The inflated promise of science education(bostonreview.net)
bostonreview.net
The inflated promise of science education
https://bostonreview.net/articles/the-inflated-promise-of-science-education/
38 comments
See but even what you are saying here doesn't make sense : n95 masks DO work to prevent you from inhaling the virus. That's what every medical professional wore around covid patients and they were quite effective. So the confusion continues.
The confusion is magnified by the fact that to achieve the results medical professionals achieve, you have to know how to wear them like they do.
One of the ways I read a certain now-infamous communication from a surgeon general was (a) we need the limited supply of n95s for medical staff (b) we think there are better measures the public can take to protect themselves and (c) we're not confident the public can wear them correctly.
(a) made sense, though there's always the temptation to think "maybe I too should have a few."
(b) can't get the virus if you're keeping away from people, or in a strict bubble. Same logic as abstinence/monogamy and STDs. Though the policy proved to be even less popular than extended runs of abstinence and monogamy, hence the inevitable interest in prophylactics.
(c) What? I was kindof insulted, personally. And thought that represented an insulting view of the public.
BUT after learning about fit testing, trying it on my own, and struggling to keep a consistent fit that passed a test.... yeah. I had to admit I was not a natural at wearing an n95. And as for the public, all of us have seen people wear masks sloppily, or pull them down to sneeze, or any number of other behaviors that entirely defeat the purpose. Who has confidence that most people would wear an n95 in a way that passes a fit test?
Of course, badly-fit n95s probably provide better marginal protection than well-fit cloth masks, so maybe they should be an acceptable public intervention when available, but I doubt they'd protect the public as well as they do medical staff that's learn to fit them.
Which makes the infamous announcement arguably correct, although it remains a communication failure. But then again, the more complex you make a communication, the more poorly it scales, and "masks work if you wear them correctly and here's how you determine this" might already be ineffective.
One of the ways I read a certain now-infamous communication from a surgeon general was (a) we need the limited supply of n95s for medical staff (b) we think there are better measures the public can take to protect themselves and (c) we're not confident the public can wear them correctly.
(a) made sense, though there's always the temptation to think "maybe I too should have a few."
(b) can't get the virus if you're keeping away from people, or in a strict bubble. Same logic as abstinence/monogamy and STDs. Though the policy proved to be even less popular than extended runs of abstinence and monogamy, hence the inevitable interest in prophylactics.
(c) What? I was kindof insulted, personally. And thought that represented an insulting view of the public.
BUT after learning about fit testing, trying it on my own, and struggling to keep a consistent fit that passed a test.... yeah. I had to admit I was not a natural at wearing an n95. And as for the public, all of us have seen people wear masks sloppily, or pull them down to sneeze, or any number of other behaviors that entirely defeat the purpose. Who has confidence that most people would wear an n95 in a way that passes a fit test?
Of course, badly-fit n95s probably provide better marginal protection than well-fit cloth masks, so maybe they should be an acceptable public intervention when available, but I doubt they'd protect the public as well as they do medical staff that's learn to fit them.
Which makes the infamous announcement arguably correct, although it remains a communication failure. But then again, the more complex you make a communication, the more poorly it scales, and "masks work if you wear them correctly and here's how you determine this" might already be ineffective.
I think that is why he asked the rhetorical "which masks?".
An N95 mask has always been for the protection of the wearer, which was acknowledged since the beginning. In the earliest days, the message was essentially "don't buy all the masks because we need them for hospitals, and besides, you'll need an N95 anyway, so hoarding surgical masks won't save you". [Blue: Masks Don't Work, Hoarders!, Red: Yes they do, commies!]
Then, it was "maybe if we all cover our mouths [with literally whatever] and don't cough all over everything in every store every day, there will be an overall reduction in spread of germs". [Blue: Masks Save Us From COVID! Red: They just said Masks Don't Work! Blue: Yes they do! Science changes! (The Science had not changed) Red: Well, it's not protecting you, the wearer. Blue: Masks protect us all! Red: No they don't! Blue: Science Denier!, etc, etc.]
Another source of Works vs. Doesn't Work - anecdotes (and perhaps more) from subway passengers, allergy patients, etc. tend to indicate they feel better when wearing a surgical mask, which I don't find astonishing. I saw many comments asserting the effectiveness of surgical masks against inhalation (of a virus) based on these "idk I think my allergies were kinda better this year" observations.
On the other hand, no foreman would allow their workers to tear down drywall or fiberglass or whatever (read: dust) with a simple cloth or surgical mask - OSHA mostly requires N95's (+/- the exhale vent). These construction-type N95s are great to protect the wearer, but are obviously less effective (but better than nothing) against protecting passers-by from the wearer.
The scenario for which "Masks Work" is basically a hands-free covering-your-mouth-when-you-cough, but without that last half of the sentence, it's easy to see how many of the trades workers called bullshit - "I can't hang drywall or sand my boat without an N95, but I have to wear this shitty mask when I walk from my house to my mailbox?"
"Masks Work! Learn the Science™!", etc, etc.
The sad thing is that this is like a 15-minute conversation - tops - as part of hospital and jobsite orientation. Tons of new hires with only a HS Diploma/GED go through this talk every week with relatively little confusion. The Science/use cases haven't significantly evolved beyond the old PPE powerpoints, which I assume were deemed "too technical" by some PR person, leading to the kind of Science that fits on a bumper sticker.
