Admittedly, it’s an opinion piece but it sounds as though the author lives on the same planet we do:
As a scientist and an organizer of this conference, I had walked into the planning of this meeting with my own frustrations and preconceptions about “science denial,” and how to fix it. On the day of the
event I cautioned the audience that they should prepare to have their assumptionschallenged, because after immersing myself in the field I had thrown all of mine away.Following a day of conversation with more than 20 expert speakers, six key takeaways emerged from the event: …
Check yourself. Remember when bloodletting was a thing? For centuries, leading physicians thought that removing a person’s blood could treat a wide swath of ailments. As it should, scientific consensus evolves over time as new knowledge is uncovered, so what we perceive as “truth” today may change. On top of that, science is a power structure with its own flaws. It still struggles with
diversity, and is full of hierarchies, biases, and norms that are not easily disrupted. Before we engage with those who challenge scientific thinking, we should first answer the following questions for ourselves: What were the motivations behind the research? How well corroborated is the data? What oversight and criticismhas it received? And—this may the most important of all—why do we believe it? Kari Fischer, “Opinion: What You Believe about “Science Denial” May Be All Wrong” at The Scientist
That’s a new one. “Why do we believe it?” as opposed to “Here is what you must believe!” Caution! You never know what doors that could open.
Sadly, all too often, the scenarios we encounter are n
Good thing someone is getting it right: If you want
See also: Why, in many cases, you’d be a fool to “trust science”
Follow UD News at Twitter!