>In your role as a scientist, shouldn't providing evidence of truth (or falsehood) be your main concern?
Strictly speaking no, but that's more of a long digression on epistemology than what I think you mean. (but think of indiana jones here: "archaeology is concerned with _fact_, not _truth_ ...")
My role as a scientist is to work diligently to understand, as best as we are able, the natural world.
Yet, "I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth's precious wealth."
The point, I think, is that laypeople and scientists alike fall further and further into the fallacy of appeal to authority: 'a scientist said it's true, therefore it is true!' (for simplicity, true == a fact correctly expressed).
That thing may be true, but the rising disdain for not accepting a conclusion when the evidence isn't presented alongside is worrisome. The difference between science and religion is that science draws conclusions from reproducible research. Yet - especially now - many people take the naked word of 'a scientist' the same way a religious fanatic takes the word of their spiritual leader.
This definition gave me a lot of clarity: an expert is someone who has, can get, can make, or can cause to be made - and presents - evidence that supports their conclusions.
Strictly speaking no, but that's more of a long digression on epistemology than what I think you mean. (but think of indiana jones here: "archaeology is concerned with _fact_, not _truth_ ...")
My role as a scientist is to work diligently to understand, as best as we are able, the natural world.
Yet, "I will always be conscious that my skill carries with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of the Earth's precious wealth."