One of my students is reading a book called Why Trust Science? (Oreskes) for her class. She really liked it and suggested that I read it. While chapter 1 (a history of the science of science) was horribly boring, the rest of the book was quite good and interesting. The author tries to tell readers why they should trust science especially in regards to climate change. Other authors were solicited to give feedback. I agree with most of the claims by the author. But to sum up the argument, science is consensus.

There were a lot of good quotable moments in the book, including “At any given moment, it makes sense to make decisions on the information we have, and be prepared to alter our plans if future evidence warrants.” Boy doesn’t that quote hit the COVID crisis? The last chapter is the best, but you have to read the rest of the book to get its full effect.

---

My big problem with the book is that its approach is so deep and sophisticated. I think it is best to put into pictures.

Here is what the book reminds me off:

As if to say “Jolly good. Splendid argument professor. Please pass the kettle, I need to warm my tea.”

However the reality of the world, climate change, and the science/religion argument situation is more like:

Would this book be convincing to someone who doesn’t agree with science’s findings? I have no idea. The whole thing is a disaster. Consider Neil deGrasse Tyson‘s argument with Steak-umm last year on twitter.

---

There is an interesting idea about how as scientists we should state our values so that there is nothing hidden. Other people, such as those with a strong religious background, may share those values and that might help to trust the scientists more. That is interesting and different than what scientist are usually told (i.e., science doesn’t depend on values). But scientists do have values. While values might not matter to science, they may matter to people who have to use your results to make policy decisions. Interesting. I will come back to this.