Most people agree that science has generally been a good thing for society and accept the vast majority of scientific findings. But many people—particularly many religious people—disagree with the main conclusions of scientists on issues like evolution, climate change, and vaccines. Part of the reason for this disconnect is that science is often understood to be a competitor to religious faith.
Some famous scientists reinforce this belief when they use their platforms to make pronouncements that go well beyond their area of expertise. That can lead to mistrust. Like any other field of specialized knowledge, we ought to defer to experts in their areas of expertise, but we should also be mindful of the limits of that expertise. If you have an electrical problem at your house, it is reasonable to trust a licensed electrician to solve it. Similarly, when a few experts in biology claim there is no God or that all religion is harmful, they are speaking outside of their area of expertise.
This understandably can make religious people mistrust even what they say about biology. It is only fair to note that this works the other way too: it may be tempting to give greater weight to the scientific conclusions of people who share our faith. For example, at BioLogos we regularly highlight the work of Christian scientists like Francis Collins. We tend to trust people we know, and who are members of our faith community.
Such figures can be important starting points for us to consider the trustworthiness of science. But we must remember that the scientific merit of their work does not rest on their Christian commitments. Hearing from individual scientists we know and trust can make certain scientific conclusions more attractive to us.
Even if a scientist has good credentials and agrees with us on other issues, we should be cautious of accepting their conclusions when they go against the community of experts in a particular discipline. The trustworthiness of science comes from the community of experts following established standards and procedures.
Scientists, as a general rule, are motivated in their work by curiosity about the world and how it works. They ask lots of questions and test possible answers with experiments. They interact with others who are interested in similar questions.
They submit their research to other qualified people who analyze and critique the conclusions, and who even try to produce similar results. This is a process called peer review. Over the long term, a consensus about the answers to scientific questions emerges from the peer review process.
This kind of consensus does not come from scientists in one ideological group. The editors at Outside believe that being outdoors is good for you, and so do I. If you think about people who live naturally in those climates, typically they are dark-skinned or they have adaptations to protect themselves.
In a way, sunscreen is our adaptation. And there is a large body of data to say that using sunscreen is beneficial. But the magazine ran with a claim based on one very small study, and a second larger study that has not yet been published. That was very irresponsible journalism.
The journalist who wrote it was obviously very pleased with himself, as if he had unmasked a great dental floss conspiracy. This is the point: Nobody likes flossing. All people have values, and we always will have values. We do the things we do because we care about things.
And if you had scientists with no values, that would be truly scary. What people often forget is that Frankenstein is the doctor, the scientist. The monster he creates is called the Monster, but the point of the book is: The science is the monster. As a serious question in the practice of science, what are the values driving the science, and are they good or bad? I think that is a conversation we need to have. What kinds of information do scientists use in their research?
Why is that? Are all scientific results replicable? Is science infallible? So in short… Scientific research is a human activity and therefore subject to flaws. Take a deep dive Want to confirm this information is accurate?
Know it all? Prove it. Science relies on: b. But they need to convey to others their conclusions and the methods and evidence on which those conclusions are based so other scientists can check and extend their observations and conclusions. To the extent possible, scientists are expected to make their data and the analyses that determined their results openly available so: a.
True or False: All scientific results are replicable. True b. Share this article:. Stay in the Know We'll send you an email when new content is added! First Name. Last Name. There is now broad agreement among historians, philosophers, sociologists, and anthropologists of science that there is no singular scientific method, and that scientific practice consists of communities of people, making decisions for reasons that are both empirical and social, using diverse methods.
But this leaves us with the question: If scientists are just people doing work, like plumbers or nurses or electricians, and if our scienti fi c theories are fallible and subject to change, then what is the basis for trust in science? I suggest that our answer should be two-fold: 1 its sustained engagement with the world and 2 its social character.
Th e fi rst point is crucial but easily overlooked: Natural scientists study the natural world. Social scientists study the social world. Th at is what they do. Consider a related question: Why trust a plumber? Or an electrician? Or a dentist or a nurse?
One answer is that we trust a plumber to do our plumbing because she is trained and licensed to do plumbing. We would not trust a plumber to do our nursing, nor a nurse to do our plumbing. Of course, plumbers can make mistakes, and so we get recommendations from friends to ensure that any particular plumber has a good track record.
A plumber with a bad track record may fi nd herself out of business.
0コメント