broken, or there’s dust on your lens.
All that said, let's be honest here: the very people raising these doubts are doing so by typing on a computer keyboard and sending the resulting text into space. (Not to mention that their work is very likely fueled by coffee brewed in a fancy espresso machine.) And anyone reading this blog is relying on the electricity flowing into their phone or computer to turn my keystrokes into legible pixels. So all those intellectual doubts are a lot of fun, but when push comes to shove, even the skeptics need to trust science just as much as anyone.
So science works—but does that mean it’s true? Our guest will surely have some thoughts on that score: it’s Ann Thresher from Stanford, co-author of a new book, The Tangle of Science Reliability Beyond Method, Rigour, and Objectivity.
Comments (24)
Devon
Saturday, January 21, 2023 -- 8:46 AM
James in Corvallis, ORJames in Corvallis, OR suggests two reasons why so many people distrust science:
1) Our Anthropocene addiction to the dopamine rush of 'certainty' keeps us locked into the illusion of 'knowing'. "I just know", or "It's a gut feeling" is not justified knowledge. Only when we put our ideas about the world and universe, or anything else, for that matter, through the wringer of falsifiability (the scientific method), can we then claim our knowing is justified. This justified knowledge can then be espoused as theory or fact only as long as tangible evidence supports it. Of course, evidence in an ever-changing universe comes, goes, and often changes. How well can an addiction to 'certainty' handle change?
2) Religion and science are inherently incompatible. Not only do people merely distrust science, there are those who are adamantly AGAINST science. These religious-minded folks hold world views of permanence and absolute 'truths' which they feel are threatened by evidence that suggests an impermanent world with no 'creator' orchestrating things. Their distrust in science emanates from a rejection of evidence. For avid believers of gods, ghosts, and other supernatural entities, tangible, physical evidence eviscerates their notion of 'souls' existing in a permanent, eternal afterlife. Religion dictates this permanence as absolute truth and final answer. We cannot expect science to give us final answers or absolute 'truths' in a changing world and universe where evidence does not support these ideas. This would be dishonest. Science is better than that. Science is the best tool we have, to date, that helps us make sense of our world and universe, and of our existence.
Daniel
Monday, January 30, 2023 -- 11:28 AM
Is there more than one kindIs there more than one kind of science? Your distinction between the world and existence seems to suggest it. How does evidence for the latter differ, if at all, from the former?
Daniel
Monday, January 30, 2023 -- 3:03 PM
To clarify, one can imagineTo clarify, one can imagine two distinct varieties of evidence for two different kinds of truth-claims, as in the following examples:
1) With respect to a planet, "the earth revolves around the sun".
2) With respect to a hand-painted portrait, "that is a good likeness".
Does (2) derive from something already known, i.e. what a person looks like, and (1) from something not (at some time) known, i.e. that rotation is ascribable to the earth rather than the sun? What's known in the first example concerns the recognition of another person, hence at the same time a kind of indirect self-recognition, whereas in the second example the unknown thing consists of which body rotates around the other; --but that one or the other must do so is already known. What's known in each case corresponds to your distinction between the world (earth and sun), and existence (people, amongst whom occurs the person who makes such a distinction). Shouldn't there obtain a separate science for this latter, given that a separate domain of objects can claim categorical distinctness? --Or better, can it be said that any claim of determination by the sciences of nature over all object-domains could itself be a superstition?
Daniel
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 -- 10:30 AM
The distinction you draw inThe distinction you draw in this very good analysis concerns the relation between certainty and evidence. In the first part evidence falls short of the certainty-demand on account a pronounced evidomorphism. In the second, any evidence-demand impedes the kind of certainty which is desired. Could there be a third relation which brings the two together in a single explanation of science-rejectionism? What about cases where no certainty-demand or -desire exists, while nevertheless abundant evidence for it exists to the extent that it is habitually ignored?
