Newsletter #193 The Core of Science: Trusting Critical Engagement with Knowledge
Newsletter about nature and science
The Core of Science: Trusting Critical Engagement with Knowledge
In many places, the appreciation for scientific knowledge is under pressure. In the Netherlands, scientists still fare better in terms of public trust than journalists or politicians. In fact, trust in science has slightly increased recently.
But there is a divide. In 2025, one-third of the public expresses strong trust in science, while 15 percent gives science a failing grade. Only 20 percent of the public trusts how journalists report on science. And when it comes to how politicians deal with scientific knowledge? Fewer than 10 percent have confidence in them. This is what happens when politicians cherry-pick scientific results, fail to cope with uncertainty, or—worse—simply don’t understand how science works at all.
Science is about asking questions and figuring out how to answer them. That requires research, and accepting outcomes—even when they’re unexpected or ambiguous. Above all, science means being open to critique.
Sociologist Robert Merton proposed several principles that good scientific results should adhere to:
Knowledge must be public and shared;
It should be universal, acquired independently of the researcher’s personal background;
It must be disinterested, not dependent on personal or group interests;
Both methods and results must be open to review and criticism by fellow scientists.
Later, the principles of originality and sincerity were added. Even though scientific knowledge is the best we have, each of these principles comes with limitations.
When national security or commercial interests are at stake, the openness of scientific knowledge can quickly be threatened. Such knowledge—especially when formalized in patents—can easily end up locked away. The idea of universal and independent knowledge becomes problematic when it’s obtained under unethical conditions. This has, sadly, been the case in experiments involving human subjects.
Even the disinterestedness of science has limits. While outcomes shouldn’t be skewed by personal motives, it’s naïve to assume that scientists themselves have no stake in their research. On the flip side, we should not erase the role of the individual researcher either.
One of the most important safeguards remains the critical evaluation of scientific work by peers. Through peer review, publications are assessed before being accepted. Two additional demands have been introduced more recently: originality, to prevent plagiarism; and honesty, as emphasized by philosopher Jürgen Habermas, to prevent fraud in data collection and authorship manipulation.
It’s essential that the scientific community remains self-critical. Scientific insights evolve—especially when new data or methods become available. These new techniques must themselves also be scrutinized. Knowledge doesn’t always shift instantly—and that’s a good thing. Building and refining theories requires caution. However, clinging too long to outdated paradigms can be damaging. As science philosopher Thomas Kuhn once cynically remarked: sometimes retirement or death is the best guarantee of a paradigm shift.
Today, science faces serious challenges. Funding is a chronic issue. The process of publishing reliable, accessible research is increasingly undermined by commercial interests. Accountability to society is essential, especially in interpreting and applying scientific results.
But more threatening than all of this is the global political interference in science. Inconvenient knowledge is being denied, datasets are destroyed, international collaboration is sometimes prohibited, and entire fields of study are being dismantled if they don’t suit political agendas. Ignorance threatens to take over. And if humanity disappears, it may be despite all our scientific progress.
Five Tips for Navigating Scientific Knowledge
Wikipedia usually cites sources—always check them.
Thanks to open access, peer-reviewed scientific papers are increasingly free to read. Try university library sites or the Dutch Royal Library.
Be skeptical of press releases—even those from universities.
News coverage is often biased toward what’s dramatic or newsworthy.
The word “scientific” is not protected—it guarantees nothing.
We now have three publications:
Dutch podcast on wednesday
Nieuwsbrief NL → dutch newsletter
Newsletter ENG → same newsletter but in english
You can change what you will receive in your substack email from us in the bottom manage subscription or go to the link https://menno-en-erwin.substack.com/manage-subscription
Blijf op de hoogte!
Wil je meer weten over de geheimen achter ons drinkwater en andere fascinerende natuur- en wetenschapsonderwerpen? Abonneer je dan op onze podcast en Substack via mennoenerwin.nl, en mis geen aflevering meer. Direct naar de podcast ? Klik hier
je kan je subscripties wijzigen zodat je alleen de engelse of nederlandse newsbrief ontvangt hier https://menno-en-erwin.substack.com/manage-subscription
