Consider the following scenarios:
In an “experts say” news story, two academics are quoted, both in agreement with some proposition. The piece makes passing reference to criticisms of the proposition, which are then refuted.
A scientist makes strong claims in a podcast about his latest research, generalizing well beyond his findings.
A popular science article touts the nutritional benefits of avocados, quoting nutritionists and summarizing a couple studies.
The head of a country’s public health agency holds a press conference and recommends certain public health measures.
A major medical association releases a statement strongly supporting a controversial treatment.
A non-profit organization calls for a pesticide to be banned, citing various scientists and studies to make its case.
Researchers issue a press release that their latest research strongly supports some proposition. However, the press release does not mention study limitations or alternative explanations for the findings.
During a panel presentation, scientists discuss the significance of some development in their field. They disagree.
A poll of climate scientists reveals that 90% agree with some proposition. What about 80%...70%....
A poll of agronomists reveals that 90% agree that some controversial agricultural practice is safe or dangerous. What about 80%...70%....
A New York Times piece says there’s a consensus among climate scientists/agronomists/economists/nutritionists, environments, etc. that such-and-such is the case.
A Des Moines Register piece says there’s a consensus, etc.
Some questions:
What would you consider the “science” in these scenarios? What science would you trust? What leads you to trust one science claim and not another? If the credibility of the source, how do you determine the credibility of a source?
What does “consensus” mean? How does one know a consensus actually exists? Should a consensus be accepted as truth? Or probably true? What leads you to doubt or question a consensus?
If you doubt a science claim, would you explore the possibility you’re wrong in doubting? If so, how would you go about this exploration?
Have you ever changed your mind about a scientific claim? If so, what led you to change your mind?
Can you ever have reservations about a science claim but accept its implications “just in case”?
Do you sometimes accept a science claim as either true or probably true because it’s just too much work to try to verify the claim yourself?
How does one tell the difference between scientific knowledge and a scientific opinion? Note that scientific opinions are different than everyday opinions, which are often evaluative (e.g., good, bad, boring, etc.). Scientific opinions are often about what is true, what is actually the case.
How does one recognize an opinion dressed up as a fact?
What counts as evidence for a scientific truth claim, and what doesn’t?
What makes a scientist an authority - or the authority? Why?
What makes a scientific statement authoritative?
What is science?