Why Trust Science?
- Downloads：6373
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-04-20 11:52:36
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Naomi Oreskes
- ISBN：0691212260
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
Why the social character of scientific knowledge makes it trustworthy
Are doctors right when they tell us vaccines are safe？ Should we take climate experts at their word when they warn us about the perils of global warming？ Why should we trust science when so many of our political leaders don't？ 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 and critical responses by climate experts Ottmar Edenhofer and Martin Kowarsch， political scientist Jon Krosnick， philosopher of science Marc Lange， and science historian Susan Lindee， as well as a foreword by political theorist Stephen Macedo。
Are doctors right when they tell us vaccines are safe？ Should we take climate experts at their word when they warn us about the perils of global warming？ Why should we trust science when so many of our political leaders don't？ 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 and critical responses by climate experts Ottmar Edenhofer and Martin Kowarsch， political scientist Jon Krosnick， philosopher of science Marc Lange， and science historian Susan Lindee， as well as a foreword by political theorist Stephen Macedo。
Reviews
Miguel
，
I enjoyed the theoretical discussion in the first section of the book a lot more than I did the bulk of the discussion of the case studies。 The case studies just seemed either too mundane or too old to seem that relevant。 I did enjoy the latter discussion on the "replication crisis" and how journal retractions are precisely science doing its job of self-correcting。 I enjoyed the theoretical discussion in the first section of the book a lot more than I did the bulk of the discussion of the case studies。 The case studies just seemed either too mundane or too old to seem that relevant。 I did enjoy the latter discussion on the "replication crisis" and how journal retractions are precisely science doing its job of self-correcting。 。。。more
Duy
，
Tại sao tin khoa học？Khoa học tuy có nhiều điểm yếu （ví dụ， đọc cuốn Merchants of Doubts của cùng tác giả， hay cuốn The case against sugar） nhưng nó vẫn là cơ chế mạnh mẽ nhất mà loài người từng có để tìm ra sự thật。 Về cơ bản， trong khoa học không có gì là ko thể bị hoài nghi hay chỉ trích。 Khoa học sẽ tự sửa sai， mặc dù đôi khi khi tốn thời gian （5 năm， mười năm hoặc lâu hơn nữa :）））。Lúc nào sẽ đọc lại tử tế hơn。
J。J。
，
Why Trust Science is not an encouragement to blindly trust the claims of scientists but rather an affirmation of the reliability of scientific claims if they emerge from a healthy scientific ecosystem。 This work is an academic account of why neck beard shit posters， your social media brainwashed uncle and financially motivated lobbyists do not have equal claims to the truth as the consensus of honest experts properly trained to uncover facts about the natural world。 Oreskes comes at this problem Why Trust Science is not an encouragement to blindly trust the claims of scientists but rather an affirmation of the reliability of scientific claims if they emerge from a healthy scientific ecosystem。 This work is an academic account of why neck beard shit posters， your social media brainwashed uncle and financially motivated lobbyists do not have equal claims to the truth as the consensus of honest experts properly trained to uncover facts about the natural world。 Oreskes comes at this problem from two directions。 The first being an abstract philosophical account of what science ought to be and the second is grounded in the practical application of science in the real world。 Oreskes lays out a brief and interesting history of the philosophy of science pointing out the flaws of various arguments until her arrival at her own nuanced philosophical conclusion。 She then uses specific stories from the scientific literature to support her arguments。 I found Oreskes’ portions of this book well written and compelling to listen to。 The book also includes essays in rebuttal of her claims and ultimately her response to those rebuttals。 This portion of the book is a performative example of healthy discourse and in that sense is laudable。 On the other hand it makes the book feel disjointed and caused me to lose steam。 Should you listen to it？ Maybe！ 。。。more
Sara Walker
，
کی گوش میده به صدای عقل؟ رسانه؟ دولت؟ نهاد علم؟ تودهی مردم؟ ما در مقام یک گونهی حیات موجودات عقلگرایی هستیم؟
Andi
，
If the purpose of Oreskes’ book was to convince scientists who share the same viewpoints why they should trust science， I think she could be largely successful in this goal。 However， if the purpose of the book was to convince people outside of the scientific community why they should trust science （e。g。， lay people， Republicans， religious， Creationists， etc。）， I believe Oreskes epically failed at this goal。
Peter
，
On the one hand， it's so refreshing to read a well researched and thought out argument on a topic。 On the other， it's a shame that the very academic approach to the writing makes it almost inevitable that the vast majority of people who are able to appreciate it are the one's who already agree with the author。 The amount of academic jargon used almost necessitated a fair amount of prior knowledge of science and philosophy。 I enjoyed the brief history lesson on how the philosophy of science came On the one hand， it's so refreshing to read a well researched and thought out argument on a topic。 On the other， it's a shame that the very academic approach to the writing makes it almost inevitable that the vast majority of people who are able to appreciate it are the one's who already agree with the author。 The amount of academic jargon used almost necessitated a fair amount of prior knowledge of science and philosophy。 I enjoyed the brief history lesson on how the philosophy of science came about and the obstacles it had to overcome。 However， some of Oreskes arguments were surprisingly weak， such as trying to judge the costs of not trusting science on the basis of Pascal's wager logic。 