Blind Faith in Lab Coats

[ecosophia]

I've mentioned before that being a satirist is one of the toughest jobs in existence just now. Day after day, the world parodies itself ever more outrageously, and somehow you have to keep on topping it!  Well, the satirists of the world now have another good reason to hang their heads in despair, thanks to UNESCO and a clutch of scientific institutions. On May 16 of this year these latter launched a new project -- they're trying to get people to sign a pledge to trust science. 

I'm not making this up, I swear. You can find the project's website here. They really are asking people to take a loyalty oath committing themselves to blind faith in whatever gets officially labeled as science. 

Now I suppose it's a good sign that UNESCO and the other supporters of this project have noticed that a growing number of people these days no longer assume, when somebody who claims to be a scientist makes a public statement, that the statement can be trusted. It would be a better sign if they noticed that the people who no longer trust science have ample reason for their doubts. Shall we talk about the way that approved scientific opinion about what counts as a healthy diet swings around with every gust of wind like a well-oiled weathervane? Shall we talk about the number of recent scientific studies that cannot be replicated, and therefore fail the most basic test of scientific validity, but are still being used to guide public policy?  Or the number of soi-disant wonder drugs approved by the authorities and cheered on by science that had to be withdrawn in a hurry because they turned out to have horrific side effects? Or -- but I could go on along these same lines for a week. 

The reason so many people no longer trust scientists to tell them the truth is that too many times, scientists haven't told them the truth. A glossy and impressively vacuous website isn't going to change that. A shortage of scientists willing to say whatever corporate and political interests tell them to say might help, but I'm not holding my breath. It's an appalling situation:  one of the half dozen or so greatest intellectual creations of our species, the scientific method, is facing a rising wall of distrust because too many people who claim to speak for science have told too many lies. 

The fascinating thing is that even within the science-and-tech field this does not seem to be going over well.  For a case in point, check out this article in the online issue of Spectrum, the magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. The article itself is a typically uncritical display of bootlicking, but the comments are lethal -- precise, mordant, and thoughtful rebuttals of the article's claims. (Sample:  "Seriously? A loyalty oath? No. You need to have somebody read TS Kuhn to you and explain him to you using very small words.") It's indicative that the journal closed comments very quickly -- and also indicative that so far, at least, the loyalty pledge in question has a remarkably small number of signatories. 

You don't need to be a meteorologist to know which way the wind blows.  Modern corporate science's crisis of legitimacy may just be about to hit critical mass. 

Comments

That poster is priceless

[(Anonymous)]

I’ll be sure to look into the health benefits of smoking Camels.

We’ll see how it turns out with the mRNA vaccines, if “vaccines” is the correct word for them. If the long-term side effects are terrible, I wonder how long the propaganda will be able to keep it under wraps?

Re: That poster is priceless

[ecosophia]

If you do a little digging it's not hard to find out that for many years, the medical industry loudly pooh-poohed claims that cigarette smoking causes cancer. As for the vaccines -- we can call them that for want of a better label -- that's the wildest of the wild cards in play just now. If we get lucky and they only cause the health problems that have been reported so far, that's one thing; if they turn out to have disastrous side effects -- especially if those amount to antibody-dependent enhancement, which has happened with ghastly results in mRNA vaccines in animals -- the results could be astonishingly explosive. (Keep an eye on the health of congresscritters -- they got the vaccine early.)

Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

[adwelly]

Top of Hacker News as I woke up:

https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-be-true-is-cited-more

The comments on HN about the broken incentives in the world of science seem on point as well.

The irony that this itself was another example of ‘science by press release’ was my first chuckle of the day.

Andy

Re: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more

[ecosophia]

Well, well, well. Nice collection of skeletons in that closet...

Many thanks for this!