Harold G. Neuman
Tuesday, January 24, 2023 -- 2:10 PM
So science works?...does thatSo science works?...does that mean it is true? No, not all of the time. Medical science has eradicated small pox and polio. Mostly. Relative to populations and levels of scientific expertise, Covid has killed comparatively fewer people than small pox and bubonic plague. What is my point? The part of the question, asking if science is true is meaningless because scientific truth is somewhat erratic. The best case to be made for science is my coinage: trying harder to think better; doing the best you can with what you have and know.. Without science, we would have less of all that. Truth, entailling a certain amount of ambiguity, is a chameleon and this is unhelpful. You can't put anything on a pedestal; hold it sacred and without exception. I don't care about belief, motive or opinion. Those are nothing more that human constructs anyway. Science is a focused attempt to know by learning and learn by doing. It doesn't get any better than that.
Daniel
Tuesday, January 31, 2023 -- 10:49 AM
--So if learning produces the--So if learning produces the knowing, and doing generates the learning, what produces the doing? If you're trying to say that reliability of the results of scientific research are compatible with the truth of the stated claims upon which their explanation is based, but does not necessarily imply them, on account of their shifting boundaries, then you've left out how they're comparable in the first place. Didn't the shifting truth-claims come first, and the associated stability of their reliability only afterwards? It that's the case, it must describe a causal relationship between a good theory and a reliable practical application. Are you here describing, then, a post-hoc loss of stability in theory by a persisting practical stability in application reliability? Could this constitute a constructive response to Ray's question about truth/reliability-circularity?
Daniel
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 -- 10:34 AM
--There are of course cases--There are of course cases where the practice precedes the theory, as for example the invention of the steam-engine occurring before the theory of entropy, or technology of fire preceding the discovery of oxygen. The causal connection, however, proceeds in the same direction, after the initial theoretical explanation of the phenomenon which characterizes the respective practice.
Harold G. Neuman
Wednesday, January 25, 2023 -- 1:45 PM
There has been a bigThere has been a big kerfuffle over certitude on another blog I visit now and then. Notice I forced a distinction between certainty and certitude. As a practical matter, they are in the same ballpark. The disparity between religion and science is legend.. The disparity among religion, science and ideology is, I think, somewhat newer. Interests, preferences and motives driving these things are ever-changing. The complexity of that is baffling to even the wisest of any school. Of thought which might have been connected. If one reads Davidson, propositional attitudes might have meaning. Belief, desire, yes, interest,preference and so on are in the mix. Whatever your persuasion, it may be clear there is a compelling animosity among the religion-science-ideology triumvirate. I frankly don't know if there can be a resolution because each treats the other as enemy. A sort of tri-cameral mentality, to stretch the Jaynesean notion. Everything we believe or know has an origin. Those origins do not equal a consistent reality, because propositional attitudes lack consistency, facts and proofs.. So, where are we? Well, we are either nowhere or we are now here. The wording is ambiguous because WE are multivalent. Complexity does that. And so much more.
Daniel
Tuesday, January 31, 2023 -- 10:50 AM
So certainty is a state ofSo certainty is a state of being certain, and certitude is an attitude which accommodates, or is conducive to, certainty-states? --And this makes ideology, religion, and science different certitudes, each of which has its own special properties with regards to what one is certain of, like different kinds of certainty-fruits which can be each put in their own certitude basket? Do I have that right? What about the reality-inconsistency among origins mentioned towards the end? Do the trees which produce the certainty-fruit which are put in the certitude-baskets have roots which are not certain at all? Your analysis seems to indicate such a suggestion.
Daniel
Wednesday, February 1, 2023 -- 11:44 AM
So one can gather from yourSo one can gather from your view that all knowledge and belief, because it must have origins of different varieties at different times which have no reality until what they are origins of exist as properties of thought-contents, contain or produce irreconcilable attitudes on account of the fact that their origins are ontologically deficient, as deriving from the conscious orientation towards those properties which exists plenarily, so that any conflict between two sets of attitudes generated by ontologically deficient origins can not be reconciled on account of the fact that reconciliation between unreal entities makes no sense. Is that correct?
