14 DAY TRIAL // Over the past few years, a growing number of people with no expertise in any field of research has started contradicting scientists over even the smallest detail of their research, like they have any idea what they're talking about. Members of the international scientific community say that the situation is very dangerous, because these individuals would roam the Internet, disputing scientific evidence on every site where they come across an article related to any scientific theme.
The best example to illustrate that are those who look for pieces on global warming on all major news websites, and then post comments pointing out that some private study, funded by the oil companies, shows that the Antarctic is actually cooling, not getting warmer. Others state that it's a natural trend of the planet to get warm, completely disregarding the fact that no other warming cycle before this one has had so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It's these persons “armed” with little knowledge gained from questionable sources that dispute the numerous pieces of evidence on global warming, which have been yielded by scientists worldwide thus far. Also, probably all the governments in the world and members of the United Nations are involved in this “conspiracy,” which, in their minds, is meant to harm oil and coal companies and not save the planet and everyone on it, including themselves.
That's why some scientists have it that the prospect of a society in which every bit of scientific evidence is questioned by individuals who have no idea what they are talking about is frightening. That is to say, no one is disputing the right of experts to disagree, as long as they bring proof to support their claims. But when site users or other persons go online and try to refute valid scientific evidence by appealing to readers' feelings, they cross a line and their actions gain no justification.
“You do have people like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking presenting the kind of model of science that is damaging; the old 'revelation of mystery,' doctrinaire atheism stuff which implicitly claims that science can authoritatively solve all cultural problems. Science’s findings are to be preferred over religion’s revealed truths, and are braver than the logic of skepticism, but they are not certain. They are a better grounding for society precisely, and only, because they are provisional,” Cardiff University social scientist Harry Collins writes for this week's issue of the journal Nature.