[emmanuelg]

The pledge to believe all Scientists doesn't go nearly far enough.
We need to float a pledge to believe all Advertising.
Maybe a series of holidays too-- Like 'National Ask-Your-Barber-If-You-Need-A-Haircut Day.'
And we could have new charities-- Like 'Save the Abandoned Pet Rocks." For just $19.99 a month, automatically sent to my offshore bank account, you can symbolically adopt an Abandoned Pet Rock. Our team of specialists scours the countryside, rescuing Pet Rocks from neglectful, abusive owners. We take them to a special home for rocks, called a 'Quarry,' where they can live happily for the rest of their lives with other Pet Rocks like themselves. For an extra $20.00, I will email you a picture of the quarry, filled with happy Pet Rocks. Ahhh, so many possibilities! We truly live in an age of wonders...

[ecosophia]

I think this is a fine idea. I'd like to add a pledge to believe all archdruids while we're at it... ;-)

Unbelievable!

[(Anonymous)]

Hi!

I just came across your post. What extraordinary times we live in! I noted how the comments were dismissive of the pledge. I never thought that this wave of distrust in official science was now so prevalent.

It seems that the next step would be people making open calls to reduce funding for some scientific institutions. If ever the Covid vaccines do not work as well as advertised or if significant side effects start cropping up, Dear God, are we in for wild times!

Regards

Re: Unbelievable!

[ecosophia]

It's interesting to me that we haven't yet seen calls to cut science funding. My guess is that'll happen indirectly, probably by way of proposals to prune the academic industry aka "higher education."

The gift that keeps on giving

[(Anonymous)]

This is in the front page of Hacker News right now... A New Replication Crisis: Research that is Less Likely to be True is Cited More (https://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/pressrelease/a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-be-true-is-cited-more)

TL;DR -> The unreplicable articles are more "interesting" and get cited 153 times more often than boring, honest research.

Re: The gift that keeps on giving

[ecosophia]

I see my readers are on the ball. (Or that a lot of you follow Hacker News!) Thanks for this.

The Religious Overtones of belief in "Vaccines Save" Catechism

[scotlyn]

This post is synchronistically topical for me. I have been pondering the religious overtones of the current vaccination campaign (which, by the way, is NOT being called an "immunisation campaign" possibly because that would raise uncomfortable questions about truth in advertising, whereas the term "vaccination" seems to move the project directly into a space of belief - "vaccines save lives" - where critical faculties are not welcome, or are superfluous to need).

When, what did I see, but this!

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-christ-redeemer-statue-lights-up-vaccine-equality-2021-05-17/

Re: The Religious Overtones of belief in "Vaccines Save" Catechism

[ecosophia]

Funny. Mind you, I think you're quite correct -- people are promoting vaccines the way that an older era spoke of receiving the sacraments.

The science!

[(Anonymous)]

Who would take an online pledge of anything?
Seriously...
Every one of the comments in that linked article was a complete take down!
I'm continuously amazed by how out of touch are supposed "thinkers" are.
I probably shouldn't be by now.
Have you heard of Bret
Weinstein, of Evergreen College Fame?
He and his wife Heather Heying are both evolutionary biologists. They have a podcast, where they discuss various social and science topics.
They raised the lab leak hypothesis around the same time Chris Martenson did.
As a graduate, (iirc) Bret made a discovery regarding laboratory mice.
He found that they all had extra long telemeres, which are not found in mice in nature, but are due to the narrow breeding range of lab mice, resulting in this anomaly.
So all these mice are used in testing, but results wouldn't reflect​ the real world due to this anomaly.
So basically, test results are probably skewed.
There's much more to it than my basic overview, it was a while ago that I listened to his explanation.
I would encourage anyone to have a listen to Bret's full explanation.
Sorry I can't provide a link, but I remember that it was an interview conducted by his brother, Eric, available on YouTube.
In case you were wondering, the response by fellow scientists and the media?
Pretty much crickets...

Regards, Helen in Oz

Re: The science!

[(Anonymous)]

Yes! The Dark Horse podcast with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, the evolutionary biology professors run out of Evergreen State College in 2017 for not bowing to the woke mob. Been listening for over a year, and remember the episode on telomeres and funky mice.

Last week part of the discussion was how the vaccines got emergency authorization: One of the four requirements of the powers-that-be is that NO viable alternative is available.

So, crickets on ivermectin, and anything else with a safe track record, that may be successful.

Sure do hope the winds continue to change!

