Why the public should not “believe in science”

Instead, we should publicly and freely discuss it

I am currently hard at work in preparing several papers and in trying to make headway regarding completing my medical education. However, in this post, I would like to briefly explain why I think we should abandon this idea that the public should “believe in science”.

Science is not a creed. One cannot "believe in science". Science is not just a method, either, though the scientific method is certainly an important part of science. Above all, science is a social process that produces outputs that can be used by various parties, whether interested specialists, entrepreneurs, technologists, corporations, or professions, for example, or by the public at large.

The social process by which scientists generate, make, and popularize scientific claims about the world is often contaminated. First, the claims of scientists often enter popular discourse because they are expedient for powerful parties, due to their policy implications, who have an interest in these claims being widely disseminated. Second, scientists in their own turn are incentivized to tailor both their research and their public claims to appeal to these powerful parties, who can help these scientists advance their personal careers.

Scientific claims made to the public can have radical implications for the organization of society. Free, open, public discussion about science can help to reveal some of this contamination and ensure that these ideas and their implications for social organization best serve the public, and are not simply imposed upon the public at the behest of these powerful interests at the public’s expense. Critical science journalists, scientists, and communicators who are well versed both in scientific methodology and in the policy and political context of scientific claims made in the popular discourse can help to facilitate these discussions by critically examining and explaining these claims.

This group of people is also biased in various ways. To work out those biases, in turn, we need a plurality of voices and opinions.

All of this discussion about scientific claims helps to ensure that science serves the public, i.e. that science’s implications for the way society is organized best serve the public’s interest.

We do not need to “believe in” some monolithic “science” that only takes place according to the “scientific method”. And in fact, we shouldn't. Because both science and science in popular discourse often serves powerful interests and is sometimes or even often tailored to these interests rather than strictly to the benefit of society, for the public to take such discourse at face value would be harmful to it. The public must play an active, critical role in the reception of scientific claims.

Furthermore, even when public scientific discourse is fully intended by the scientists who promote it to benefit society, open discussion by the public serves as an important check to ensure that it really does, not just according to intention but in actual fact.

Now, on an individual level, people ought to use science as it benefits their lives, as a tool. If individuals are really interested in how science impacts society, they can also learn about that and even become involved in these discussions as well.

But again, the purpose of all of this is for all of us, individually and collectively, to decide how science serves us and helps us achieve our goals, rather than to take science as some kind of creed, for all of the above reasons. Not unimportantly, taking science as a creed even in the most ideal of circumstances has nothing to do with science at all, either. Even scientists don't do that. Knowing that science is a flawed social process, neither should we.