Daniel
Thursday, February 2, 2023 -- 2:56 PM
Perhaps sketching the pointPerhaps sketching the point out schematically may garner some assistance. Your claim as I interpret it is that there can be no reconciliation between religion, science, and ideology because they don't exist as self-identical, propositional contents. Rather these exist or constitute part of the world only where there's an attitude which regards them in some way. By implication, then, propositional contents derive from propositional attitudes, and not the other way around. These contents in the given examples can be (for purposes of completeness) stated in summary form:
(a) Religion: origin and destiny of the world.
(b) Science: inter-subjectively sharable statements the conclusions for which are demonstrable under limited conditions repeatable over time.
(c) Ideology: index of sociological precepts under unverified headings.
From the above-stated understanding that one can have an attitude without a proposition but not a proposition without an attitude (expressible below by an apostrophe (')); and that the attitudes which one can have about a given proposition are potentially infinite in number, the existence of the three propositional contents in the example can be written as:
(a),(a', a'', a'''...)
(b),(b', b'', b'''...)
(c),(c', c'', c'''...)
Although (a) + (b) + (c) is logically permissible, the three attitudinal series, from which their existence (for humans; as part of the world; in time; etc.) necessarily derives, can not be added together on account of the fact that no two infinite series are commensurable. If my analysis here is accurate to your meaning, is there not a little sardonic wit in the final two words- "much more"?
Tim Smith
Thursday, February 9, 2023 -- 10:47 PM
We are searchlights, we canWe are searchlights, we can see in the dark
We are rockets, pointed up at the stars
We are billions of beautiful hearts
And you sold us down the river too far
- Pink
Science has absolutely sold us down the river too far. It has allowed us to think we understand and can ever understand. Maybe we can, maybe we can't, but science convinces us we do. We should never trust science.
Science doesn't work; humans do, and science is a human behavior. That is another reason not to trust science.
Not to cast blame, science does not call for the blind faith people place in it. No scientific theory is ever correct, even when scientific laws might be. As George Box said, theories and models are wrong but useful, and usefulness is the culprit. Science begets technology, begets standards are living that few can see beyond.
Anyone who can look at this world and say religion and science are incompatible isn't looking at Georges Lemaitre. People shouldn't trust science; they should practice it with the humility, morality, and ethic of Lemaitre.
We may be able to see in the dark with our scientific tools, but we can't light up the stars. We can go to Mars or Venus or beyond, but should we? Science sold us down that river, and look what we have done with the world. Welcome to the Anthropocene. That is another reason not to trust science.
I fully endorse scientific research, but not before my ethics, morality, and, dare I say, philosophy. What about the cutter incident, the Tuskegee experiment, about the mass extinction happening all around us? Is science going to fix that? Did it cause it? Is that the science working? If so, it doesn't make it true.
What about us?
Daniel
Sunday, February 12, 2023 -- 11:47 AM
Are you referring to humanAre you referring to human beings? Is the distinction between the natural and human sciences merely conventional in your view, or does it derive from the kinds of objects studied? As you point out, natural science has done a good job in giving us the ability to destroy ourselves. Could human science do the same?
Tim Smith
Friday, February 17, 2023 -- 8:44 AM
Hey Daniel, it's been a bitHey Daniel, it's been a bit since last we talked.
I don't see the need to distinguish between natural and human science to determine whether we should trust science. Human behavior is fallible and, by association, is all science, which is not to say that some science is not worthy of trust. Instead, trust is itself a human behavior and easily mislaid.
For that matter, is neuroscience, medicine, or evolutionary psychology natural or human science? I'm not sure.
Let's do this anyway.