OtterGirl

PS

[scotlyn]

Perhaps not even coincidental, that the Pledge was launched on what WOH fans might call the "International Day of Radiance" (May 16th) ;)

Re: PS

[ecosophia]

Splutter! I didn't even think of that. Funny.

Ben Dover

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not advocating this or anything, but somebody might have signed with a joke name.

Re: Ben Dover

[ecosophia]

I certainly wouldn't encourage anything like that... ;-)

[(Anonymous)]

Here is my favorite, from a handle called "Moral Lensatic Compass GG Jane": "If I refuse to believe in science will I be burned at the stake as a heretic?"

I have used the Scientific method with great results in my life for many things like what to eat, how to treat ailments, the best way to grow a garden, etc. Most recently, with some prolonged experimentation, I have managed to find a decent alternative medicine cure for my mother's arthritis. It was possible because of Scientific method. Sad to think it may get relegated to remote corners in the future.

You have remarked on this crisis of legitimacy many times in your blogs. It is indeed sad that it has come to this. What is truly astonishing, as you have observed, is that the average reader of Spectrum will be well educated -- grad school at the least. If comments from such people are like this, it's a huge red flashing sign.

[ecosophia]

The scientific method, while it's not omnipotent, ranks up there with logic, mathematics, and written language as one of our species' great achievements. I've used it myself in several contexts with very good results. That's one of the reasons I think it's a crucial matter right now to get the scientific method out of the hands of the institutions so that it has some chance of survival.

[(Anonymous)]

Bleakly interesting. Coincidentally, there is an article in the Guardian today about how the initial hydroxychloroquine study was flawed (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/may/22/world-expert-in-scientific-misconduct-faces-legal-action-for-challenging-integrity-of-hydroxychloroquine-study), and how the French researcher behind the study is going after the scientist who raised questions about it.

Off topic: there's also a piece in Unherd about the rise of witches (https://unherd.com/2021/05/why-are-women-becoming-witches/) which mentions the Magical Resistance. Might be of interest if you haven't seen it already.

[ecosophia]

Thanks for both of these. I was amused to see the piece in Unherd -- I wonder which rock the author has been hiding under for the last forty years while these same trends have been all over pop culture...

[(Anonymous)]

"The International Day of Light"? Geezus,and I don't mean the carpenter! The irony trolls will have a field day with this one...

Btw,I wonder what real science says about gender dysphoria,the unfeasibility of fusion power, and such things.

Or even about the failure of the lockdowns to stop the pandemic...

Tidlösa,Sweden

[ecosophia]

One of the things that's fascinating about the current situation is the way that the word "science" has been stripped of its meaning and turned into a label for political power. "Follow the science!" means nothing more than "Do as you're told!" The examples you've cited are good ones...

Re: trust in institutional science

[(Anonymous)]

This reminds me about the controversy about GMOs, for instance (I hope this isn't off-topic, as it is a hotly debated topic and concerns the very prestige of institutional science itself). Even if one were to take a neutral perspective (which I personally don't) and try avoiding taking the side of either the pro-GMO or the anti-GMO side, I believe a strong case can be made about exercising extreme caution regarding these. I mean, we have not more than 50 plant genomes in total mapped and sequenced, but not even one of them is properly understood, i.e. there is a glaring lack of mechanistic models to explain the interactions of the genes of the tomato plant, for example. Given that the genome of any organism is a complex, nonlinear and self-regulating system, should we not take extreme precaution before we try to play around with it, much more than we would when trying to play around with the design of a pump, for example? At the very least, one could do worse than to make an informed decision regarding the same. Unfortunately, the officially approved people simply don't care...

Re: trust in institutional science

[(Anonymous)]

Frankly, when the people promoting GMOs and claiming "Science says it's safe" have to erase entire fields of scientific inquiry (epigenetics), something has gone very, very wrong...

[(Anonymous)]

And then there's this:

https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2021/05/20/unsettled_what_climate_science_tells_us_what_it_doesnt_and_why_it_matters_by_steven_e_koonin_778065.html?mc_cid=d03c344e9b&mc_eid=891d8cfdc0

" for the years after 1960, the latest generation of climate models show a larger spread and greater uncertainty than earlier ones – implying that, far from advancing, The Science has been going backwards. That is not how science is meant to work."

