Popper Seminar by Stephen John (University of Cambridge)

Title: Public Trust in Science: doomed to disappointment

Abstract: In this paper, I distinguish two types of trust we might have in some speaker: epistemic trust (where we are willing to form beliefs on the speaker's say-so) and advisory trust (where we are willing to accept claims into practical reasoning on the basis of the speaker's say-so). In turn, then, we can distinguish two social epistemic types: the true expert and the good advisor. I argue for two claims. First, that drawing this distinction can help us better understand some puzzles around vaccine hesitancy. Second, that drawing this distinction suggests a very general problem for the concept of trust in science. Scientists are (at best) true experts. The discipline needed for true expertise tends to militate against being a good advisor. However, the public wants to meet good advisors, rather than true experts. Public trust in science is, I suggest, doomed to disappointment.

LSE holds a wide range of events, covering many of the most controversial issues of the day, and speakers at our events may express views that cause offence. The views expressed by speakers at LSE events do not reflect the position or views of the London School of Economics and Political Science.