The Why Trust Science? Book by Naomi Orestes

Table of Contents

Introduction
Why Trust Science?
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

In the modern world, there is an overwhelming amount of information used by people, most of which is based on scientific data and research. This scientific paper analyzes the book Naomi Orestes, in which the researcher raises the question of the essence of science and makes an attempt to make arguments in favor of the importance of trust in scientific knowledge. In support of his opinion, theoretical descriptions of what this phenomenon is, especially concerning climate change, are given. Moreover, the author also considers the opposite point of view, which is valuable for the formation of a balanced and reasoned opinion. Thus, the value of the research in the book Why Trust Science? is important as a source that contributes to the formation of a point of view about the degree to which people should trust scientific knowledge.

Why Trust Science?

First of all, it is necessary to consider the issue of theoretical problems of trust in science. The importance of this phenomenon lies in the fact that it opposes the issue of distrust of information. The book Orestes provides arguments from the philosophical foundations of science. Thus, the problem of trust, when considered in the light of this point of view, affects the nature of science and the scientific method. Previously, it was believed that achievements in this field are the engines of the process and is justified by careful observations and following methods.

It is essential to consider in more detail the argument in favor of trust in science is that it is based on a scientific method. Orestes gives an example that at school, individuals are instilled that everything that is written in textbooks should be taken as the truth. However, the substantiation of knowledge by the scientific method is incorrect since it involves the development of a hypothesis and then the development of an experiment to test it. However, this process is not what scientists do in their work. Historical data presents information that scientists use a variety of methods that change over time.

Another proof that people should trust science is that it is devoid of conflicts of interest. This is due to the fact that in the field of climate change, industries engaged in the study of this global problem are aimed at making a profit or advantage for further development, sometimes hiding the real data obtained. Thus, scientific knowledge that should not be fully trusted is data that is obtained from certain organizations that conduct research in their favor. Another justification for the possibility of distrust of scientific knowledge may be the values that play a certain role in the formation of the phenomenon under study. Thus, different views on a particular problem can be evaluated differently by representatives of different communities. Religious or moral values can also be an obstacle to gaining confidence in scientific knowledge. In contrast, the author of the book argues that scientists need to be honest about their values and views in order to avoid such situations.

Historical criticism in the direction of trust in science explains that, contrary to opinion, there is no single scientific method. Moreover, it is explained that the teachings in the course of history base their knowledge not on belief but on belief in a certain phenomenon that requires proof. Thus, the reliability of scientific data is formed on the basis of social influence and its verification. It is worth noting that this process has its drawbacks, and the participation of people is conditioned by some subjectivism (Orestes, 2019). However, it makes it possible to refute some of the assumptions that scientists deduce in their practice. Therefore, the general opinion of individuals about a particular scientific knowledge has a significant role. Only when this consensus is reached can the data be considered trustworthy. In other words, common sense is Oreskes proposed response to theoretical or other criticisms.

One of the main arguments given in the book under study as an answer to criticism is the fact that scientific beliefs change over time. This process is influenced by many external and internal factors of the development of society, such as the introduction of new technologies that allow double-checking the available data. Oreskes notes that even scientists can make mistakes, which can mislead people. Nevertheless, the researcher cites examples in history when such cases have occurred, for example, long-disputed evidence that hormonal birth control can lead to depression (Orestes, 2019). It is worth emphasizing that this is done to confirm the point of view that mistakes are inevitable, even in such an area as science.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this scientific work considered the work of Naomi Orestes, Why Trust Science? and the rationale for the opinion that people should trust scientific knowledge. Thus, the main argument supporting the authors point of view is the fact that the data obtained by scientists have value by virtue of evidence through the use of scientific methods and observations. Moreover, science is a collectively supported phenomenon and not an individual point of view, which deprives it of the problem of forming an opinion of an authority that can not always be trusted. Consequently, the author notes that the data obtained during the research of organizations that work for their own profit cannot be considered true.