[ecosophia]

Thanks for this. I'd be more confident of the article's conclusions, however, if it wasn't about a scientist who works for BP...

enjoyed the comments

[randomactsofkarmasc]

The article was sad, in the shake-my-head-how-stupid-are-people kind of way. (People dare to question science? I thought the whole point of science was to question?)

The comments, as you pointed out, were entertaining.

But the part that gave me hope was the number of 'signers'... after pushing it for almost a week, the United Nations (as of this morning) had 4,283 supporters. That seems to be very few 'likes' in the age of social media.

Re: enjoyed the comments

[ecosophia]

I'm intrigued by the relative failure of the pledge. I'm not sure whether they've done a lousy job of promoting it, or if the crisis of legitimacy is much further along than I'd thought, or whether it's just that one step too far into absurdity.

[(Anonymous)]

Good grief.

I notice that the page you link to doesn't even have the text of the pledge; I'm just supposed to sign up to anything. Perhaps some of the 4,204 people who have signed it would be interested in purchasing a certain bridge I might have for sale?

[ecosophia]

You have to click on the "take action" button to get to the pledge. Here it is:

"Trust in evidence-based, scientific facts is essential for providing sustainable solutions to today’s challenges. By adding my name to this declaration and pledge, I recognize the key role that scientific research and discovery plays in improving quality of life for all.

"I pledge to trust science."

I think they could have made it more vacuous, but it would have taken work.

[(Anonymous)]

Just the few comments that Spectrum has allowed to remain up are volcanically scathing to put it mildly. People, as one of the commenters pointed out, are not stupid. They can tell the difference between genuine science and the corporate party line masquerading as science. Once that finally collapses into a steaming rotting heap, maybe we can finally get back to using science the way it was meant to be used, simply one of the many tools available for making sense of our beautiful and immeasurably complex environment.

JLfromNH/Scarlet Pestilent Imp

[ecosophia]

My great worry is that the corruption of science by political and economic interests has gone far enough that the scientific method itself risks a collapse in credibility. I've blogged on that before, but the latest rounds of corporate pseudoscience have made that a massive risk just now.

[(Anonymous)]

The very next thing I read after this was:

How Scientists Sacrificed Scepticism (https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-scientists-sacrificed-scepticism/)

I think more people are wising up to the fact that science is being abused.

[(Anonymous)]

I was about to share that link, you got to it first.

Something is speeding up this year, in the number of synchronicities and the apparent desperation of those trying to control the narrative.

I have a sense that the narrative milieu we collectively inhabit might be dramatically different a year from now, most certainly so if the blind-faith vaccine rollout turns out to have significant "unanticipated" downsides. (In quotes because there is plenty of actual science available regarding what those downsides could be, and what a more cautious experimental vaccine rollout might reasonably look like.)

Mark L

[jeffinwa]

A loyalty oath indeed; these sorry frackers have followed Wiley Coyote off the cliff and still haven't looked down yet. Kudos to the readers of Spectrum and shame on Spectrum management for publishing the article in the first place and then following that with shutting down the comments. The emperor is running around naked and even the adults are starting to notice (I can hope)

FYI My Avast security software has for the last few days been giving me the message *We've safely aborted connection on www.theorgonedonor.com because it was infected with URL:Blacklist* when I open ecosophia.dreamwidth.org

[jpc_w]

Funny, Bitdefender gave me warnings about "2.co.blogspot.com" for half a day after the Retrospect and Prospect article came out.

A coincidence, I'm sure.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh my god, that is hysterically funny! Their impassioned plea for the plebes to become cheerleaders for Science™, based on the past 12+ months of smashing successes for evidence-based solutions, is utterly tone deaf. Why would any self-respecting plebe vow fealty to clowns stupid enough to overlook 12+ months of evidence that whatever is passing for Science™ nowadays is making everyone's lives decidedly worse?

The Spectrum article's comments are even more compelling than I expected. Of the 26 comments, not a single one in support of this marketing debacle! The times they are a changin'.

