Why should we trust science? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes has pondered this question for years, and here she talks about the surprising answer she has come up with (hint: it’s not because of the scientific method). Naomi, a geologist by training, also talks about her time working for a mining company in Australia, the skepticism she faced as a woman, and how she later fell in love with the history of science.

Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science at Harvard University and one of the world’s leading voices on the role of science in society and the reality of anthropogenic climate change. She has thought and written extensively about climate denial and disinformation, most famously in 2010’s Merchants of Doubt, which she co-wrote with Erik Conway.

Her latest book “Why Trust Science?” was published in October 2019. In it, Naomi argues that it is the social character of science – the various ways in which scientists discuss, scrutinize and test each other’s findings – that makes scientific knowledge trustworthy. If that process operates without conflicts of interest, and if it includes a diversity of methods and voices, it will result in an evidence-based consensus that people have good reasons to trust.

“Most people think that if we should trust science it’s either because scientists are brilliant and geniuses, or because scientists use the scientific method, and the scientific method produces reliable results. I argue that neither of those is correct.
What really is crucial in science is the social process of vetting claims. […] My argument is that that’s actually the basis for the reliability of scientific claims.”

You can find more information about Naomi Oreskes and her work on her website.

The interview with Naomi Oreskes was recorded in July 2019. Photo credit: Kayana Szymczak, ©Princeton University Press