Sure human science could aid in destroying humankind. Between destruction and salvation is the gray world that we currently reside. Science should not be our beacon in this mist. Social psychology or political science could sell products or manipulate opinions that could, intentionally or not, destroy.
Daniel
Saturday, February 18, 2023 -- 1:25 PM
--Unless, of course, the--Unless, of course, the object-domain of the science in question must explicitly exclude such a possibility. Even if humans can be exhaustively quantified according to rigorous standards, leaving what remains as "provisionally emergent", in the current fashion, science still wouldn't need them directly as objects of study. Expressible as thoroughly determined within the causal chain of nature (ala Thresher), and presupposing the causal unity of its lawful regularities, humans need not be included in natural science at all. Inclusion on the contrary is based solely on non-human explanatory elements, --in our case, very small rocks.
Also, a note on terminology: Trust is not a behavior, but a relation. Socrates's being taller than Glaucon contains no information about who is sitting or standing, for example.
Tim Smith
Saturday, February 18, 2023 -- 4:18 PM
Thanks for your response,Thanks for your response, Daniel.
While I understand your philosophical position that scientists don't need to include humans in natural science, I wonder how this relates to the practical question of whether we should trust science. As you point out, anyone could use science for destructive purposes, so the question of trust is essential. It's not a matter of distinguishing between natural and human science; instead, understanding science and the potential consequences of its use.
Regarding your note on terminology, I agree that trust is a relation, but it's also true that it involves behaviors on the part of both the one who trusts and the one who is trusted. Trust is a complex phenomenon that a simple distinction between behavior and relation can't fully capture. Therefore, it's essential to consider both aspects of trust when discussing the role of science in our society. Your statement, "Trust is not a behavior, but a relation," is a common philosophical distinction. However, in the conversation context, it adds little to the discussion of whether or when to trust science.
Let me turn to your response below.
Daniel
Monday, February 20, 2023 -- 2:06 PM
Nutritional value of a canineNutritional value of a canine diet can be indicated by the comparative lightness in weight of the scat. Because of an abundance of nutritional matter absorbed into and used by the individual biological system, wild canine species will excrete less in digestive waste-products than their domestic counterparts.
For the purpose of adding some weight to your thoughtful remarks above, one might deign to inquire after the last line: If consideration of trust as a relation "adds little to the discussion", what can add more? You suggest that it's too complex to be a relation and is better described as a "phenomenon" (2nd sentence, 2nd paragraph). So what does it look like? Do you know it when you see it? If so, that should clear up the issue of the purported irrelevance with respect to which science one happens to be trusting, described in your first paragraph. The reason for this which you offer, (which you falsely claim was originally a point of my own), is that any science can be destructive. This of course ignores the suggestion made by the first sentence of the 2/18/23 1:25 pm post to which you respond, that there might occur a science whose object-domain explicitly precludes the kind of object which is used destructively. If such a science exists or is possible, it makes sense to call it a "human" science. Wouldn't that make what's being "trusted", or believed merely because someone is saying it, categorically different in the two cases? Asked differently: is it not the case that the trust in the truth of research-results, with regards to different domains of objects, must in fact be two different kinds of trust, namely in relation to whether it precedes or follows result-verification?
Daniel
Tuesday, February 14, 2023 -- 5:00 PM
So let's see if I understandSo let's see if I understand what you're saying. Trust in science results in deception of humanity, because the practical extrapolations which originate from its discoveries are so useful that one forgets where they came from, so that one believes whatever it says afterwards without having to know the details of any reasons why such useful things exist. And because it's unwise to trust anything which one doesn't know the reasons for, science can't be trusted. Is that about right? If so, where does that leave those who know the reasons? If they tried to tell you, would you want to listen? And if that's the case, then the second part of your argument, which I read as stating that because prior successes in scientific research are not by that alone a reliable indicator of future successes (cf. the second and sixth paragraphs above), could be confirmed or disconfirmed by doing so. Leaving aside the issue of science/religion- compatibility, (which, in passing, doesn't make much sense from a phenomenological perspective, as their cohabitation pre-dates the distinction between them), the recommendation against trust in this part of the argument arises from the perception of an over-zealousness of cultural enthusiasm for theoretical capability, which in turn informs the claim made by ethics and practices in your final point as pre-conditioning endorsability of research-justification, on account of the fact that some ethical duties will always override theoretical goals of research.
