As we near the end of the course, I wanted to take some of the more abstract discussions we've been having and talk about how this can be translated into concrete advice that anybody can use to evaluate scientific information. The most important thing I can tell you is that we should all aim to cultivate what I call a scientific skepticism, including about science itself. This means that you shouldn't trust everything you read, but you also shouldn't doubt everything you read either. The fake news that circulates on social media takes advantage of our instinct to believe everything that we read, especially if what we read follows the structure of familiar sources of information or if it confirms our preconceptions, if it tells us what we want to hear. In order to be effective, fake news requires complete trust in what we read. Such trust allowed vaccine deniers to spread the myth that vaccines cause autism. If you remain skeptical of what you read, you can be part of the solution to fake news. On the other hand, skepticism doesn't mean doubting everything. Complete doubt is the lifeblood of industry executives who want to convince you that smoking doesn't cause cancer or climate change isn't caused by human activity. In their research about these matters, Naomi Oreskes, Erik Conway, David Michaels, and others found tobacco industry executives and the public relations firms that assisted them explicitly understanding this point. One tobacco executive went so far as to write that "Doubt is our product." Meaning that if he could get people to doubt the science that smoking causes cancer, just doubt not even deny, it would be enough to keep people smoking. So we have to find a balance between extreme doubt and complete trust. Think about it as a healthy skepticism. Be like a scientist. Remain open-minded, responsive to evidence, but still skeptical. Don't just be skeptical of what you read on social media or hear from oil and tobacco executives, be skeptical about all reporting. This isn't to say that you shouldn't trust anything written about science, but just keep in mind that something's always being left out. Some sources are undoubtedly better than others though. So you have to ask yourself not only what you're reading, but where you're reading it. As a heuristic, you're most likely to get accurate information about science from reputable science journalism sources; Science, New Scientists, Science News, and so forth. You can also generally trust websites from edu domains and specialists government agencies such as NASA, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control. It's also important to remember that one scientific study is never definitive. So when you read articles that summarize a single scientific study, realize that's only a sliver of the story. Here in a nutshell are the main ideas I hope you'll take away from this course. The first is that science is a diverse and complex enterprise. The story of science that your high school textbook told you that science mainly entail successful experiments is completely and utterly false. Scientific success unfolds in time and the most important results often involve generations of researchers refining, revising, and pushing the boundaries. The second idea was the idea of scientific empiricism. Scientists learned about what the world is like by careful observations, experiments, and simulations. These are all publicly observable, so they can be shared, debated, and if necessary, debunked. The third idea is that objectivity comes from the community. While individual scientists try to be as objective as possible, our confidence in science, it's objectivity, ultimately comes from the way that the scientific community is organized. The fourth idea is simply that scientists are human beings and that there are failures. They make mistakes and sometimes like the rest of us, they get completely pulled to the dark side. They can cheat and they can lie. They can sometimes get bought out. But in my experience, this is the exception to the rule rather than the rule itself. Most scientists value truth and honesty, but even when they don't, the scientific community has set things up to self-correct and ensure objectivity in many cases. Finally, facts and values often intertwine in science. While it's an open question exactly how deeply values ought to penetrate into scientific inquiry, there is no doubt that facts and values often come together in science especially in areas of inquiry which are of great importance to us. My overarching aim in this course has been to help you as members of the public decide how you want to engage with science as it exists today. Though we didn't have the time to dive deep into the history of science, it's worth noting that the scientific worlds that Isaac Newton or Charles Darwin lived in are very different from the world of science that contemporary researchers like Mia Levine, and Barry [inaudible] live in. It's worth asking whether being a scientist today demands a different outlook than being a scientist in the 18th, 19th, and perhaps even the 20th century. Science has evolved as the society that it's part of it has changed, much like a Galapagos tortoise has evolved when their environment is changed. I think science will continue to adapt to its changing environment, and I think one of those adaptations will be increasing engagement with the public. So I hope this course will help you better engage with science and has given you a deeper appreciation of its challenges as well as its astonishing achievements.
