Why should we trust scientists, anyway? Naomi Oreskes, a Harvard professor of history of science, tackles that question in a recent TED video. Oreskes co-authored Merchants of Doubt, which told the story of a small group of corporate-funded scientists "who fought the scientific evidence and spread confusion on many of the most important issues of our time," such as climate change.
Though these scientists are often called "skeptics" in the media, Oreskes argues that skepticism is crucial to forming a scientific consensus in the first place. "Science is intrinsically conservative. It's quite hard to persuade the scientific community to say, 'Yes, we know something, this is true,'" she says in the video.
Oreskes argues that our trust in science shouldn't be "blind trust," but rather based in evidence. "And that means that scientists have to become better communicators. They have to explain to us not just what they know, but how they know it. And it means that we have to become better listeners."
We have a request
Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:
1. Advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan.
2. We’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — we believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.
It’s important that we have several ways we make money, and that’s why we ask readers for help keeping Vox free. Our goal today is for 47 Vox readers to pledge an annual financial gift to Vox to help us keep our work free for everyone. Will you become one of them?
Yes, I'll give $120/year
Yes, I'll give $120/year
We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and
Google Pay. You can also contribute via
