The Transformations of Science

Just a note that this is by Geoff Anders from Leverage Research, an organization historically plagued with some controversy in the level of psychological experimentation it is willing to perform on its members:

https://medium.com/@zoecurzi/my-experience-with-leverage-res...

It seems that what's really needed is a formalization of the uncertainty of scientific claims, which I'm not sure is even possible to implement fully. But it's perhaps possible to schematize the relevant information - a database of who did what experiment, what the current hypotheses are, and which ones scientist believe the evidence favors, like a prediction market. Besides being a valuable tool for science, it would serve as a way of assigning appropriate levels authority.

This article is about the relationship between the state and scientific authority during the pandemic, but a notable omission is that it's purely about the relationship between the state and scientific authority during the pandemic in the United States. As far as I know, in developed countries, scientific authority functioned as usual, and pretty effectively. That seems like an important contrast to consider.

I have not heard working scientists say “Trust the science” as much as “Trust the scientific method”. And that method is precisely the motto of the Royal Society: “Trust no one’s word” (nullius in verba). This has been drummed into us for the last 100 years with Popper as just an exclamation mark and Feyerabend as a harsh metacritic.

I therefore find the contrast/dialectic in this short essay to be spurious.

The suggestions for solutions at the end are silly both at conceptual and practical levels. Proposing to further fragment science into smaller silos to prevent premature consensus—that made me laugh.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend

Whether you heard them or not, they have been saying it on loud repeat and most of us did hear them. For example:

"So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science." -- Fauci

or

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-m...

"[Antiscience] targets prominent scientists and attempts to discredit them. The destructive potential of antiscience was fully realized in the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin." - Dr Peter Hotez

And please don't play No True Scotsman games, Fauci was employed due to his scientific credentials and was therefore very much a working scientist. Moreover, one who controlled most of the others, as has been seen in the various virology related leaks. Hotez is a professor of molecular virology, has testified in front of governments and frequently appeared on TV to make false or blatantly illogical/incoherent claims [1] like "this two dose vaccine has always needed three doses".

Hotez isn't some fringe lunatic disowned by other scientists, far from it. Here's the editor of a journal literally called Science claiming that asking Hotez to engage in debate is a "classic anti-science setup":

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/scientists-shouldn...

Last weekend, Twitter and later the mainstream media exploded with a controversy surrounding an invitation to prominent vaccine scientist Peter Hotez to debate anti-vax charlatan and spoiler presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr on the podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. There was an immediate rally around Hotez by scientists and celebrities on Twitter and lots of discussion about why this invitation is a classic anti-science setup.

The picture you're projecting of what scientists do is a pleasant daydream, not the nightmarish reality. Scientists constantly attack anyone who doubts their proclamations even when the criticism is scientifically based, and frequently call for outright censorship of anyone who disagrees with them.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8