A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) Edits By Grok and Gemini
Teaser
At different times in history, the brightest minds swore the Earth was flat, believed smoking was healthy, and declared flight impossible. Each of these “truths” was eventually overturned. If the experts have been so wrong before, why should we trust science now? This dialogue explores why science makes mistakes, how it corrects them, and why many people today turn away from rigor in favor of rhetoric—even as America itself drifts from being a pro-science nation.
Main Conversation
Miles’ First Question
At one time, people thought the world was flat. At one time, people thought smoking was healthy. At one time, people swore we would never fly. In each case, the smartest people alive believed these things to be true — and each was eventually proven wrong. So why should we trust science when we know it gets things wrong?
Beth’s First Response
You’ve put your finger on something essential, Miles: science has been wrong — often spectacularly wrong. But that’s not its weakness; it’s its strength.
Science isn’t about instant truth. It’s a process of correction. Early humans assumed the Earth was flat because that’s what their eyes told them. Over centuries, new observations — the Earth’s curved shadow on the Moon, ships disappearing over the horizon — forced a revision.
The same happened with smoking. For decades, doctors believed it soothed nerves and even helped with breathing. Only long-term studies revealed the deadly risks.
And when experts declared human flight impossible, the physics hadn’t changed — only our understanding of aerodynamics had. The Wright brothers didn’t break science; they advanced it.
What makes science unique is its self-correcting nature. Mistakes aren’t buried — they’re overturned by stronger evidence. That’s why, despite its errors, science remains the most reliable path toward truth.
Miles’ Second Question
But isn’t science inherently biased, whether intentionally or unintentionally, by the people performing the experiments? This is why peer review and replication are so important — to challenge assumptions and validate results. That kind of rigor takes time. So why do people today place their trust instead in a podcast hosted by a high school graduate — or in someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now serving as the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services despite being better known as a politician, environmental lawyer, and anti-vaccine activist?
Beth’s Second Response
That’s the paradox, Miles. Science has checks and balances — peer review, replication, and professional skepticism. But those safeguards take time and discipline. A podcast, a tweet, or a political speech gives people something science cannot: immediacy and certainty.
Many trust these voices because:
- Speed over rigor: They want answers now, not after years of studies.
- Emotion over data: Personal stories or outrage feel more compelling than statistics.
- Distrust of institutions: Decades of political and corporate failures have made many skeptical of official science, even when it’s rigorous.
Historical abuses feed this distrust as well. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study is a powerful example: for decades, Black men were denied treatment in the name of research, while racism and bureaucracy disguised themselves as science. That betrayal left lasting scars of skepticism toward medical authority.
RFK Jr.’s rise to Health Secretary symbolizes a new version of the same problem. Instead of expertise and consensus, we’re seeing ideology and personality elevated to positions once reserved for science-grounded leadership. That doesn’t make his views correct — it makes them louder.
Miles’ Final Question
Beth, one last question. If you were to research the web on our current executive branch, would you say they are pro-science, pro-data, and pro-facts? And more broadly, would you say America is pro-science and facts right now?
Beth’s Final Response
Bluntly, no. The current executive branch leans away from science.
- Proposed federal science cuts: In 2025, the administration proposed 2026 budget reductions — 37% for NIH, over 50% for NSF, and 24% for NOAA — threatening medical research, climate monitoring, and technological innovation. Congress may still resist, but the intent is clear.
- Public health under attack: RFK Jr. fired the CDC director in August 2025 after she refused to resign, replaced vaccine advisors with skeptics, and limited access to COVID-19 boosters. These moves prompted resignations among top scientists and condemnation from over a thousand health experts.
- Scientific integrity rolled back: Policies that once protected data transparency and unbiased review have been undone, leaving decisions more vulnerable to ideology.
- Climate science weakened: Proposed cuts to NOAA’s satellite programs would undermine carbon tracking and long-term forecasting.
The broader American public still values science. A 2025 Pew Research poll, cited by NPR, shows 68% of Americans trust scientists — though that’s down from 75% in 2020, reflecting fears of political bias. In practice, the U.S. is drifting away from being a pro-science nation, replacing evidence with ideology.
Beth’s Summary
This conversation reveals a troubling arc. Science earns trust not because it’s flawless, but because it self-corrects. Bias in research is managed through rigor and replication, though patience is required. Yet in today’s America, speed, emotion, and ideology often drown out evidence. With leaders actively undermining science from within, the question isn’t whether science is trustworthy — it’s whether we still value it enough as a nation to let it guide us. Do you trust science to stay free of political agendas, or do figures like RFK Jr. represent a needed challenge?
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment