What might appear to be common sense is not always based on scientific evidence

The term “evidence” has a fascinating linguistic and social history – and it’s a good reminder that even today the truth of scientific evidence depends on it being presented in a convincing way.

The quest for scientific evidence can trace its
roots back to the classic masters of rhetoric.

As recent climate change scepticism shows, the fortunes of scientific evidence can be swayed by something as fleeting as a tweet.

But what does it even mean to speak of “scientific evidence”?

History reveals that scientific forms of evidence have rarely, if ever, been detached from rhetoric. In fact, the very idea of evidence has its origins within the context of classical rhetoric, the art of persuasion.

Read the piece from The Conversation by a Research Fellow from The University of Queensland,  James A. T. Lancaster - “What might appear to be common sense is not always based on scientific evidence.”

Alan Finkel: the man who could bring peace to Australia's climate wars

One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts was waiting but Alan Finkel was ready.

Chief scientist Dr Alan Finkel. 

The chief scientist, who has a PhD in electrical engineering and worked as a postdoctoral research fellow in neuroscience, could see what Parliament's most persistent climate change sceptic was doing.

Did Dr Finkel believe it was important for a scientist to keep an open mind, Senator Roberts wanted to know.

Dr Finkel spotted the trap and said he was happy to own up to a "healthy degree of scepticism”.

Read Stephanie Peatling’s story in today’s Melbourne Age - “Alan Finkel: the man who could bring peace to Australia's climate wars.”