The Crisis of credibility of Science – Nickologist
By CoperNick
Angela Pastore
October 18, 2018
Today’s society is witnessing a gradual increase of distrust towards science which has led to its credibility to be questioned, as demonstrated by the scepticism towards vaccines or by the theories of flat-earthers. One must start from the assumption that “credibility” is a relative concept: it can be said that an affirmation is credible, to varying extents, if there is publicly available evidence of it, and the level of credibility of the affirmation depends on the quality of such evidence at the time of evaluating it [Barrotta P. (2017) Scienza valori e democrazia, Roma, Armando], but it is also true that an affirmation that is credible today may be false, just as a true affirmation may not be credible.
From a subjective point of view, the credibility of a claim will also depend on how accessible the existing evidence is to the individual. In most cases, such evidence will be second hand, meaning that it will depend on the individual’s evaluation of other people’s opinions. This implies that the founding elements of this estimate are the individual’s beliefs and preconceptions.
The trust we place in scientific statements thus depends on the analysis of the historical-social context in which they are produced, on the judgment we formulate on the nature of the process that led to those opinions and on the integrity of the personalities involved.
Moreover, the crisis of scientific credibility has been exacerbated by the proliferation of social media platforms on which all sorts of information is accessible, making it easy to often make mistakes. The sources that offer scientific information have multiplied, making it difficult for users to clearly judge and measure the reliability and credibility of information. In fact, if on one hand the Internet makes everything much easier and faster, on the other hand the amount of information is not monitored, leaving it up to the individual to assess the reliability of a given source. It is all rooted in the individual’s beliefs: in fact, as much as the evidence points towards one direction, one may still justifiably argue in favour of the opposite one.
One must be aware of the fact that society has drifted from the publication of scientific results supported by experts in specialized journals – thus a purely top-down approach to communication – but is confronting an ever-increasing interconnection and interaction between science and itself. Science is therefore more aware of its environmental, economic or political-social impact both on the individual and on the local and global society.
Therefore, although we cannot eradicate our beliefs, we must acknowledge them and take them into account in order to consciously and objectively assess the veridicity of the sciences and allow for a constructive debate to take place on scientific issues. On the other hand, however, the responsibility for such misinformation doesn’t always fall upon individual convictions, for it often happens that scientists, on their side, tend to remain closed in their own world of formulas and technicalities, oblivious to the fact that there are people who may be interested in the topics covered, but do not possess the knowledge required to actively pursue them. Today more than ever, the expression ‘scientific divulgation’ should not be attributed a negative connotation, since spreading information comprehensible to all – including those who do not have a high level of technical knowledge – is now essential. Only through divulgation, in fact, can attention on scientific issues be kept alive while preventing the diffusion of absurd or misleading theories, which would cause the loss of trust in science as a whole.
One must bear in mind that knowledge belongs to everyone and, as Prof. Parisi, professor of theoretical physics at “La Sapienza” University in Rome, stated in a recent interview for Askanews: “To overcome the difficulties of science in its relations with a part of the public opinion – from which positions such as those of the no Vax derive – we scientists must strive to make others aware of the scientific decision-making process that leads to discoveries, with all the difficulties and even failures of hypotheses that prove to be false, “trying and trying again” as Galileo used to say. If science appears to be a kind of magic, it is not surprising that some people turn directly to magic. Science faces the risk of appearing as magic if it does not make visible the path that leads to results”.
Credits Images: Freerangestock and Pixabay