One of the commentary essays even brought up the issue， but I also found the essays to be lacking in terms of both writing and argument quality， especially the last one。 I definitely learned a few things and， for the most part， agreed with the author on the changes she'd like to see in the scientific community such as embracing the fact that people can never be truly objective and should make explicit their personal values and interests。 There were a number of problematic topics that didn't really get as much attention as I expected， such as the inaccessibility of scientific journals， p-hacking， and， ironically， the communication gap between academia and the general population。 This is one of those books that I enjoyed reading， but which is hard to recommend。 Did the author make a compelling argument on why you should trust science？ I guess。 Personally， it mostly reaffirmed the reasons I have to trust scientific consensus with the caveat that new information could come along at any time and change what the consensus is， especially in some of the newer scientific fields such as psychology and nutrition。 Unfortunately， there's no way you could recommend this to your conspiracy-loving uncle and expect them to grasp the types of arguments discussed here。 And while that's a shame， I'm pretty sure logic and reason aren't the methods they use to vet their sources of information anyway。 。。。more
Alex
，
Oreskes offers a nuanced yet accessible answer to the central question of this book。 Instead of playing down or dismissing some of the most problematic episodes in the history of science， she uses these cases to explore the ways we might identify 'good' science， offering a guide for best practice which emphasizes the cumulative and cooperative nature of scientific knowledge。 The response section， meanwhile， offers further nuance and historical depth to this account， as does the author's reply to Oreskes offers a nuanced yet accessible answer to the central question of this book。 Instead of playing down or dismissing some of the most problematic episodes in the history of science， she uses these cases to explore the ways we might identify 'good' science， offering a guide for best practice which emphasizes the cumulative and cooperative nature of scientific knowledge。 The response section， meanwhile， offers further nuance and historical depth to this account， as does the author's reply to these short essays。 。。。more
Leslie McIntosh
，
There is a lot good of information in it but unfortunately， it was a hard book for me to follow in many places。
Donna Herrick
，
I love this focus on trust。 Our society is suffering from a breakdown of trust。 To hear an explication of how science came to be trustworthy and when to question the trustworthiness of science was very helpful。 I am hoping that I can use these arguments to help me inform others that we can trust science。
Adam Omelianchuk
，
This is a great book if you are like me and you need a one-volume textbook that covers all the stuff that is relevant for a Science & Values course。 If you aren't like me， well， then you can start by reading this book :） This is a great book if you are like me and you need a one-volume textbook that covers all the stuff that is relevant for a Science & Values course。 If you aren't like me， well， then you can start by reading this book :） 。。。more
Michael McNulty
，
A somewhat disjointed text。 Oreskes opens with chapters answering the title question against the backdrop of science denialism。 However， the audience is unclear: the answer appears tailored neither to philosophers of science （though there is a lot of philosophy of science in the chapters） nor to science denialists （I suspect few would be moved by her arguments）。 Responses to her account in the middle of the book seemed to be at cross-purposes， largely irrelevant to her arguments。 At the end of A somewhat disjointed text。 Oreskes opens with chapters answering the title question against the backdrop of science denialism。 However， the audience is unclear: the answer appears tailored neither to philosophers of science （though there is a lot of philosophy of science in the chapters） nor to science denialists （I suspect few would be moved by her arguments）。 Responses to her account in the middle of the book seemed to be at cross-purposes， largely irrelevant to her arguments。 At the end of the day， I'm more worried about how to *convince* denialists or lessen the impact of industry funded sci。 Oreskes's abstract account of the trustworthiness of science doesn't seem particularly persuasive for those that deny vax efficacy， climate change， etc。 。。。more
Shahad
，
I enjoyed this book and it took me to different level of thinking as future scientist
Jack Bush
，
A good academic discussion of the topic。 I am glad I invested the time to go through the material。
Prerna
，
There have been increasing doubts about the practices and results of science， the worst of which have taken the form of climate change denial， the anti-vaccination movement and popular belief in the flat earth theory。 In Why Trust Science， Naomi Oreskes examines the history of science and current scientific methods and makes a persuasive case for trust in science。 She explains that scientific results are trustworthy not because of the methodologies or the qualities of scientists， but because sci There have been increasing doubts about the practices and results of science， the worst of which have taken the form of climate change denial， the anti-vaccination movement and popular belief in the flat earth theory。 In Why Trust Science， Naomi Oreskes examines the history of science and current scientific methods and makes a persuasive case for trust in science。 She explains that scientific results are trustworthy not because of the methodologies or the qualities of scientists， but because science， by its very nature， is a collective enterprise and its findings are always verified through vetting and peer reviews。Oreskes supports the "sociological view of science" and argues that scientific communities rely on collective institutions and peer consensus to accept or reject research results， and this makes science as a whole reliable even if a few individual scientists sometimes stray outside their domains of expertise and make mistakes。 Oreskes also advocates the feminist theory of science whose central argument is that a diverse scientific community is more likely to identify biases and faulty practices than a more homogeneous one。What's unique about this book is that it has an entire section dedicated to commentaries by other experts of the field on the presented arguments， and in a good demonstration of the value of peer review and consensus in science， in the last section， Professor Oreskes addresses the concerns and issues raised by her colleagues。 This book is a must-read for everyone， but especially for students and practitioners of science。 。。。more
