{"id":141761,"date":"2022-06-21T15:28:38","date_gmt":"2022-06-21T13:28:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=141761"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:26:20","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:26:20","slug":"no-one-should-have-blind-faith-in-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2022\/06\/21\/no-one-should-have-blind-faith-in-science\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018No one should have blind faith in science\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"

Scientists are receiving death threats on social media. MPs have called for their dismissal. The number of people who no longer trust the mainstream media is growing. Nevertheless, the Rathenau Institute found this year that people\u2019s trust in science has actually increased. Professor of Philosophy Hub Zwart explains the origins of this paradox and suggests what scientists should do to increase faith in science.<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\t

\n\t\t

Hub Zwart (1960) studied philosophy and psychology in Nijmegen. In 2018 he was appointed Dean of the Erasmus School of Philosophy. His research focuses on philosophical and ethical issues in the increasingly popular life sciences. He is EUR\u2019s project manager for IANUS, an EU project focusing on trust in science. He also serves as the Academic Lead for the Resilient Delta project, in which EUR collaborates closely with the Erasmus MC and Delft University of Technology.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\t<\/div>\n

What is your take on this paradox?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt does sound paradoxical, but from an empirical point of view, it\u2019s correct. A great many people still trust science. I would like to emphasise, though, that no one should have blind faith in science! I\u2019d go so far as to say that scepsis is an integral part of the scientific method. Regular folks are allowed to be sceptical, as well. Scientists can actually learn from that. It\u2019s good for scientists to be modest, particularly since these days, science is increasingly likely to consist of highly complex issues. As a result, individual scientists don\u2019t have enough expertise to be able to understand their entire discipline. With subjects such as climate change, there is not even one individual discipline that is able to understand the issue in its entirety.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe problem we are<\/em> facing is polarisation. There is a minority that is growing increasingly radical in its mistrust. Being sceptical is all about asking critical questions, but this group has completely lost faith. I\u2019m not reproaching them, but it does mean we\u2019re facing a different problem and a different solution.\u201d<\/p>\n

Could it be that the coronavirus crisis has merely rendered this minority more visible? When Jaap van Dissel first joined a coronavirus-related press conference, he was viewed by 8 million people. That might have been the first time people actually asked themselves whether they trusted scientists. Suddenly people found themselves confronted with questions such as, can I trust Van Dissel when he says I must wear a face mask? Am I getting vaccinated or not?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018We need to get to a point where everyone fully realises that science is complex\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

\u201cYes, that, too, is true. During the pandemic we could all see that policymakers were depending on scientists\u2019 knowledge. Sometimes it seemed as if scientists were running the country and politicians were following their lead. But science is always controversial, as well. For instance, Van Dissel worked with predictive models. They are highly advanced science, but full of uncertainties. We need to get to a point where everyone fully realises that science is complex. But it\u2019s hard to come up with a way to convey that message.\u201d<\/p>

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBas van der Schot<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>

Why is it important that this small, polarised group regains trust in science?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cMany scientists are intrinsically motivated to share information. It teaches them things, too. Sharing allows you to get in touch with other knowledge and experiences. I have recently viewed some websites where completely different types of discussions were being held \u2013 websites that made me think: this is demonstrably incorrect. Other websites surprised me or alarmed me. I\u2019d like to enter into a debate with these people. That\u2019s basically a natural inclination. If scientists can\u2019t have such discussions, they regret it.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd perhaps these radical sceptics do have a point in certain matters! Maybe we do have blind spots, and maybe we are insufficiently aware of just how disruptive certain developments driven by science can be. Sometimes, science wipes out ideals, identities and impressions people cherish. But if this results in a society without an identity, without any cohesion, science is likely to be considered one of the causes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Do you have anything specific in mind when you say that science has wiped out certain notions?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m thinking of anything related to IT and artificial intelligence. It has radically changed our world. Basically, we\u2019re seeing at present something we saw in the nineteenth century, as well. Around 1840, Friedrich Engels was a major industrialist, and he would sometimes walk through Manchester\u2019s poorer neighbourhoods in the evenings. He was profoundly shocked by what he found there. So on the one hand, he was a booster of the technological innovations of the industrial revolution, and on the other hand, he saw a world full of misery, caused by those very same innovations. And he didn\u2019t respond by saying: stop all these innovations. Instead he said: how is it that science, which should be helping the world, is actually resulting in such poverty and pollution? And how can we ensure that technological innovations cause less misery and that we keep an eye on unintended side-effects? The industrial revolution caused a great deal of polarisation. The class struggle and World War I can both be traced back to this polarisation.\u201d<\/p>\n

You are now mainly talking about unintended side-effects. To what extent are scientists themselves to blame for the fact that people no longer trust them?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018Scientists regularly allowed themselves to be used to promote commercial or political interests, meaning that science became a powerful weapon in the hands of big corporations or political players\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

\u201cThere have been many black pages in the history of science. I\u2019ll give you an example: the tobacco industry financed a lot of research that showed that nicotine \u2018really wasn\u2019t that bad\u2019 for people. Scientists regularly allowed themselves to be used to promote commercial or political interests, meaning that science became a powerful weapon in the hands of big corporations or political players. On the one hand, you want to be socially relevant, but on the other, you also want to remain autonomous and raise people\u2019s awareness of unwelcome messages where necessary. This continues to be hard, even now.\u201d<\/p>

