Skepticism & the Architecture of Trust

Abstract

Consider the recent controversy over prostate cancer screening. A Presidential Task Force scaled back recommended testing. But many doctors, citing important cases of detecting cancer, disagreed (Harris, 2011; Brownlee & Lenzer, 2011). Whose judgment should we trust? New England fish populations are threatened, according to experts. They suggest discontinuing cod fishing. But the fishermen report no decrease in their catches and defend their livelihood (Goodnough, 2011; Rosenberg, 2011). Whose expertise should prevail: the scientists’ with their sampling and its inherent uncertainties, or the fishermen’s with their intimate local knowledge? There is a lot of alarm about global warming. But maybe it’s all “hot air.” Many political leaders, including several presidential candidates, cite scientific experts who say that the problem is overblown, and just politicized by biased environmental activists. Whose pronouncements should we heed? As illustrated in these cases, interpreting science in policy and personal decision making poses important challenges. But being able to gather all the relevant evidence, gauge whether it is complete, and evaluate its quality is well beyond the average consumer of science. Inevitably, we all rely on scientific experts. The primary problem is not assessing the evidence, but knowing who to trust ( Sacred Bovines , April, 2012). In standard lore, science educators are responsible for nurturing a sense of skepticism. We want to empower students to guard themselves against health scams, pseudoscientific nonsense, and unjustified reassurances about environmental or worker safety. But one may want to challenge this sacred bovine. That is, skepticism tends to erode belief. Blind doubt itself does not yield reliable knolwedge. The aim, rather, as exmplified in the cases above, is to know where to place our trust. We should teach instead, as described below, the basis for informed trust in science. The problem of knowing who to trust is …