Colleen
，
Oreskes makes compelling philosophical and historical arguments for trusting scientific consensus （with a few caveats）。 I greatly appreciated the inclusion of responses by others in the book。 Presenting the other points of view really help to offer other facets of the discussion that Oreskes does not spend as much time on。
Colin
，
This book makes many excellent points about trusting science in the face of growing dismissive beliefs; the core issue sparking the defense is climate change， but Oreskes explores everything from the origins of science to times scientists did get it wrong to WHY they got it wrong， and how good science is conducted。 It also includes four engaging responses， and the author's own responses to those， creating a great back and forth dialogue。Oreskes begins her book with the history of philosophers of This book makes many excellent points about trusting science in the face of growing dismissive beliefs; the core issue sparking the defense is climate change， but Oreskes explores everything from the origins of science to times scientists did get it wrong to WHY they got it wrong， and how good science is conducted。 It also includes four engaging responses， and the author's own responses to those， creating a great back and forth dialogue。Oreskes begins her book with the history of philosophers of science throughout history - admittedly， my least favorite part， which was quite a dry sequence of topics and lenses to look through。 However， the pacing picked up with five examples of how scientists were wrong in the past， and more importantly， exploring WHY they got it wrong。 These topics include the ugly topic of eugenics， to the sexist Limited Energy Theory （used to exclude women from academia） and delay of science to recognize birth control pills caused depression， to topics as inoffensive as continental drift and dental floss。The arguments espoused and consistently well-explained by the author is that in errors of science， the causes for bad science typically boil down to the values of the scientists。 However， the rebuttal - and core arguments for the title - is that overall， science is trustworthy because good science entails a） a general consensus of the experts in the field， b） diversities of opinions to ensure problems are looked at from multiple angles， and c） methodological flexibility ensures many ways of proving something is possible。 Furthermore， being a sideways defense of climate change science， Oreskes explores how arguments against the field are not based in science， but in the social， political， or economic values of the attackers; in this， a） science is not actually faulty and b） we cannot attempt to reason with detractors via the evidence of scientific knowledge， even as they happily utilize the products of science all around them （iPhones， frozen peas， toasters， etc。 - admittedly one of my favorite points， from one of the reply essays by Susan Lindee）。All in all， a cohesive， persuasive book， if sometimes overly wordy/philosophical for me。 。。。more
August Lilly
，
This is a must read especially in our contemporary moment。 It was for my Climate Change Science and Politics class and I learned so much reading it。 Oreskes is so engaging and informative！ Denial of science is a political strategy， so if you want to know why you should trust science then dive in！
Wayne Larson
，
Outstanding overview of the history of science as well as an honest and sober look at the sociological factors in the scientific community。 Very helpful。
George
，
This was even better than I had expected。 Oreskes is exceptionally insightful throughout and the engagement with other scholars in the second half provides an especially rewarding experience。 Timely in the age not only of climate change but now COVID-19。
Alex Shrugged
，
[Update: 2021-Jan-10] I have reread this book because a fellow reader thought I had misunderstood what the author was saying and I am compelled to agree。 I misread some of it。 After reading it again， I would give the book 3 1/2 stars if I could。 This book is not for the faint of heart。 It seems to be aimed at policymakers， academics， researchers （both private and government-funded） and philosophy majors。Here are a number of points I'd like to make now:1。 It is critical to read the Introduction b [Update: 2021-Jan-10] I have reread this book because a fellow reader thought I had misunderstood what the author was saying and I am compelled to agree。 I misread some of it。 After reading it again， I would give the book 3 1/2 stars if I could。 This book is not for the faint of heart。 It seems to be aimed at policymakers， academics， researchers （both private and government-funded） and philosophy majors。Here are a number of points I'd like to make now:1。 It is critical to read the Introduction by Stephen Macedo。 He summarizes what you are about to read。 Without this guide it will be easy to get lost。2。 The first chapter is a philosophical treatment。 It is well thought out and argued， but it is densely packed。 Unless you are a philosophy major， I doubt you will appreciate it as much as it deserves。3。 She occasionally takes a swipe at President Trump。 At first I thought this was gratuitous， but I now judge myself to be wrong。 