Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    AI and Microcredentials
Sign In
The Review

Should We ‘Believe’ Scientists?

March 13, 2016

To the Editor:

David K. Hecht’s “How Scientific Celebrity Hurts Science” (February 26) begins with a very unfortunately worded question: “Why should we believe what scientists have to say?”

This question should perplex any reasonably trained scientist; after all, we don’t train people to “believe.” Scientists train people to question ... and ask to see the data.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

To the Editor:

David K. Hecht’s “How Scientific Celebrity Hurts Science” (February 26) begins with a very unfortunately worded question: “Why should we believe what scientists have to say?”

This question should perplex any reasonably trained scientist; after all, we don’t train people to “believe.” Scientists train people to question ... and ask to see the data.

Scientists don’t enshrine ideas, even if we do celebrate their impact and honor those who contributed to them. After all, the highest status of belief that an idea can attain in science is theory. That’s why scientists never “believe” that their search for truth is complete. Yes, there are some examples of scientists who gave up the quest for deeper truth; Ernst Mach comes to mind. However, science as a whole is a continuous, collective search for answers; that’s why science never dies — it attracts new scientists who keep the search alive.

Many scientists see belief as entirely orthogonal to knowledge. One doesn’t trump the other — they exist in entirely separate spaces. Belief is concerned with things that we probably cannot prove, through actual measurement and data; it is more about personal thought. Knowledge, on the other hand, is a commodity that is collected, shared, and repeatedly verified. Thus belief and knowledge could not be more different.

All this said, I suggest an alternative beginning to the article: “Why should we place our trust in celebrity scientists?” Now that is a very good question.

Keith A. Williams

Visiting Professor

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Virginia

To the Editor:

David K. Hecht asks “Why should we believe what scientists have to say?” but goes on to use “science” and “scientists” interchangeably, as if to suggest what reputed scientists choose to say reliably (or by definition) constitutes science. It does not. Whether a scientist’s public statements represent actual science depends on the interplay of at least three factors: how deeply motivated by self-promotion or issue advocacy a scientist is, how personally celebrated a scientist becomes, and how willing they are to expand on and exploit that celebrity for personal advantages of any sort.

Scientists widely celebrated in the media as personalities are too often deferred to as if they’ve outgrown the standards of peer review; sometimes even the standards of common sense. Scientists “do” science, but when they publicly transgress the practical limits of their methods or demonstrable expertise without explicit notification, they commensurately degrade science as a believable enterprise. The moral hazard of “reach exceeding grasp” eventually confronts every specialist because answering “I don’t know” delimits their authority, and thereby their prospects of being asked for a further opinion.

In an ideal world, whether what scientists say is believable should not depend on name recognition, accumulated titles, prizes won, or media profiles. It should stand on its merits, which are too rarely self evident. As a result, scientific believability and lay judgments regarding what constitutes valid science depend on the ability of publicity professionals to attract media interest. Successful public scientists then willingly subordinate the role of scientist to that of media professional. They are abetted in this by institutions that train them in the requisite arts, because whether we believe what scientists have to say is now determined primarily by how and where they said it.

Matthew K. Chew

Assistant Research Professor

School of Life Sciences

Arizona State University

A version of this article appeared in the March 18, 2016, issue.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Opinion
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Photo illustration showing Santa Ono seated, places small in the corner of a dark space
'Unrelentingly Sad'
Santa Ono Wanted a Presidency. He Became a Pariah.
Illustration of a rushing crowd carrying HSI letters
Seeking precedent
Funding for Hispanic-Serving Institutions Is Discriminatory and Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Argues
Photo-based illustration of scissors cutting through paper that is a photo of an idyllic liberal arts college campus on one side and money on the other
Finance
Small Colleges Are Banding Together Against a Higher Endowment Tax. This Is Why.
Pano Kanelos, founding president of the U. of Austin.
Q&A
One Year In, What Has ‘the Anti-Harvard’ University Accomplished?

From The Review

Photo- and type-based illustration depicting the acronym AAUP with the second A as the arrow of a compass and facing not north but southeast.
The Review | Essay
The Unraveling of the AAUP
By Matthew W. Finkin
Photo-based illustration of the Capitol building dome propped on a stick attached to a string, like a trap.
The Review | Opinion
Colleges Can’t Trust the Federal Government. What Now?
By Brian Rosenberg
Illustration of an unequal sign in black on a white background
The Review | Essay
What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.
By Richard Amesbury

Upcoming Events

Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Warwick_Leadership_Javi.png
University Transformation: a Global Leadership Perspective
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin