Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
self-governance of science is one thing. How we choose to respond to what
scientists tell us is another entirely. Institutionalised scepticism, and pub-
lic involvement 'up-' and 'downstream' of science can all help to protect a
society from being rendered too vulnerable to epistemic dependence on sci-
entists. But ultimately, societies must decide whether and how to act when
well-governed science represents things like climate change to us. Here, it
seems to me, the two 'gates' are highly instructive. Both incidents, as we've
seen, focussed enormous attention on what happens inside the black box
of science. But, equally, they
should have instigated a searching examination of
how societies currently use science in post-normal situations
. That they did
not
tells
us much about our current willingness to defer decision-making for fear of
choosing badly. Before I explain what I mean, complete the following study
task.
Study Task:
Think of all the ways in which you pay conscious attention
to what scientists say in your own life. By 'scientists' I mean experts who
study the natural world (broadly conceived) and/or figure out how we can
protect, adapt to or modify it. After reflecting on a range of examples where
you voluntarily, or by force of circumstance, listen to what scientists say,
ask yourself how you 'consume' science. For instance, are you impressed
by science in the main? Do you largely trust what scientists say? Does it
impinge directly on your own health or well-being? Are you happy to take
instruction from science? Can you think of situations where science would
be relevant to something that matters to you, but insufficient to help you
decide how to proceed?
As I noted earlier in this topic, scientists use the rhetoric of 'truth', 'real-
ity' and 'objectivity' when presenting claims about the world that they want
us to notice. We take that rhetoric seriously because it 'performs' success-
fully: our illnesses get cured or a predicted hurricane duly arrives. But our
social contract with science is such that we normally take responsibility,
often through our elected politicians, for the value decisions that are under-
pinned by the 'facts' of science. For instance, if I'm told I have a 25 per cent
chance of surviving cancer, it's for me to decide if I want radiotherapy or
not. I'm not suggesting that science is value-free. For instance, creating arti-
ficial life forms is shot through with profound value judgements. But once
scientists commit to a line of inquiry, like understanding past global tem-
perature trends, we want and expect them to assemble the best evidence and
to analyse it scrupulously. The fact that scientists are not automatons exer-
cising stern logic and pure rationality doesn't make them dishonest. We can
accept the STS insight that science 'constructs' knowledge (refer to
Box 3.3)
without concluding that scientists simply fabricate findings to win respect,
tially implied other things were going on. In short, scientists, and the rest of
