Embedded Files
Expertise is earned.
Expertise is earned.
Scientists working in a particular field have specialized expertise that takes years of training and education. Their specialized knowledge and skills are not something that we (the public) have. Even scientists working in one field (eg paleontology ) would not be considered experts in another (eg microbiology).
This means if someone is speaking as if they are an “expert” in a particular area, we need to be careful and check on their background (education and experience) to make sure they actually are an expert.
How can I check whether someone is actually an "expert"?
How can I check whether someone is actually an "expert"?
Here are some suggestions to help you figure out if someone is a credible scientific expert:
1) What education / experience do they have?
Can you find evidence that they have a master's degree / MD / PhD related to the topic they are talking about?
Do they have experience doing research or working in that area? ( Can you find evidence of where they worked and for how long? )
Have they published papers in peer-reviewed journals?
What other publications or involvements do they have? (eg. memberships to science associations).
2) Is there evidence of trustworthiness / successful performance?
(Or are there any red-flags that may indicate they are not a trustworthy source?)
Are they part of a scientific community / are they respected by others in their field?
If they have published papers, are their papers cited by others?
Have any of their papers been retracted? If so, why?
(check out http://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspx - a database that lists retracted papers since 2010)
3) How does what they say compare to other experts in their field?
Are their comments / recommendations in line with what other experts in the field are saying?
Consensus building is a key feature of science.
Consensus building is a key feature of science.
As an area becomes more researched, scientific knowledge of that area generally / eventually moves toward consensus (group agreement), but this can take many years.
Notice that in politics, two political parties could debate on issues for a long time and not move toward consensus (although they sometimes do), but in science, specialists in an area will often come to a shared understanding (Source 1).
What if scientific consensus hasn't yet been reached? How do we know who / what to trust?
What if scientific consensus hasn't yet been reached? How do we know who / what to trust?
In instances where there is rapid change and/ or emerging research is still being conducted and debated (by experts), there may not be a scientific consensus. Conversations, debate, research and consensus take time.
In these cases, it is important to figure out who has expertise in the area and see how they approach the topic, including whether they believe evidence is sufficiently strong to support a scientific claim (Source 2).
To learn more about how to think about evaluating expertise and information about science, go to our page on
Sources:
McComas, W. F. (2004). Keys to teaching the nature of science: Focusing on the nature of science in the science classroom. The Science Teacher, 71(9), 24-27.
Douglas, H. (2022). What makes science trustworthy? A guide for the public. UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab.https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/analytics/what-makes-science-trustworthy-guide-public
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse