Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of MI6, recently sparked a wave of interest with his comments on artificial intelligence (AI) and science during his co-hosting duties on the One Decision Podcast. Dearlove expressed skepticism towards the dire warnings from some scientists about the potential dangers of AI, citing the failures of scientists during the Covid pandemic as a reason not to take such predictions too seriously. However, these comments reveal a misunderstanding of what science is, how it should be interpreted, and the potential to embolden scientific denialists.
Part of the confusion lies in the conflation of “science” and “scientist”. Science is not a static collection of unquestionable beliefs but an active and systematic method of inquiry. It relies on making testable predictions and adapting them as new evidence emerges. Scientific positions are always subject to revision based on stronger evidence, making scientific knowledge provisional and scientific advice susceptible to change during periods of intense discovery.
Scientists, on the other hand, are fallible human beings who can be prone to biases and dishonesty. The Covid pandemic highlighted this when a small but vocal group of fringe figures with scientific or medical qualifications peddled false assertions, ranging from conspiracy theories to anti-vaccine propaganda. Despite lacking substance, these misleading positions were often bolstered by the credibility of their medical degrees and doctorates.
However, the perceived insight of an individual scientist relies entirely on their accurate reflection of the totality of evidence. When scientists fail to do so, they are no longer practicing science, and any support their education or credentials might seem to offer for their unevidenced position is illusory.
Dearlove’s frustration stems from the false aura of scientific respectability that can deceive the unwary. He acknowledges that “when you are an authoritative scientist in this area, and you put forward an extreme view – people listen to you.” This recognition is valid, as a minority of individual scientists can and do make assertions contrary to the best evidence. However, scientists and doctors hold positions of trust in society, and their endorsement of unevidenced positions can cause considerable harm.
One infamous example of this is Andrew Wakefield’s campaign linking the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine to autism, which was unsupported by reliable evidence. Wakefield’s trusted position as a physician-scientist allowed his assertions to dominate headlines, resulting in lasting harm even after his work was exposed as fraudulent.
It is important to distinguish between the utterances of individual scientists and the consensus of the wider scientific community. Dearlove’s statement that “lots of supposedly brilliant scientists, and they are brilliant, said all sorts of things during the pandemic… and we now discover a lot of what they were saying was scientifically off-piste, wrong” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. By missing this distinction, Dearlove falls into cynicism rather than healthy skepticism.
The collective consensus of scientific authorities, such as the World Health Organization or the National Health Service, holds far more weight than individual positions. Scientific bodies carefully evaluate all available evidence, engaging in debates and weighing the information to form an informed position. This scientific consensus forms the basis for policy decisions and is far more robust than individual opinions.
Even with a collective of experts, scientific advice is never static. Change and self-correction are vital in the scientific process. The evolving advice on masks during the Covid pandemic exemplifies this. Initially, public health bodies worldwide did not recommend masks for the general public due to shortages and limited evidence. As evidence emerged of their potential benefits and global supply increased, scientific bodies updated their advice. Such adaptations are not a sign of science getting it wrong, but rather the continuous refinement of knowledge based on the best available evidence.
Dearlove’s remarks, regardless of his intent, align with the sentiment expressed by Michael Gove’s infamous line about the public having “had enough of experts.” These words have been embraced by armchair contrarians, and social media has exacerbated political and ideological polarization, often resulting in the rejection of scientific evidence. Throughout the pandemic, measures such as social distancing and vaccination were rejected along political lines, despite overwhelming evidence of their benefits. This rejection has led to the spread of anti-science conspiracy theories, with scientists facing undue criticism for communicating evidence.
Even as the world faces the undeniable reality of anthropogenic climate breakdown, some Republican candidates deny it and label it a hoax perpetuated by scientists. Despite overwhelming evidence, a significant portion of the population rejects the reality due to the smear of scientists as either fools or liars. Dearlove’s comments reinforce the false message that scientists cannot be trusted and that science itself is a partisan endeavor. Such remarks ultimately undermine public trust and understanding, leaving us more divided and less informed.
In conclusion, it is crucial to understand that science is an active and constantly evolving method of inquiry while scientists are prone to human flaws. The distinction between individual scientists and the consensus of scientific authorities must be recognized. To build public trust and foster accurate understanding, it is essential to promote scientific literacy and emphasize the self-correcting nature of science.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
