Here’s What’s Wrong with ‘Trust the Science’
20th November 2020
Think about the times you’ve been told to “trust the science.” Two occasions should come to mind immediately: when discussing climate change and when talking about the Wuhan coronavirus.
There’s a lot of science being done on the subject of climate change. There’s a lot of science being done on the subject of the coronavirus. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the vast bulk of this is “good” science — that it’s being conducted by competent people acting in accordance with the techniques and standards of science. That’s almost certainly a safe assumption.
You still shouldn’t “trust the science.”
That’s because when we’re talking about public policy — and that’s what we’re always talking about when people tell you to “trust the science” — we’re talking about a lot more than just science.
Take climate change policy. Science can make predictions about temperatures and sea levels 80 years from now (though how well it does that is open to debate), but science doesn’t make predictions about economics 80 years from now, or about national boundaries, or populations, or the pace of technological change, or human rights, or any of the myriad other things that have to be considered when creating public policy.
So when the politician tells you to “trust the science” about climate change, he’s also telling you to trust all the other “experts” who think they can predict the future 80 years from now, all the economists and sociologists and population experts and futurists, and to believe that they all know better than you how you should live your life.