Trusting Science Again: What Experts Can Learn from Detectives

We expect certain things of academics that we don’t expect of each other.

One of those things is that they should base their pronouncements on sound evidence. Which can be learned from detectives. It constantly amazes me when someone tells me, as a lead into their understanding of an issue is, “I feel that….” followed by a declaratory sentence. This is often about science issues. You can feel ill, hungry, or angry but to say that you “feel” something that may be true or false is a weak way of saying what you think is true.

Alternatively, you could be saying that you “feel” something is true because it aligns with a political philosophy you are comfortable with—which is akin to a religious belief. In that case, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

This is understandable in people that are not scientists, economists, physicians, or others who are expected to use the scientific method of defining questions, generating a hypothesis, gathering and analyzing data and drawing (at least preliminary) conclusions. Imagine how you would feel if you heard:

• An epidemiologist says, “I feel that COVID came from bats.”

• A physician says, “I feel that you have cancer.

• An economist says, “I feel that raising the minimum wage will not affect employment.”

In fact, you probably will never hear that. What you do hear is declarative sentences, e.g., “COVID came from bats.” That would be fine if there is sufficient causal evidence, but bad when it is preliminary (based on too few studies), or based only on associations.

Making positive declarations in those situations may be one source of American distrust of scientists.

Read the full post on my Substack here.