America's crisis of faith in science.

Fifty-three percent of Americans are not convinced that human activity is causing global warming ([ 1 ][1]). Why? The issue is faith, not facts. Shockingly few people can actually know—in any intelligent, meaningful way—that global warming is real. The rest of us do not have access to the huge quantity of data, and we wouldn't understand it if we did. We simply aren't competent to judge for ourselves what scientists are telling us. Often enough, scientists in one specialty aren't even competent to assess data and conclusions in another specialty. We cannot see climate change with our own eyes, yet we have faith in the scientific method. That is what gives science the right to an authoritative voice in public policy. Others do not have this faith. Simply stating to them that they are ignoring “facts” is juvenile, naive, and ultimately ineffective. For those of us who are not global warming scientists ourselves, it is also arrogant to insist that others believe what we only know on faith ourselves. The real challenge for scientists and those who speak for them is to inspire the public's faith in science. What does this mean in practice? (i) Be more open about the data used to support conclusions. Make more data easily available for others, such as journalists, to review. (ii) Be more open about the methods. This was a crucial element in the 2009 controversy over hacked e-mails from a UK climate research institute, which came to light just before an international conference on mitigating climate change ([ 2 ][2], [ 3 ][3]). Legitimate debate among scientists was misunderstood by some of the public as evidence that the whole premise was unfounded. (iii) Acknowledge the seriousness of scientific misconduct and do more to limit it. Such incidents may be rare, but they are highly consequential. They not only convince people that a particular scientific claim is false; they undermine the public's faith that science as an institution can be trusted to tell us what we can't see for ourselves. (iv) Show more respect and less disdain for those who do not acknowledge established scientific theories. We are not justified in attributing traits of “stupid” and “hypocritical” to people just because they cannot see evolution or climate change with their own eyes and do not feel obliged to take someone else's word for it. ![Figure][4] A leap of faith toward science. PHOTO: © PESKYMONKEY/[ISTOCKPHOTO.COM][5] (v) Put more effort into public education in science. Perhaps the best way for more people to have faith in science is for more people to have firsthand experience with the scientific method, even on small scales, and more firsthand experience with scientists. In this way, more of society will understand how scientific facts come to be accepted and how they are checked and, if necessary, corrected. (vi) Be more humble. During the 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama stated that global warming is a “fact” and that the science “was settled.” What science is ever settled? And when did he observe it? If he went with his own direct experiences, he would have to admit that global temperatures have not risen significantly in the past decade ([ 4 ][6]). What he should have cited was the scientific consensus. Scientists do not typically think it is their business to inspire faith. Their job is to provide facts. But to solve the pressing problems that require public acceptance of well-established science—from global warming to vaccinations to the increasing overuse of antibiotics—scientists must indeed inspire more public faith in their methods and their mutually enforced trustworthiness. 1. [↵][7]Pew Research Center, “Beyond red vs. blue: The political typology” (2014), section 7; [www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/][8]. 2. [↵][9]1. J. Tierney , “E-mail fracas shows peril of trying to spin science,” The New York Times (2009); [www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html][10]. 3. [↵][11]1. J. Tollefson , “Different method, same result: Global warming is real,” Nature (2011); [www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html][12]. 4. [↵][13][www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade][14]. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: pending:yes [5]: http://ISTOCKPHOTO.COM [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [8]: http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/ [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [10]: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [12]: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111020/full/news.2011.607.html [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text" [14]: http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade