Why Should We Trust Science?

Highlighting Key Arguments from Naomi Oreskes on the Reliability of Science

I was part of a recent global study that found that people generally trust science, but there are some groups of people who do not. Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University, explains that science isn’t perfect, but it’s still the best way to understand the world in her book: Why Trust Science?. Oreskes argues that we shouldn’t trust science because it’s always right, but because it constantly tests, questions, and improves itself over time.

Science as a Process, Not a Singular Truth

One of the central themes of Oreskes’ book is that science is not a rigid, step-by-step method that produces unquestionable truth. Instead, it is a social process built on collective scrutiny. Scientific knowledge emerges through rigorous peer review, replication, and debate within expert communities. It is the self-correcting nature of science that makes it trustworthy, rather than the idea that any individual scientist or study can provide absolute certainty.

For many, the concept of “scientific consensus” is misunderstood. Scientific trust is often mistakenly placed in single studies, leading to confusion when new findings appear to contradict previous ones. Oreskes argues that trust should be placed not in isolated results, but in the broader consensus that emerges when experts across disciplines evaluate, test, and refine knowledge over time. Science is powerful because it adapts as new evidence emerges. After more than a decade in academia, I’ve seen firsthand how scientists constantly challenge each other in the pursuit of truth. Discussions at scientific conferences can become pretty heated as scientists try to defend their research. The scientific process involves people, which of course involves some inefficiency and bias. However, scientists are driven by curiosity and continuously correct one another, refining ideas to improve our understanding of the world.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Cost of Distrust

The COVID-19 pandemic offers a clear example of what happens when scientific expertise is ignored. In the updated paperback edition of Why Trust Science?, Oreskes includes a preface reflecting on how trust in science—or the lack of it—determined pandemic outcomes in different countries. Nations such as New Zealand, Taiwan, and Vietnam followed expert recommendations, implementing strong testing, contact tracing, and public health measures. As a result, they kept cases and deaths significantly lower than countries that downplayed or ignored scientific guidance.

The United States, by contrast, saw one of the highest death tolls in the world. This failure was not due to a lack of scientific knowledge but rather to the rejection of expert advice at critical moments. Political leaders undermined trust in public health recommendations, spread false information about masks and vaccines, and fueled public skepticism. The pandemic demonstrated that scientific guidance alone is not enough; for science to be effective, it must be trusted and acted upon. This recent interview with Dr. Paul Offit, a leading expert on childhood vaccines, does a great job explaining the process of vaccine development and why we should trust vaccines.

Addressing Scientific Failures: A Case for Trust

Skeptics often point to historical scientific failures as reasons to distrust science altogether. Oreskes does not ignore these past mistakes but instead examines why they occurred and how science ultimately corrected them. She highlights examples such as the Limited Energy Theory of the 19th century, which falsely claimed that higher education could harm women’s reproductive health, and the long rejection of continental drift, which was dismissed for decades due to disciplinary biases rather than a lack of evidence.

These cases reveal that science, like any human endeavor, is subject to error. However, the crucial difference between science and pseudoscience is that science has mechanisms for identifying and correcting its own mistakes. Over time, as new evidence accumulates and broader perspectives are incorporated, false conclusions are abandoned, and more accurate explanations take their place. Trusting science does not mean assuming it is perfect—it means recognizing that it is the best system we have for distinguishing reliable knowledge from misinformation.

Science, Misinformation, and the "Merchants of Doubt"

Oreskes also examines how corporate and ideological interests have deliberately sown doubt about science to serve their own agendas. In previous work, she documented how the tobacco industry paid scientists to obscure the link between smoking and lung cancer, and how fossil fuel companies funded efforts to undermine climate science. A similar pattern emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, where misinformation about vaccines and public health measures was spread by political actors and media outlets, often with financial or ideological motivations.

Scientific skepticism is not inherently bad—indeed, skepticism is a key part of the scientific process. The problem arises when skepticism is selectively applied to discredit scientific knowledge while embracing unproven or misleading claims. Oreskes argues that the most effective way to counter misinformation is not simply to provide more data but to help the public understand how scientific consensus is reached and why it is a more reliable guide than individual studies or political rhetoric. This is backed up by research showing that educating people about scientific consensus does reduce belief in scientific falsehoods. Of course, addressing misinformation requires much more than simply increasing education. There are social factors that significantly explain our vulnerability to believing false information.

So, Why Trust Science?

Science earns trust because it is transparent, self-correcting, and built on collaboration among scientists who rigorously test, challenge, and refine ideas. Mistakes are exposed and corrected through peer review and replication. We can compare this process to the complete lack of scrutiny or accountability among wellness influencers and supplement companies. If a scientist’s work cannot be replicated, it loses credibility. But a wellness influencer’s success depends only on marketing and profit, not on proving their claims. In the end, a system that questions and corrects itself is far more trustworthy than one designed simply to sell.