Questo, a mio avviso, è l’argomento a favore della diversità nella scienza e, in generale, nella vita intellettuale. Una comunità omogenea farà fatica a rendersi conto di quali, fra le sue convinzioni, sono legittimate dall’evidenza e quali non lo sono. Dopo tutto, così come è difficile accorgersi del proprio accento, lo è anche riconoscere i pregiudizi condivisi. Una comunità con valori diversificati individuerà e contrasterà più facilmente le credenze pregiudiziali incorporate nelle teorie scientifiche o che si fingono tali.

Se conoscete qualcunǝ scetticǝ sui vaccini o la crisi climatica, consigliatelǝ questo libro. Non perché sia il libro definitivo che raccoglie tutte le prove a favore dei vaccini o altri fatti assodati, ma perché affronta la questione della sfiducia nei confronti delle conoscenze scientifiche spiegando il modo in cui queste conoscenze vengono acquisite.

Mi sembra, infatti, che una larga fetta di scetticismo ingiustificato provenga dal semplice fatto di non sapere come funzioni la scienza e di non avere una comunicazione della scienza (perlomeno da parte dei media più diffusi) che si preoccupa di spiegarlo, in modo da contestualizzare correttamente ogni notizia scientifica. Avremmo avuto lo stesso panico da effetti collaterali del vaccino di AstraZeneca con una conoscenza scientifica di base e una comunicazione migliori? ( )

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. ( )