Ann M. Penrose

1. The scientific method (such as it is - it has changed over time and the current philosophy dates only to Karl Popper in the early c20 and his rejection of classical empiricism) is fundamentally conservative so that scientists often make errors of judgement and are markedly reluctant to accept new evidence

2. Scientists are people and subject to all the same prejudices and psychological biases -try reading up on pathological science to see how wrong it can go - people published refractive indexes of different materials to N rays in peer reviewed journals, even though they did not exist.



One of the real problems is that a lay person doesn't quite appreciate what scientific discourse is. Scientists agree on facts, but can disagree on interpretation of data. We often need additional experiments to be certain of a conclusion, and sometimes it can be years before that critical piece of evidence is there for us to be sure. Sometimes you do need to test a contrary hypothesis, even if to show it is wrong. Sometimes, it is the sheer weight of evidence and logic rather than a specific piece of evidence that supports a conclusion and even so, we still welcome experiments that can prove theories wrong.

This is in direct opposition to a very black and white version of events that people hear from media and politicians.

The recent referendum is a point in case. One was supposed to be either wholeheartedly for or 100% against. The poor bugger who truthfully said he was 70% for it, was crucified. Another example is "Smoking Kills" message which although effective is less favoured than the scientifically correct "if you smoke, you are much more likely to get lung cancer which is almost incurable". The latter is more complicated but does get around the smart Alec that uses the anecdote of their grandpa smoking all his life and only dying at the age of 134.

So, part of the education has to be that sometimes scientists need time (and money) to give a concrete answer. But the public shouldn't think that is a weakness of science, because once an consensus answer is given it is based on incontrovertible evidence and logic. People who then question it, are charlatans and snake oil merchants.… (plus d'informations)