Robert Ehrlich : Eight

University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher, except for reading and browsing via the World Wide Web. Users are not permitted to mount this file on any network servers. Introduction We live in an age when the boundaries between science and science fiction are becoming increasingly blurred. It sometimes seems that nothing is too strange to be true. How can we decide which of the outlandish ideas that are constantly bombarding us by might be true and which are complete nonsense? It's particularly tough to come to an informed judgment regarding ideas that have a scientific component where there are also huge political and economic stakes involved, such as global warming. In such a case, it's too easy to go by our political preferences or by the opinions of the last expert we saw on TV. This book will help you look at the " evidence " critically and judge for yourself. It is similar to Nine Crazy Ideas in Science—A Few Might Even Be True. In this book, though, we'll be looking at topics that are a bit less " sciency " and closer to everyday life. But we will still be using the tools of science to analyze each topic. Scientists try to take as little for granted as possible. They are constantly asking how we know whether something is true, and whether alternative explanations are possible. Scientists also seem to be more comfortable with uncertainty than other people. Many scientists may believe that a given theory—say, that of human-caused global warming—is likely to be true, but be far from certain about it. Such uncertainty is disquieting to most people who want to have as clear a picture as possible of our planet's future. Policy-makers, in particular, want informed scientific guidance before undertaking expensive solutions to problems of uncertain severity. People facing large uncertainties and potentially large risks may be forced to rely on their gut instincts. That's OK in one sense. Making judgments based on our emotions is under-1 standable if our large uncertainties reflect those that are inherent in an issue. But if the uncertainties are simply a matter of our own laziness in not looking into an issue deeply enough, then relying on our instincts …