Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Carter's avatar

I think this is a bit naive, but then my own heuristics are biased towards reflexive skepticism of the claims made by institutional science, especially as regards politically or economically charged subjects. This is the result of a lifetime of having experienced such things as the Oxycontin or Vioxx scandals; the replication crisis; terrible dietary advice (margarine is healthier than butter etc.); publication bias; Ioniddis' work showing that the bulk of the biomed literature is statistically irrelevant; and so on. Furthermore, my experience in academic science has generally been that most scientists are profoundly lacking in curiosity outside of their narrow specialization, leading to a highly restricted perspective on the world that makes it very easy for them to be suborned by bad faith ideological or economic actors. Thus my heuristic is 'don't trust' rather than 'trust'.

Your larger point about the importance of trust is certainly correct. This is something I've been trying to hammer into the heads of my own tribalist colleagues for many years now, whenever they bemoan the growing tendency of the great unwashed to be 'anti-science'. Humans use heuristic reasoning, and when it comes to trust that's essentially a binary choice. Scientific institutions painstakingly built up a large amount of credibility over centuries. Recently it seems to me that this credibility has been strip-mined by various actors looking to leverage it for marketing purposes (Big Pharma) or to advance various political agendas (climate change, sorry the 'climate emergency'; 'anti'-racism; gender theory; etc). Time and again they've been caught lying, while shouting down dissenters, always with negative societal consequences. Every time that happens the credibility of institutional science is depleted. At this point it's in tatters. Rebuilding that trust, if it's even possible, will take a long time and require some very serious soul-searching in the scientific community. Blaming the masses for being stupid and ignorant, which seems to be the default of the credentialed class, is not going to do it.

Expand full comment
Mike Hind's avatar

Great piece, Tom, which kind of chimes with my recent one about 'proportionate scepticism'. Many people claim that the various bits of evidence that 'experts' and 'science' are not always a panacea have simply opted for a different heuristic. Reflexive distrust. It's just as lazy and misleading as never questioning what The Guardian and leftish Twitter says.

Thanks for being your own person.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts