As a future scientist, I take the trustworthiness of science for granted. I grew up fascinated by science and I never questioned the validity of the discipline. This past Monday, I found myself thinking more deeply about my blind belief in science when I attended Dr. Naomi Oreskes talk on her book Why Trust Science? at Rockefeller University with Tasmim and Ivan.

Science is inherently uncertain because it is a process of learning and discovery. This uncertainty can often lead people to mistrust science because after all evolution is “only a theory.” The traditional way to argue against anti-scientific claims is to say that science is trustworthy because it follows the scientific method, also known as the hypothetical deductive model. Oreskes said that while the hypothetical deductive model is used in some science, it is not a logically valid reason to trust science. In fact, saying that the scientific method makes science trustworthy is a type of logical fallacy called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. In addition, a great deal of science is inductive and does not involve testing of hypotheses.

If the scientific method does not make science trustworthy, what does? Oreskes gives two answers, real world evidence and scientific consensus. Both hypothetical deductive and inductive scientific research are based in real world evidence. Because science has to be supported by evidence, well-done science is trustworthy. In addition, science is peer reviewed. Before research is considered trustworthy, a community of experts must review the research and deem it acceptable. To actually reach a scientific consensus, diverse populations must be represented in scientific fields in order to avoid the biases of a particular culture.

Of course, there have been cases where science generated claims which were incorrect and should not be trusted. A famous example is the science of eugenics. Oreskes discusses these cases in her talk “When Science Goes Awry” for Tanner Lecture on Human Values in 2016. I listened to this lecture online for another class of mine. Oreskes states that when science generates invalid claims the processes that are used to make science trustworthy are neglected.  Evidence was ignored, there was a lack of scientific consensus, and societal values were allowed to influence science due to a lack of diversity in the field.

Going forward in our Science and Society class, it will be useful to consider why we should trust the various scientific claims we are presented with. Are they based in evidence? Is there scientific consensus from a diverse community of researchers? Are negative societal values overwhelming the scientific claims?