Assuming for the sake of argument that my paraphrase is accurate, you're asserting two different things here which in no way appear compatible. On the one hand science can't be trusted because of an over-reliance on its usefulness, and on the other, science has to be listened to in order to determine whether it's ethical or not. Doesn't the first destroy the possibility of the second? If you care so much about the ethics of science, how can you know what it's doing if you can't believe what it's saying?
Tim Smith
Friday, February 17, 2023 -- 9:42 PM
Hi Daniel,Hi Daniel,
Thank you for your attempt to paraphrase my argument. While you touched on some of the points I was making, I don't think your summary fully captures my perspective. Let me clarify my position on a few key points.
Firstly, I don't believe that trust in science necessarily results in deception of humanity. Rather, I am suggesting that blind trust in science can be dangerous because it can lead to an uncritical acceptance of scientific findings without understanding the human reasoning and fallibility behind them. That is why I used the Cutter incident and the Tuskegee experiments as examples. This can result in harmful consequences if the findings are misinterpreted or applied inappropriately. It's important to be informed about the human reasoning behind scientific discoveries and to exercise critical thinking when assessing their implications.
Secondly, you are correct in saying that prior successes in scientific research are not a reliable indicator of future successes. This is because science is an ever-evolving process and what we know today may be overturned or revised in the future. However, this doesn't mean that we should dismiss all of science as unreliable. Rather, we need to approach science with a healthy dose of skepticism and continually evaluate its claims based on the available evidence, in other words, we shouldn’t trust it verbatim. In the end, we need to remain open-minded and willing to revise our beliefs in light of new evidence. Science, after all, is prone to groupthink.
Finally, you raised an interesting point about the relationship between ethics and scientific research. I agree that ethical considerations should always be taken into account when conducting scientific research. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that science itself cannot be trusted. The lack of ethics not the abundance of useful ends is the worry – and call for distrust. A good example of this is the CRISPR-Cas9 technology. Abundantly useful, ethically challenged. Human induced nuclear fission is another work of science that can serve, as can artificial intelligence. Just because it works doesn’t preclude human ethical review. All three examples necessitate ethical review and human judgment in their application. We need to ensure that scientific research is conducted in an ethical and responsible manner, with the potential risks and benefits carefully evaluated. Science can be a powerful tool for improving our lives, but we must use it responsibly and with a deep understanding of its limitations.
I hope this clarifies my perspective on these issues.
Best, Tim
Daniel
Saturday, February 18, 2023 -- 2:37 PM
It clarifies many things, butIt clarifies many things, but any perspective currently eludes my apprehension. A perspective describes some coordination of elements which do not contradict each other. Here that condition remains unfulfilled. Dropping from consideration the platitudes at the end of each paragraph above, you've claimed that while human design-fallibility makes trust in science dangerous,* it's safe to assume that overturned truths can still be reliable,** (presumably referring to becoming accustomed to practical applications associated with them), and then assert that research-submission to ethics does not equate to distrust-justification,*** --as though anybody asserted that it did. You've attributed two of your own claims in the post of 2/9/23, restated in the paraphrase, to myself, apparently in order to agree with them,**** and finished by saying that because science is so reliable, ethics needs to catch up.
How do those pieces fit together? If there was more distrust in what science seems to tell us, are you saying that its practical applications would be more ethically constrained? You didn't, after all, answer my original question: Aren't ethics and trust in this case somewhat co-dependent?
__________
* Second sentence, second paragraph.