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button><\/figure>

For instance, a professor of tax law just resigned in Amsterdam because he was allegedly funded by a lobbying organisation. In Rotterdam, there was a lack of clarity as to how professors were being funded. Shouldn\u2019t professors be radically transparent in such matters?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cYes, transparency is part of the solution. But let\u2019s touch on the issue first. We don\u2019t want the kind of science that plays out in an ivory tower. That is impossible anyway, as basic research and applied research are closely related nowadays. When that is the case, scientists automatically become parties in that social arena. Integrity cannot be preserved by not having any contact with the manufacturing industry or policymakers, but rather by a collective learning process, an awareness of how to deal with those forces when you are conducting socially relevant research.<\/p>\n

\u201cTransparency is very important in all of this. By all means, show how science works, but also tell people if you\u2019re collaborating with political or commercial parties, and show them how you safeguard your independence. This also means scientists have to open up to society. Many scientists still have a tendency to conduct their research first and then present it to the public afterwards.\u201d<\/p>\n

If I\u2019m allowed to be cynical for a moment, I\u2019d like to say that we\u2019ve heard many academics say over the last few years that society would be involved in the creation of added value, in the creation of impact, and now the buzzword seems to be \u2018co-creation\u2019. But in actual fact, we have often found that while major companies and politicians were involved in these projects, children living in Rotterdam-Zuid weren\u2019t really. How are we going to prevent this from happening again?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIn the past, innovation often resulted in the victors growing even stronger and the losers becoming even more marginalised. So it\u2019s vital that groups that tend to be ignored at present be involved. For instance, we try to do so in our \u2018convergence\u2019, the collaborative partnership between EUR, the Erasmus MC and Delft University of Technology. We want to try and create a positive impact in association with the city of Rotterdam. But what does \u2018positive impact\u2019 mean to people? To find out, we\u2019ll be talking to the inhabitants of Rotterdam.\u201d<\/p>\n

At the start of the pandemic, Minister for Education, Culture and Science Dijkgraaf compared the medical challenge faced by society with the Manhattan Project, i.e. the development of the atomic bomb during World War II. He said that the Manhattan Project caused the position of science in society to be strengthened, and he hoped the pandemic would likewise result in people showing greater appreciation for science. Do you think that is going to happen?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI completely disagree. Yes, the Manhattan Project did to some extent result in the prestige of physics being boosted tremendously. However, ironically, scientists were side-lined as soon as the bomb was finished. The project leader, Robert Oppenheimer, wanted scientists to be included in discussions as to how the bomb was to be used. Politicians very emphatically stopped that from happening. Worse, from that moment onwards, all physicists were suspect, because just imagine them passing all that dangerous knowledge on to the enemy\u2026 So take note. History was a little more complicated in this regard than Dijkgraaf indicated.\u201d<\/p>\n

I do see a parallel with the Outbreak Management Team. Many people criticised them, and maybe that was a smart ploy on the part of the Prime Minister, who kept blaming the OMT for each new coronavirus measure that was implemented. \u2018We have no choice but to do this, because scientists tell us this is what needs to be done\u2026\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cScientists are a major source of information, but it is politicians who are responsible and who must balance scientific information on the one hand and other social considerations on the other. You can\u2019t draw conclusions straight from an epidemiological model. It\u2019s common enough for politicians to withdraw from the subject matter and turn into process managers of sorts. To some extent, that\u2019s because the has been reduced. Our political leaders carry much less ideological baggage than they used to. If you do have a view of the world, you know how to balance scientific knowledge against other values.\u201d<\/p>\n

The solutions you\u2019ve mentioned so far are slow changes, even though the problem is quite acute. Certain scientists, such as Marion Koopmans, Marc van Ranst and Jaap van Dissel, receive regular threats. What could scientists or society do about that right now?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\t\u2018Als iemand verdacht wordt gemaakt zonder dat er een mogelijkheid tot weerwoord is, dan is dat het moment om duidelijk te maken dat wij elkaar steunen\u2019\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

\u201cI think that a large degree of solidarity with one\u2019s fellow scientists is paramount. Naturally, we have a duty of asking each other tough questions, but when things like this are going on, scientists must stand with each other. That\u2019s why I also signed the letter about Van Dissel that was printed in de Volkskrant<\/em> last week. If allegations are levelled at someone without that person being given an opportunity to defend themselves, it\u2019s time that we show that we support each other. Expertise merits respect. If not, scientists will lose their autonomy and start saying things that are only half true for fear of threats and repercussions.\u201d<\/p>

Is that already happening? Scientists avoiding certain topics for fear of repercussions?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s something that has always happened. In the fourteenth century, theology was a very influential branch of science, but it also carried huge risks. We\u2019ve already discussed physics in the 1930s and 1940s. It was a highly influential field, but risky, too, because they were directly involved in world politics. So I definitely think that there are scientists now, too, who are dealing with self-censorship and taboo subjects. Take, for instance, the debate on political correctness, wokeness and cancel culture. It\u2019s a good thing that we are discussing it with so much passion, but that doesn\u2019t mean that we have the right to prevent others from speaking. If an argument is poorly substantiated, you can criticise it, but you can\u2019t forbid scientists to research particular subjects or force them to arrive at different conclusions. That would be the end of academic research.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Read more<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t