Embracing Imperfect Science and Technology

Naomi Oreskes, a science historian, Braden Allenby and Daniel Sarewitz, authors, all believe that science and technology does not need to be done away with because of its faults. They recognized that science and technologies are not perfect and that many aspects are beyond human conceptualizations. However, the believe that science and technology, when used and understood correctly, can be vital resources to understanding and managing our world and its problems.

Naomi Oreskes believes that although science has its faults, we should believe and trust in it. There are many scientists do not like to compare science to belief or faith. They will argue that “faith is a separate thing apart and distinct from science.” Oreskes argues against those

Oreskes discussed the idea of continental drift to back her idea that reliance on proof is not always necessary or beneficial. In her paper, Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it, Oreskes discussed how scientist believed in the theory of continental drift long before and direct proof existed. In light of the fact that scientist accepted this theory as truth with only indirect evidence, she then asked the question, is it wrong to do this? Oreskes believes that it is not. There was an “overwhelming” amount of indirect evidence suggesting the validity of continental drift. Oreskes moves on to pronounce that there would have been an entirely different outcome had this theory been rooted in public policy like some of the controversial topics today, global warming for example. Those who would defend the “status quo” would have argued that no direct proof existed and therefore resisted the accepted of continental drift as truth. This idea leads her to rhetorically ask, “Should earth scientists have waited for these recalcitrant individuals to be convinced?” Oreskes believes that once a broad consensus is reached by experts on an issue we must consider the possibility of it being