Why the social character of scientific knowledge makes it
trustworthy
Do doctors really know what they are talking about when they tell us
vaccines are safe? Should we take climate experts at their word when
they warn us about the perils of global warming? Why should we trust
science when our own politicians don't? In this landmark book, Naomi
Oreskes offers a bold and compelling defense of science, revealing why
the social character of scientific knowledge is its greatest
strength--and the greatest reason we can trust it.
Tracing the history and philosophy of science from the late nineteenth
century to today, Oreskes explains that, contrary to popular belief,
there is no single scientific method. Rather, the trustworthiness of
scientific claims derives from the social process by which they are
rigorously vetted. This process is not perfect--nothing ever is when
humans are involved--but she draws vital lessons from cases where
scientists got it wrong. Oreskes shows how consensus is a crucial
indicator of when a scientific matter has been settled, and when the
knowledge produced is likely to be trustworthy.
Based on the Tanner Lectures on Human Values at Princeton University,
this timely and provocative book features critical responses by climate
experts Ottmar Edenhofer and Martin Kowarsch, political scientist Jon
Krosnick, philosopher of science Marc Lange, and science historian Susan
Lindee, as well as a foreword by political theorist Stephen Macedo.