** Third sentence, third paragraph.
*** Third sentence, fourth paragraph.
**** First sentence, third paragraph; and first sentence, fourth paragraph.
Tim Smith
Saturday, February 18, 2023 -- 4:26 PM
I just responded above, let’sI just responded above, let’s look at this here.
First off thanks for taking the time.
There may still be some misunderstanding of my post, as well as my own understanding of yours.
Regarding your point about coordinating elements in my argument, my response may not have been as straightforward as it could have been. I apologize if this confused you. Let me restate my main points in bullet form.
1. Blind trust in science can be dangerous because it can lead to an uncritical acceptance of scientific findings without understanding human reasoning and the fallibility behind them.
2. Science is an ever-evolving process, and what we know today may be overturned or revised in the future.
3. We should approach science with a healthy dose of skepticism and continually evaluate its claims based on the available evidence.
4. Ethical considerations should always be taken into account when conducting scientific research.
Does this help?
Regarding your specific criticisms:
1. In response to your claim that I suggested that overturned truths can still be reliable, there may have been a misunderstanding. People should evaluate science based on the available evidence, whether they are overturning a previous truth or novel claims, rather than blindly trusting science, including being open to the possibility of being wrong and being willing to revise one's beliefs based on new evidence.
2. In response to your suggestion that my statement about science being reliable contradicts my point about the need for an ethical review of scientific research, I want to clarify that I do not believe that science is infallible or inherently trustworthy. Instead, science is a helpful tool to improve our lives, but it is only as reliable as the evidence that supports it. Therefore, ethical considerations are necessary to ensure that scientific research is conducted responsibly and with a deep understanding of its limitations.
I hope that clears up any confusion.
Best, Tim
Daniel
Monday, February 20, 2023 -- 2:56 PM
Philosophical analysisPhilosophical analysis possesses an avian characteristic in that ingestion of collected morsels (pabulum) can be regurgitated in the effort to generate a singular nutritional product consumable in concentrated form. This produces by analogy a tension between excrement and oral discharge not unknown in departments of philosophy.
Your remarks above furnish to the reader a good example of this, along the lines of a culinary analogy: The appetizer in the first paragraph consists of a series of four platitudes: science can't be trusted without conditions because people do it, and people's actions are fallible, or often turn out differently than intended; science is epistemically inconsistent over time and sometimes changes its mind; people who do science should be scientific about it; and fourth, science should be done ethically. Not too much to disagree with there. But no nutritional value either, --hence the appetizer-analogy.
The real meat-n-potatoes comes with the second paragraph. You seem to be saying that purported reliability of overturned scientific claims does not primarily derive from the persistence of associated practical value, but with the sense they make when one thinks about the conditions under which they were arrived at, and that this is compatible with continuing the imposition of ethical constraints on any practical use made of them even after their theoretical grounds have been eliminated. Do I have that right? If so, it's unclear how that's supposed to "clear up any confusion", since your description of claim-reliability jumps between being of practical use and of theoretical accuracy. No indigestion, though.
festivebinding
Monday, April 15, 2024 -- 3:10 AM
This article raises thoughtThis article raises thought-provoking questions about the trustworthiness of science, reminding us that skepticism and critical thinking are essential components of the scientific process. It's fascinating to consider historical examples where well-grounded scientific discoveries were initially met with skepticism or disbelief, highlighting the complexities of human perception and resistance to change. The discussion about the reliability of scientific google methods and the potential for future discoveries to overturn current beliefs adds an intriguing layer to the debate. Ultimately, while acknowledging the limitations and uncertainties inherent in scientific inquiry, the article underscores the indispensable role that science plays in shaping our understanding of the world and driving progress.
biotik
Saturday, June 29, 2024 -- 1:51 AM
I can see that you are anI can see that you are an expert at your field! I am launching a website soon, and your information will be very useful for me.. Thanks for all your help and wishing you all the success in your business. thank you for this! this is very helpful. Sewa Mobil Surabaya