DeepSummary
The episode features an interview with science historian Naomi Oreskes about her book 'Why Trust Science?' Oreskes discusses the evolution of science from relying on individual scientists' reputations to its current collaborative nature. She argues that science is trustworthy due to the social process of critical scrutiny, where claims are vetted and subjected to rigorous evaluation by diverse scientific communities.
Oreskes addresses cases where science was wrong, emphasizing that there was often informed debate and dissent at the time. She highlights examples like the 'limited energy theory' and the contraceptive pill's side effects, where evidence from women was initially discounted. Oreskes advocates for being open-minded about different forms of evidence and not blindly adhering to methodological dogma.
Oreskes provides a checklist for evaluating the trustworthiness of science, considering factors like diversity in the scientific community, examining problems from multiple angles, the duration of study, and the presence of consensus. She also discusses Pascal's wager, suggesting that the risks of ignoring scientific evidence on issues like climate change are far greater than acting on potentially false claims.
Key Episodes Takeaways
- Modern science is a collaborative endeavor, relying on a social process of critical scrutiny rather than the reputation of individual scientists.
- Even when science has been wrong, there was often informed debate and dissent within the scientific community at the time.
- We should be open-minded about different forms of evidence and not blindly adhere to methodological dogma.
- Factors like diversity in the scientific community, examining problems from multiple angles, the duration of study, and the presence of consensus can help evaluate the trustworthiness of scientific claims.
- The risks of ignoring scientific evidence on issues like climate change are far greater than acting on potentially false claims.
- Scientific findings should be applied in practical ways, even if unconventional approaches are required.
- Science is a constant process of refining and updating our understanding, rather than a fixed set of immutable truths.
- While science is not perfect, it is the best system we have for understanding the natural world.
Top Episodes Quotes
- “For many years I've held that maxim in my back pocket as a reminder to check my own work, to ensure intellectual rigor in historic and scientific tasks, and, most critically, to explain the scientific method and the role of scientists in society to members of the public, from kindergarteners to sitting members of the United States Congress.“ by Jess Phoenix
- “And the short version is, it's not because of a unique scientific method and it's not because of who scientists are as individuals. It's not because they're particularly smart or particularly moral or anything like that. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but it's because scientists have means of evaluating claims, of vetting claims, and subjecting those claims to critical scrutiny. And it's that collective or social process of critical scrutiny, which I argue is the thing that yields reliable knowledge.“ by Naomi Oreskes
- “So, yes, I imagine a world where next to Starbucks, there could be like a little dental flossing bar where you could just pop in and for $5, have a quick flossing and we would have much better dental health.“ by Naomi Oreskes
Entities
Organization
Person
Book
Theoretical idea
Episode Information
Got Science?
KKFI Community Podcasts
2/14/23