Naomi Oreskes

God knows I’ve written a few crass or aggressive reviews before but I’m not even going to review this one — I don’t know if I could stop myself from offending everyone, even those in agreement. The problem is not the book — it’s well done and probably every American should read it. It’s just that I spent 20 years of my life as a 3-pack per day smoker — of Camel unfiltered no less. I quit cold turkey in August 2006, but I’ve had a number of relatives die from the cancers they got from lifetimes of smoking and even though I was cognizant of a number of things in the book, reading this info, this tale laid out so well by the author comes close to sending me over the edge. I’m not going to say anymore except that I do recommend this book.… (more)

"The Collapse of Western Civilization" is probably more of a long magazine article rather than a short book, but in either case, is an interesting prediction made by the authors of what the future could look like if world governments fail to take steps to reduce continued carbon emissions into our atmosphere. The authors write as if they are historians from several hundred years in the future, looking back and trying to explain how past governments (e.g., our current leaders) could have ignored the known science of the day and failed to take the necessary steps to prevent global climate change. The premise of the book is that greenhouse gasses continued to accumulate in the atmosphere during our time, and that the deleterious effects of those emissions led to wide-spread flooding around the world due to sea level rise; water and food supply issues; and other predicted climate changes. It's an interesting twist to the climate change debate, e.g., not looking at what the future might be like from our perspective, but looking back at today's decisions made or not made from our great-great-great-grandchildren's perspective.… (more)

Naomi Oreskes book, "Why Trust Science?", was a little dry for my taste, but the author tries to make the point that science done right, works. The process follows the scientific method of testing, proving and re-proving, and responds to evidence, observations, and experience. A scientific belief may be held until it can be proven to be untrue, and when it can't be shown to be untrue, given enough tries and enough time, we then begin to have confidence.

But even then, some people may have trouble accepting what's presented as scientific facts. That may be due to a conflict with religious beliefs (such as the age of the earth), or conflicts with political beliefs (such as the belief that markets, not regulations, are the way to solve problems). If accepting a science report conflicts with a previously held religious belief, or conflicts with a previously held political belief, one may disregard the science over their value system. But if one can examine their own values, their prejudices, and examine how the analysis was performed, it might help.

Before theories are taken seriously, further studies need to be made, and confirmation testing must be completed. Science tends to be self-correcting, and when enough studies and tests are completed, confidence increases. Oreskes makes the point that consensus is a crucial indicator of when a scientific matter has been settled, and in those cases, the knowledge produced is likely to be trustworthy.

Still, Oreskis notes that the process may not be perfect. Nothing ever is when humans are involved. She gives a number of examples where commonly held "scientific" beliefs in the past have been proven wrong. For a time, people thought that the human race could be improved through controlled population breeding (eugenics). Also, when the idea of plate tectonics and continental drift was first introduced, it was ridiculed, until further analysis and examination found that the facts fit the theory. Also, there was a time when men felt women shouldn't be educated because the strength and energy required would be harmful. Certainly, given the chance, women around the world have proven that belief to be wrong.

But despite several examples widely held beliefs that have proven to be wrong, it doesn't mean that we should be skeptical of all science. Ideas presented as scientific, but which really aren't, do need to be challenged. Science, properly vetted, does work. We've got satellites, cell phones, x-ray technology, computers, weather radar and 7-day forecasts, rockets, weapons, planes, submarines, oil exploration, fracking, all things produced by good science. We believe in these things, because we see them, use them. When scientists tell us things, in their field of expertise, and in overwhelming numbers, it's worth paying attention. Science is trustworthy. On the other hand, the voice of a singular person, or even a scientist discussing items NOT in his or her field of expertise, is not reassuring.… (more)