<b>Why Trust Science?</b>By Naomi Oreskes. Princeton University Press, 2019. Pp. 376. Price USD 24.95, GBP 22.00 (hardback). ISBN 9780691179001, ebook ISBN 9780691189932.

2019 report on Reproducibility and Replicability in Science, a 256 page analysis and survey including a final chapter of 20 pages on Confidence in Science.Whilst naturally USA focused, it also had international participation.I found this an authoritative report with good recommendations, including for journals and societies.Data and software transparency featured prominently in the best processes for achieving as high a scientific standard as possible.With all the cogency of this report in mind, I resumed my review of the book Why Trust Science?Why Trust Science? is an excellent format for a book; as well as the core argument written by Naomi Oreskes herself, it includes several chapters offering written critiques with Naomi Oreskes' responses.In chapter 1, the author reviews some recent examples of disputed science.The first is the issue of some public disquiet, fanned by President Trump, about the vaccination of schoolchildren, which she sums up by finally stating the data of the situation: the number of cases of the diseases in question have gone up as a result of vaccination avoidance.Example 2 again involves the Trump administration, this time the Vice President's belief in creationism, backed up by a poll of US churchgoers where 67% would espouse the same view.The third and final example for chapter 1 is again USAbased and concerns the American Enterprise Institute, which apparently had offered cash incentives to find errors in the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) analyses.At location 284 in my ebook copy, the author sets her metric for monitoring science as a process: there has to be a consensus.She shows no sense of immediate danger in that metric.But I would point out that, for example, the consensus among the physics community at the end of the 19th century was generally that there was nothing major left to discover, it only required details to be filled in.How wrong that consensus was!It needed piercing intellects such as Einstein, Planck and so on to radically overhaul that false consensus.The tests of their theories of relativity and a quantum world rested on experiments and in turn provided the new scientific data of the time.We will return to the topic of consensus later.At location 676, the new section entitled Getting Unstuck: Social Epistemology introduces the criticism of science that it claims to be objective and yet it largely excludes half the population, females!Yes, how very true; science needs to become more representative.My efforts to do something about gender disparity I describe in my book Skills for a Scientific Life (Helliwell, 2016, ch.27).In chapter 2 at location 997 we come to an interesting point.Paraphrasing, if science progresses via a process of falsifiability a `la Karl Popper then why should the public trust a science result now?In my own book The Whats of a Scientific Life (Helliwell, 2019, ch. 1) I answer that science delivers, whether it is health, wealth or comfort, modes of travel, smartphones, or the internet.Such examples I think provide answers to the author's question of how we can know which science truths will be permanent.However, we will shortly see a description seeking to separate science as a process from technology, which I evidently disagree with.Chapter 3 is by a different author, Susan Lindee.It is intriguingly entitled The Epistemology of Frozen Peas.There is a subtitle, Innocence, Violence and Everyday Trust in Twentieth-Century Science.The author justifies the focus on everyday items like frozen