I think she did this in order for the book to be noticed in a timely fashion。 The author had ideas at the time that she felt were critical to address as President Trump took office。 Now， as of the time of this review， President Trump is leaving office so this tactic has lost much of its impact。 It also dates the book， but I encourage people to read the book anyway。 The author makes good points。4。 The author provides several essays from others who somewhat challenge her point of view。 I suppose this constitutes balance in her mind and for her target audience it does。 I am not her target audience， so to me it looked like she was only providing contrast within a range of acceptable counter arguments。 As I say， for her target audience， this was acceptable。 It was simply not very helpful to a wider audience。5。 For the wider audience one can simply read the Introduction， Chapter 7 Reply， and the Afterword to get everything you need to know from this book。 My general impression is that the author has good ideas in the abstract， but they will never happen in our lifetimes。 Often， you cannot get change in the sciences until the current bastards die of old age （still clutching to their old ideas as they gasp their last breath） and finally letting the younger scientists introduce something new。 （Which they will， in turn， hang onto until their last breath。）So。。。 how does one really evaluate any scientific claim in the media？ Can you really trust science？ The author's answer seems to be "yes and no。" She quotes President Ronald Regan， "Trust but verify。" The author lays out the criteria to use to verify so-called scientific claims， but most people either cannot or will not take the time to do any such thing。 Academics could verify。 People who give out research grants could verify。 Science publishers could verify， but will they？ Probably not。 It seems like they will continue to do what they have always done， changing a little here and there until the old bastards die。Finally， in my original review I recommend further reading when the author wrote about eugenics。 The book "Imbeciles: The Supreme Court， American Eugenics， and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck" fully documents what the author was saying in "Why Trust Science？"The author wrote another few books， "Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming" and "Plate Tectonics: An Insider's History of the Modern Theory of the Earth"。 They sound pretty good。 I might read them。I thank my fellow reader for pointing out my error。[Original review:]I am about half way through this book and it is a mixed bag。 That is why it lost a star。 It is supposed to be a book on critical thinking and how to evaluate scientific ideas when they are presented to you。 The author goes through a number of disastrous scientific ideas that turned out not only to be wrong but outright horrifying in their consequences。 If that was all it was， then I'd be OK with it， but she also introduced current politics into the matter。 Specifically， she criticized President Donald Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence in a manner that suggested she wanted this book to be used as a political hammer to beat up Trump and Pence。 I say that because she could have used other people as examples rather than the president and vice-president。 Instead she took the opportunity to jab them。Why was that important？ Because supposedly the author was attempting to be rational， objective and healing。 She was trying to bring various viewpoints together and hopefully reach a consensus or at least a teaching moment。 You don't get that if you alienate the very people you are trying to teach。 That is not the way to win friends and influence people。 I give the author credit for pointing out the horrors of eugenics。 Unfortunately， so far， the author has failed to mention that the founder of Planned Parenthood， Margaret Sanger， was an enthusiastic supporter of the negative eugenics movement and the horror that was forced sterilization。For further information on that subject I suggest reading， "Imbeciles: The Supreme Court， American Eugenics， and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck"。As I say， I'm only half way through。 I'll update this review after I finish it （or abandon it）。 I'm not holding out much hope though。 。。。more
Loren Shultz
，
I gave this a middle score， but not a reflection on the book necessarily。 I liked the premise， but frankly the presentation was entirely over my head。 I did not finish。
Katherine
，
The question Naomi Oreskes poses as the title of her latest book， Why Trust Science？， is a provocative one: I know this， because after the book arrived and I laid it on the coffee table， my partner bristled silently at the sight of it， and let his indignance stew for several days before confronting me about the implications behind the question。 One clearly believes in favor of science， and thus does not need to ask the question， or one is against science， and is asking the question to sow distru The question Naomi Oreskes poses as the title of her latest book， Why Trust Science？， is a provocative one: I know this， because after the book arrived and I laid it on the coffee table， my partner bristled silently at the sight of it， and let his indignance stew for several days before confronting me about the implications behind the question。 One clearly believes in favor of science， and thus does not need to ask the question， or one is against science， and is asking the question to sow distrust and probably to promote Young Earth creationism or faith healing。 To ask the question is effectively to choose a side – so which is it， am I for or against science？The chasm formed by this contestation is precisely what Oreskes aims to bridge with her question， however。 “If we cannot answer the question of why we should trust science—or even if we should trust it at all，” she writes， “then we stand little chance of convincing our fellow citizens， much less our political leaders， that they should get their children vaccinated， floss their teeth， and act to prevent climate change。” Though she is a historian of science and clearly has a deep personal and professional relationship to the field， she takes on the challenge of answering the question even-handedly， acknowledging head-on the many flaws of scientific practice and scientists as humans， which have held non-practitioners at bay with dubiosity。 