Trusting Science Again: What Experts Can Learn from Detectives

The Problem with "Feeling" Your Way Through Facts

We expect certain things of academics that we don’t expect of each other.

One of those things is that they should base their pronouncements on sound evidence. Which can be learned from detectives. It constantly amazes me when someone tells me, as a lead into their understanding of an issue is, “I feel that….” followed by a declaratory sentence. This is often about science issues. You can feel ill, hungry, or angry but to say that you “feel” something that may be true or false is a weak way of saying what you think is true.

Alternatively, you could be saying that you “feel” something is true because it aligns with a political philosophy you are comfortable with—which is akin to a religious belief. In that case, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

This is understandable in people that are not scientists, economists, physicians, or others who are expected to use the scientific method of defining questions, generating a hypothesis, gathering and analyzing data and drawing (at least preliminary) conclusions. Imagine how you would feel if you heard:

• An epidemiologist says, “I feel that COVID came from bats.”

• A physician says, “I feel that you have cancer.

• An economist says, “I feel that raising the minimum wage will not affect employment.”

In fact, you probably will never hear that. What you do hear is declarative sentences, e.g., “COVID came from bats.” That would be fine if there is sufficient causal evidence, but bad when it is preliminary (based on too few studies), or based only on associations.

Making positive declarations in those situations may be one source of American distrust of scientists.

“Doctors, scientists, and public-health officials are asking themselves how they can win trust back. ‘Science is losing its place as a source of truth,’ said Dr. Paul Offit, an infectious-disease physician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. ‘It’s becoming just another voice in the room.’”

A recent Pew poll found that trust in scientists is down 14 points lower than it was at the beginning of the COVID pandemic. “Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) now say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, up from 12% in April 2020.”

Michael Crichton warned us about this issue in Science twenty years ago in his book State of Fear.

“I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that constitute knowledge in the environmental realm, of facts that simply aren't true. If we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. In the end, science offers the only way out of politics.”

The Role of Skepticism in Science

Maybe one thing scientists can do is take a look at how detectives think.

Ivar Fahsing is a Detective Chief Superintendent and Associate Professor at the Norwegian Police University College in Oslo who has worked on some of the worst crimes in Norway for 30 years.

He starts with the ABC principle:

• Assume nothing.

• Believe nothing.

• Challenge and check everything.

He goes on to say, don’t take anything you have read or heard at face value, be skeptical. Slow down your conclusion-jumping brain and remember that correlation is not causation. “The hardest thing is to resist our automatic assumptions and deep-seated need for closure.”

It may also be hard for scientists to reject striving for the highest number of published papers as a measure of quality. Such measures can lead to unethical behavior such as not publishing negative results, exaggerating results, or manipulating data to get academically or socially acceptable results.

Fahsing says that learning to think like a detective can “boost your incisiveness and creativity” and “can make you less judgmental and a better listener.” It moves you away from “confirmation bias” and “feelings of overconfidence and exaggerated competence.” Good detectives calmly keep on digging and don’t jump to conclusions. Hence, “not making a decision is the best decision a good investigator can make.

What Scientists Can Learn from Detectives

Here are the detective steps he outlines:

Step 1: Assume nothing and find out what you really know.

Step 2: Identify all the possible explanations.

Step 3: Test the alternative explanations and narrow your investigation.

Step 4: Use a mind map to connect thoughts and recruit a ‘devil’s advocate’ to check your thinking.

Learning to think like a detective could probably benefit all of us, not just detectives and scientists.