I recognize that the lab coats have become so insulated from the consequences of their actions that they honestly believed their blatant power grab during the Covid panic would yield them an increase in fawning, slobbering dependency from the masses. But it's just weird that they continue to dream, contrary to all available evidence, that their inanity somehow yielded them increased market share in the long run. They wasted what remained of several centuries hard-earned respect for the scientific method's considerable advantages by marching around for a year like ermine-robed priest-kings who could not be questioned. I hope the synchronized clapping was worth all the influence they lost in their craving for throngs to applaud their mighty triumphs.

Modern corporate science's crisis of legitimacy is going to end up blowing way past critical mass if autoimmune reactions to the experimental vaccines kick in in earnest at some point. Our media overlords can still suppress information about the percent or so of human guinea pigs who are dying soon after vaccination — plausible deniability. That strategy will stop delivering if mortality spikes significantly at a consistent interval following vaccination. My best guess is that rumors of increased fatalities among various classes of celebrities who were able to elbow their way to the front of the miracle-drug line would begin to leak out around the media censorship a month or so before any autoimmune calamity became undeniable in the general populace.

No loyalty oath would be able to protect the lab coats from their bepom-pomed cheerleaders should they suddenly wake up to the overlooked risks of being voluntary guinea pigs. Perhaps corporate science's priests didn't appreciate the mythic lesson embedded in the Ghostbusters' line "Choose the form of the destructor." They done asked for pom-poms, and pom-poms are what they will get! Who knew that, in a pinch, pom-poms could be used to such lethal effect? I really hope we won't have to witness angry mobs of Science™ cheerleaders chasing down and slaughtering the pharmaceutical bosses.

Once seen, blood-spattered pom-poms would be a hard image to ever forget. I wonder if ill-conceived loyalty oaths have any potential to be wielded as lethal weapons in a crisis?

— Christophe

[ecosophia]

I'm watching celebrities and also congresscritters. They got the vaccine early, and if severe long term side effects are going to happen, that's where it'll likely show up first in visible form. Remember, though, we don't know what will happen -- that's just it. The vaccines didn't get adequate long term testing, and so nobody knows.

[(Anonymous)]

Data point: My daughter is a registered nurse working in a medium sized hospital in a relatively affluent west coast (USA) town.

She has chosen not to get vaccinated yet. She says she doesn't trust it.

I trust her.

[ecosophia]

I've heard the same thing from a great many people in health care. I trust them.

How much weirder can it get?

[slclaire]

Actually, I'm not sure I want to know how much weirder it can get. I mean, *scientists* demanding blind loyalty to whatever they happen to spew out? It makes me want to cry. It also makes my small attempts to help the scientific method get through the decline, via my blog and other writings, more difficult.

Re: How much weirder can it get?

[ecosophia]

Understood. All we can do is try to find ways to pry the scientific method loose from the hands of corporate science, and try to get it into the hands of individuals who can still make use of it.

[tamanous2020]

It sure seems that way, just see this article which details how non-replicable studies are in fact vastly more cited that the replicable ones!
https://archive.is/xLGE5#selection-181.0-203.364

[ecosophia]

I have the best readers. That makes three of you that caught this! Thank you.

[brenainn]

"Modern corporate science's crisis of legitimacy may just be about to hit critical mass."

I really, really hope so. I was once enamored with science but, as it turns out, it was really scientism that I fell victim to. I'd like to see real science done again.

[ecosophia]

Me too. I may just have to blog about that.

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm unfortunately if this site was more well know I could see a rush of certain people signing up, I had no idea this existed till recently but apparently there are some who are bragging about which of the covid vaccines they recieved as if one were more prestigious than another. Aksisu

[ecosophia]

Me, I think it would be great if the site got plenty of publicity. My guess is that the blowback would be far larger than any swell of support it might get.

As for people boasting about which vaccine they got, remember that among those who aren't at any real risk, getting the vaccine can function as a virtue signal -- a way to show that you're on the side of the self-proclaimed Good People. Of course they're bragging about which virtue signal they're flaunting.