Consider the （mis-）usage of science to assert that women shouldn’t study higher education， because of a theorized cost to their fertility—quackish misogyny dressed up in academic language as “The Limited Energy Theory。” Or take the infamous case of the scientific defense of eugenics， or the wholesale dismissal of female complaints of depression when using the Pill。 There are， Oreskes suggests with self-effacing humor， a wealth of examples from which to choose。 Rather than shying away from these events in science’s history， or trying to excuse them away， she features them prominently to build a steelman argument， recounting their details and describing how they fit into a working model of science。 The clear-eyed humility with which she discusses the flaws of science and its lessons learned is what enables her argument to truly take root and flourish。And for good reason。 In Oreskes’ words: “[T]hose of us who wish to defend science from ideologically and economically interested attack must be not only willing and able to explain the basis of our trust in science， but also to understand and articulate its limits。” Not that each scientist should have to fight that battle every day as preface to discussing their work， she hedges， but nor should it be considered strange or offensive to ask questions of and about science。However， it’s important to consider the integral role that mistakes play in science。 Yes， there are the failures of scientists to demonstrate morals or to extricate their own biases from their studies， not to mention the many problems of poor methodology and financially motivated results， but there are also “mistakes” that are business-as-usual for science。 That is， the practice of science when done correctly means that new studies upend and overwrite former studies shown to be partially or completely inaccurate。 This places us， the public， in a difficult position， when scientists publish a claim today， for which some other truth was asserted yesterday， and for which an altogether different claim may be put forth tomorrow。 Oreskes describes this problem as the “instability of science，” and puts the central question of her research thusly: “How are we to evaluate the truth claims of science when we know that these claims may in the future be overturned？”This question has high stakes， because it leaves the door open for parties of bad faith to usurp the inherent instability to assert that the science of a matter is unsettled—a topic discussed by Oreskes in her previous book， cowritten with Erik M。 Conway， Merchants of Doubt。 The answer， Oreskes lays out over the course of the book， depends on a critical scientific community， which means peer review， verification of results， strengthening through consensus， and giving space to dissenting research and viewpoints。 （N。B。 While many proponents of science use the shorthand that they trust science “because of the scientific method” or quip that they rely on science “because it works，” Oreskes points out that these are oversimplifications that don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny。 Rather: “What does stand up is a portrait of science as a communal activity of experts， who use diverse methods to gather empirical evidence， and critically vet claims deriving from it。”）The emphasis on community leaves less room for individual scientists to wield their expertise as a wand of silencing and a shield of superiority—a tendency that’s quite often too tempting a delicacy for many experts。 “Scientists are supposed to be authorities，” Oreskes writes， “but the concern here is that this can slide into arrogance and dogmatism。 It can slide into intellectual authoritarianism。” As a counterpoint， the thought of putting trust in the community smacks for many of groupthink。 Even for myself， the idea of communal trust sounds much like abandoning the self to the mainstream。 However， what Oreskes illustrates is that the community of scientists is different from other organized bodies urging conformity， because scientists are encouraged to dissent and to be critical of one another’s work—but to do so with evidence。Oreskes is evidently well versed in the many complaints about science and scientists among laypersons， yet she handles these complaints in a scientific manner， processing it as incredibly valuable data that can be used to improve the system。 While this might seem like the perfect precondition for cold， machine-like writing， Oreskes deftly writes in her own values and humanity to continuously invite the reader to bring their own。 Rather than building her argument defensively or trying to avalanche her audience with jargon， performative objectivity， and masturbatory academial-exclusion to demonstrate her superiority—as so many unfortunately do—she writes in an accessible tone that assumes her reader to be just as clever and curious as herself， though probably about different topics。 She takes as a generous baseline that her most skeptical reader is an intelligent fellow human—and doesn’t congratulate herself on being generous for having done so。 It is profoundly refreshing， and effective。The result of Oreskes’ bridge-building argument is therefore twofold: she empowers like-minded scientists and science-lovers with better arguments， and she gently urges those who have retreated from science back toward the middle。 It is likely the case that she has honed her skills as a science evangelist （oh， forgive me） by embodying her scientific philosophy: through practiced trial and error， by taking note of results， vetting those results with a critical audience， and by developing a “healthy sense of self-skepticism。” In fact， it’s important to mention， Oreskes’ book is not written exclusively by her， but includes four essay responses from peers: Susan Lindee， Marc Lange， Ottmar Edenhofen and Martin Kowarsch， and Jon A。 