Who should you trust? Why appeals to scientific consensus are often uncompelling
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/why-appeals-to-scientific-consensus-are-often-uncompelling/
EXCERPTS: The public is frequently told to “trust the science,” and then ridiculed for holding any views that differ from what is reported to be the scientific consensus. Should non-experts then naively accept the authorized narrative, or are there good reasons to be skeptical?
[...]
All that said, avoid nihilism or worse. Consumers of scientific information should be skeptical of an apparent scientific consensus, and they should think about some of the factors discussed here when deciding how skeptical they should be. How politicized is this topic? What are the career incentives for the scientists? How easy would it be for scientists to selectively report only the favorable results? Would a study have been published if it had found the opposite result or a null result? The answers to these questions will not definitively tell us whether the scientific consensus is right or wrong, but they should help us decide the degree to which we should simply trust the consensus or investigate further.
Although skepticism is warranted, nihilism is not. Even when a topic is highly politicized and when there are good reasons to worry about biased studies, selective reporting, herding, and so on, the scientific community can still find the right answer...
[...]
Science is a process, not a result. If we want to learn more about the universe ... science is our best hope. So don’t become a nihilist, and don’t replace science with something worse, such as random guessing or deference to authority, religious or political.
Remember that science is just the word we use to describe the process [...] It involves repeated iterations of hypothesizing, experimenting, analyzing, empirical testing, and arguing.
If a group of so-called scientists stop theorizing, testing, and challenging, then they’re no longer engaged in science. Perhaps they’re engaged in advocacy, which is a respectable thing to do, particularly if the theory, evidence, and arguments on their side are strong. Yet advocacy and science are distinctly different activities and shouldn’t be conflated.... (
MORE - missing details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
While one might sort of agree with bygone Freeman Dyson's opinion (below) that prevailing orthodoxies need to be intermittently challenged and critically evaluated, the latter "healthy epistemological routine" can sometimes branch off into an entrenched institution (of dogged contrarianism) in itself.
Freeman Dyson: The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities.
So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. They make confident predictions about the future, and end up believing their own predictions. Their predictions become dogmas which they do not question. The public is led to believe that the fashionable scientific dogmas are true, and it may sometimes happen that they are wrong. That is why heretics who question the dogmas are needed.
[...] I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.
We are lucky that we can be heretics today without any danger of being burned at the stake. But unfortunately I am an old heretic. Old heretics do not cut much ice. When you hear an old heretic talking, you can always say, “Too bad he has lost his marbles”, and pass on. What the world needs is young heretics. I am hoping that one or two of the people who read this piece may fill that role.
--Heretical thoughts about science and society
_