Krosnick。 Thus， her book demonstrates the principle of her research， through communal activity and diverse approaches。 Truth be told， the inclusion serves to further isolate Oreskes’ extraordinary gift for communication; she stands apart in particular against the insecure defensiveness of Lindee’s essay， which grates by comparison and leads me to imagine that she did not， or could not， truly grok Oreskes’ purpose of extending a friendly hand outside the scientific community。Why Trust Science？ is an incredibly important work， bringing the history of science into something of a thinker’s field guide to the pursuit of knowledge。 It is sharply written and， beyond being merely informative， it is sage。 Wherever the reader stands on the for or against science divide， Oreskes’ determined and open-minded curiosity is infectious， as is her earned belief in science。 Hopefully， it will encourage more scientists and science-lovers to spread the good word。-- This review was originally published on Riding the Dragon。 。。。more
Bruce Rennie
，
This book is a challenge， but one that is well worth it。I came to Ms Oreskes via her previous work "Merchants of Doubt" which chronicles the efforts of a loose group of free market ideologues to undermine science on a number of issues in order to head off governmental regulation。 That book neatly exposes the history and tactics of professional science denier whose efforts were felt in the fight over tobacco and second hand smoke， acid rain， CFCs and ozone depletion， and， of course， climate chang This book is a challenge， but one that is well worth it。I came to Ms Oreskes via her previous work "Merchants of Doubt" which chronicles the efforts of a loose group of free market ideologues to undermine science on a number of issues in order to head off governmental regulation。 That book neatly exposes the history and tactics of professional science denier whose efforts were felt in the fight over tobacco and second hand smoke， acid rain， CFCs and ozone depletion， and， of course， climate change。Merchant of Doubt deals with the growing threat of science denial for ideological and/or economic purposes。 Why Trust Science is nominally an accompanying book which considers the title question。 Anyone who has encountered individuals who try to refute climate science by claiming "they were wrong about global cooling in the 80s" understands why such a book may be necessary。The book itself is laid out in an interesting manner。 In the first 2 chapters Ms Oreskes deals with fundamental topics of knowledge and scientific advancement and discusses instances when science has actually gone off the rails。 This section， in itself was interesting as Ms Oreskes makes the argument that "the scientific method" as we understand it is NOT the true strength behind science。 Instead， that strength is the scientific community。 Ms Oreskes makes the argument that your world is a set of social trust relationships: you implicitly trust your dentist， your plumber， your barber。 What makes science different is that there is a central "community" that bestows expert status， reviews ideas and new information， and rejects those that fail to convince or contain error。 Is it perfect？ It's a community of humans so the answer must be no。 But it works a lot （a real lot） more often than it doesn't。 Ms Oreskes then turns the middle chapters of the book over to other writers who contribute critiques of her initial thoughts。 The book ends with Ms Oreskes response to these critiques。 The technique is obviously intended to remind the reader of the tradition of peer review in scientific papers， but it also provides an interesting and thought provoking experience。 The book is a challenge to read。 It presents more as a scientific paper than as a book for general consumption。 Certainly， it is much more formal in presentation than the approachable Merchants of Doubt。 Given that Ms Oreskes stated purpose is to try to inoculate the public against the growing tide of science denial， one does wonder if a less academic approach might be more successful。 I did go into the book expecting a less difficult read but I'm glad I stuck with it。 I walked away with some new ideas on epistemology， science， and most importantly， how to deal with both as a layman。 。。。more
Leif
，
Even though I disagree with Oreskes in many ways， I found this book a good primer that allows her to present the dominant wisdom of the scientific community regarding the "good" of science。 Better yet， Oreskes mainstreams a very contemporary focus on feminist perspectives that feels both intuitive and clear - and from the little that I know about the philosophy of science， to older histories of science this might be acutely revolutionary！ In the range of complications and critiques that follow O Even though I disagree with Oreskes in many ways， I found this book a good primer that allows her to present the dominant wisdom of the scientific community regarding the "good" of science。 Better yet， Oreskes mainstreams a very contemporary focus on feminist perspectives that feels both intuitive and clear - and from the little that I know about the philosophy of science， to older histories of science this might be acutely revolutionary！ In the range of complications and critiques that follow Oreskes' two initial lectures， the most interesting I found were those who noted that Oreskes doesn't handle the question of policy that well。 Her responses are effective insofar as they illustrate her severe limitations in misunderstanding power and policy， which is of course what governments choose to do or not to do （something Oreskes misses）。 As I read， I often reflected that Oreskes depends on a strictly professional demarcation of worlds predicated on the classist system of academic power。 This demarcation is at odds with her high valuation of diversity and her discussions of socialism and capitalism。 This unresolved paradox makes it difficult for her to come to grips with what seems her central animus: those why "deny" climate change as a matter of policy， and the impact of their activity on the rest of us。This is a great book precisely because it so clearly shows Oreskes' strengths and limitations， and I encourage other readers to take it up eagerly。 。。。more
Bruce
，
Excellent， if you’re interested in how science works。
Ray
，
Naomi Oreskes book， "Why Trust Science？"， was a little dry for my taste， but the author tries to make the point that science done right， works。 The process follows the scientific method of testing， proving and re-proving， and responds to evidence， observations， and experience。 A scientific belief may be held until it can be proven to be untrue， and when it can't be shown to be untrue， given enough tries and enough time， we then begin to have confidence。 But even then， some people may have troubl Naomi Oreskes book， "Why Trust Science？"， was a little dry for my taste， but the author tries to make the point that science done right， works。 The process follows the scientific method of testing， proving and re-proving， and responds to evidence， observations， and experience。 A scientific belief may be held until it can be proven to be untrue， and when it can't be shown to be untrue， given enough tries and enough time， we then begin to have confidence。 But even then， some people may have trouble accepting what's presented as scientific facts。 That may be due to a conflict with religious beliefs （such as the age of the earth）， or conflicts with political beliefs （such as the belief that markets， not regulations， are the way to solve problems）。 If accepting a science report conflicts with a previously held religious belief， or conflicts with a previously held political belief， one may disregard the science over their value system。 But if one can examine their own values， their prejudices， and examine how the analysis was performed， it might help。 Before theories are taken seriously， further studies need to be made， and confirmation testing must be completed。 Science tends to be self-correcting， and when enough studies and tests are completed， confidence increases。 Oreskes makes the point that consensus is a crucial indicator of when a scientific matter has been settled， and in those cases， the knowledge produced is likely to be trustworthy。Still， Oreskis notes that the process may not be perfect。 Nothing ever is when humans are involved。 She gives a number of examples where commonly held "scientific" beliefs in the past have been proven wrong。 For a time， people thought that the human race could be improved through controlled population breeding （eugenics）。 Also， when the idea of plate tectonics and continental drift was first introduced， it was ridiculed， until further analysis and examination found that the facts fit the theory。 Also， there was a time when men felt women shouldn't be educated because the strength and energy required would be harmful。 Certainly， given the chance， women around the world have proven that belief to be wrong。 But despite several examples widely held beliefs that have proven to be wrong， it doesn't mean that we should be skeptical of all science。 Ideas presented as scientific， but which really aren't， do need to be challenged。 Science， properly vetted， does work。 We've got satellites， cell phones， x-ray technology， computers， weather radar and 7-day forecasts， rockets， weapons， planes， submarines， oil exploration， fracking， all things produced by good science。 We believe in these things， because we see them， use them。 When scientists tell us things， in their field of expertise， and in overwhelming numbers， it's worth paying attention。 Science is trustworthy。 On the other hand， the voice of a singular person， or even a scientist discussing items NOT in his or her field of expertise， is not reassuring。 。。。more
Miguel
，
The book has an interesting format: the first 60% is comprised of a series of lectures that Oreskes gave which is a history of scientific understanding （Kuhn / Popper and a host of others who have opined on scientific thought） followed by a longer section on some of the more blatant examples where scientific understanding went astray （eugenics key among them）。 Her lectures are followed by several other scholars giving their input on the topic， capped with Oreskes herself responding to these。 So The book has an interesting format: the first 60% is comprised of a series of lectures that Oreskes gave which is a history of scientific understanding （Kuhn / Popper and a host of others who have opined on scientific thought） followed by a longer section on some of the more blatant examples where scientific understanding went astray （eugenics key among them）。 Her lectures are followed by several other scholars giving their input on the topic， capped with Oreskes herself responding to these。 So more like a very long magazine article， letters to the editor， and the authors response。 Interesting throughout， although the responses are a bit much。 And no flat-earth discussion， unfortunately， as this is always good for a laugh。 However， flossing makes a key appearance， and I was relieved to hear someone speak so forcefully on why a good daily floss is essential。 。。。more
Carlo Gubitosa
，
The history of science as a social enterprise where progress is driven by cultural diversity and value sharing。
Paul
，
Naomi Oreskes writes beautifully about the history and philosophy of science in a way that is accessible to the layman， as well as scientists。 In this book she argues that science is not “pure” and there is no magic， single “scientific method。” Nevertheless， we can have overall trust in science as， "a communal activity of experts， who use diverse methods to gather empirical evidence， and critically vet claims deriving from it。” The author asks us to consider who is funding scientific studies and Naomi Oreskes writes beautifully about the history and philosophy of science in a way that is accessible to the layman， as well as scientists。 In this book she argues that science is not “pure” and there is no magic， single “scientific method。” Nevertheless， we can have overall trust in science as， "a communal activity of experts， who use diverse methods to gather empirical evidence， and critically vet claims deriving from it。” The author asks us to consider who is funding scientific studies and what their political and economic bias may be。 She believes that consensus among scientists is a key to trusting scientific findings。 The author is a fair and respectful writer。 By that， I mean that her arguments are logically and soundly presented and she does not need to belittle or denigrate views that are different from her own。 She carefully examines issues from different sides。 The book also offers critical responses from other writers on the subject。 。。。more
Henry Cooksley
，
An interesting， timely book covering various debates in philosophy of science， the public understanding of science， feminist and social epistemology， and some extended discussion of specific examples e。g。 debates about climate science and nutrition。 The book is derived from lectures presented at the Tanner Lectures on Human Values in 2016 at Princeton University， along with various replies。 This a vast topic and the lectures manage to have considerable depth despite the book being relatively sho An interesting， timely book covering various debates in philosophy of science， the public understanding of science， feminist and social epistemology， and some extended discussion of specific examples e。g。 debates about climate science and nutrition。 The book is derived from lectures presented at the Tanner Lectures on Human Values in 2016 at Princeton University， along with various replies。 This a vast topic and the lectures manage to have considerable depth despite the book being relatively short， and as such this seems like a great introduction for those wishing to learn more about the philosophy of science in a contemporary context。 I look forward to reading more work by the same author。“Feminist epistemology soundly refutes the claim that the social character of science makes it subjective。 On the contrary， we can now see that scientists who were offended by the social turn in science studies – as well as science studies scholars who thought they could debunk science by exposing its social character – got it wrong。 The feminist account of the social character of science can make a stronger case for the objectivity of scientific knowledge than previous accounts by identifying both sources of bias and remedies to it。”“The processes of critical interrogation rely on an assumption of good faith: that participants are interested in learning and have a shared interest in truth。 It assumes that the participants do not have an intellectually compromising conflict of interest。 When these assumptions are violated – when people use skepticism to undermine and discredit science rather than to revise and strengthen it， and to confuse audiences rather than to inform them – the entire process is disabled。”“If the history of science teaches anything， it is humility。 Smart， hard-working， and well-intentioned scientists in the past have drawn conclusions that we now view as incorrect。 They have allowed crude social prejudice to inform their scientific thinking。 They have ignored or neglected evidence that was readily available。 They have become fetishists about method。 And they have successfully persuaded their colleagues to take positions that in hindsight we see as incorrect， immoral， or both。”“In evaluating a scientific claim that has social， political， or personal consequences there is one more question that needs to be considered: What are the stakes of being wrong in either direction？ What is the risk of accepting a claim that turns out to be false versus the risk of rejecting a claim that turns out to be true？”“Our perspectives depend to a great extent on our life experience， so a community of all men – or all women for that matter – is likely to have a narrower range of experience and therefore a narrower range of perspectives than a mixed one。 Evidence from the commercial world supports this point。 Studies of gender diversity in the workplace show that adding women in leadership positions increases company profitability – but only up to a point。 That point is about 60%。 If a company's leadership becomes all or nearly female， then the “diversity bonus” begins to decline， as indeed， if the argument here is correct， it should。”“Some people worry that overconfidence in the findings of science or the views of scientists can lead to bad public policy。 I agree: overemphasizing technical considerations at the expense of social， moral， or economic ones can lead to bad decisions。 But this does not bear on the question of whether the science involved is right or wrong。 If a scientific matter is settled and the scientific community that has settled on it is open and diverse， then it behooves us to accept that science and then decide what （if anything） to do about its implications。This， at least， is what nearly every scientist I know would say。 It is something that in the past I have said。 It actualizes the classic fact/value distinction: the idea that we can identify facts and then （separately） decide what if anything to do about them based on our values。 But as an empirical matter this strategy is no longer working （if it ever did）， because most people do not separate science from its implications。 Many people reject climate science， for example， not because there is anything wrong with that science， qua science， but because it conflicts – or is seen as conflicting – with their values， their religious views， their political ideology， and/or their economic interests。 There are many reasons people may reject or be critical of scientific findings， but often it involves the perception that these findings contradict their values or threaten their way of life。” 。。。more
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Why Trust Science?
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Why Trust Science?&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft
The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Why Trust Science?&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0