It reminds me of a high school algebra teacher cheering on this girl that was struggling with quadratic equations or something; she was up at the chalkboard and suddenly had an epiphany, saying something like "oh! I get it! now I just plug in X and divide!", to which he jokingly responded "We plug in toasters, not variables", and it was like her eyes glazed over and her brain imploded. "Toasters?! Where did the toasters come from!?" There was just no coming back from that brief moment of confusion, at least that day, for that problem.
Then, it was "maybe if we all cover our mouths [with literally whatever] and don't cough all over everything in every store every day, there will be an overall reduction in spread of germs". [Blue: Masks Save Us From COVID! Red: They just said Masks Don't Work! Blue: Yes they do! Science changes! (The Science had not changed) Red: Well, it's not protecting you, the wearer. Blue: Masks protect us all! Red: No they don't! Blue: Science Denier!, etc, etc.]
Another source of Works vs. Doesn't Work - anecdotes (and perhaps more) from subway passengers, allergy patients, etc. tend to indicate they feel better when wearing a surgical mask, which I don't find astonishing. I saw many comments asserting the effectiveness of surgical masks against inhalation (of a virus) based on these "idk I think my allergies were kinda better this year" observations.
On the other hand, no foreman would allow their workers to tear down drywall or fiberglass or whatever (read: dust) with a simple cloth or surgical mask - OSHA mostly requires N95's (+/- the exhale vent). These construction-type N95s are great to protect the wearer, but are obviously less effective (but better than nothing) against protecting passers-by from the wearer.
The scenario for which "Masks Work" is basically a hands-free covering-your-mouth-when-you-cough, but without that last half of the sentence, it's easy to see how many of the trades workers called bullshit - "I can't hang drywall or sand my boat without an N95, but I have to wear this shitty mask when I walk from my house to my mailbox?"
"Masks Work! Learn the Science™!", etc, etc.
The sad thing is that this is like a 15-minute conversation - tops - as part of hospital and jobsite orientation. Tons of new hires with only a HS Diploma/GED go through this talk every week with relatively little confusion. The Science/use cases haven't significantly evolved beyond the old PPE powerpoints, which I assume were deemed "too technical" by some PR person, leading to the kind of Science that fits on a bumper sticker.
It reminds me of a high school algebra teacher cheering on this girl that was struggling with quadratic equations or something; she was up at the chalkboard and suddenly had an epiphany, saying something like "oh! I get it! now I just plug in X and divide!", to which he jokingly responded "We plug in toasters, not variables", and it was like her eyes glazed over and her brain imploded. "Toasters?! Where did the toasters come from!?" There was just no coming back from that brief moment of confusion, at least that day, for that problem.
This (your 2nd and 3rd paragraph) is the most concise and understandable explanation of that period that I’ve seen. Very well put.
> (largely along Red and Blue lines)
The maskdisaster was the same in Germany (with regard to the official communication) without any blue/red line, so I’d say this is not one of those times when the broken US political system is at fault.
> (largely along Red and Blue lines)
The maskdisaster was the same in Germany (with regard to the official communication) without any blue/red line, so I’d say this is not one of those times when the broken US political system is at fault.
How long did the CDC push the droplets germ spreading theory, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the virus was spread as an aerosol? How many billions of dollars was spent on disenfecting surfaces, installing plexiglass barriers and telling people to stay 6 ft. apart? I can understand some of the hesitation on people being skeptical of these things.
Asia countries just take back all treatment for SARS, as nd then prayer it isn't aerosol.
There's also the evidence-based Medicine vs. the ratings-based Security (HSE?) Theater thing.
Medicine vs. Quackery didn't really differentiate in the mind of the public until sometime between antibiotics and advances in trauma care (and CPR, to a lesser extent) in the mid-21st century. Things like antibiotics, X-rays, naloxone, tourniquets, hip replacements, "actually" work. Like work work, in a way that is visible and relatable in simple mechanical terms. Nothing like the Ghosts In The Blood and The Mysteries of The Poppy Seed of our ancestors.
Unfortunately, there's simply not a whole lot to do about a whole lot of things, other than essentially rest, eat well, stay hydrated (no alcohol), smoke fewer cigarettes, and maybe something to ease the discomfortable symptoms. This can be barely acceptable for a physician to say, let alone a press secretary, let alone one from The Bad Team.
Headaches[1] and anesthesia[2], as counterexamples, are not as straightforward. Note the number of ridiculous* headache treatments across time and space, as well as the number of "Science Has Solved Anesthesia!" articles[3] (it has but a first significant piece to the puzzle).
But these really only affect the individual and don't spread like a communicable disease (or ransomware, Big Homo, witchcraft, etc.), so they're also bad examples in a way. Humanity gets really weird when we can't see (and/or shoot) The Problem - Spooky Actions At A Distance or something, idk. Things also get controversial in the area of what the AHA classifies as IIB or III[A] recommendations[9], where there are different shades of "doesn't work", only one of which is really harmful.
Anyway, all of this is to say that there's a certain common-sense value to certain things [4,5,6,7,8], if only the appearance of doing something to appease a scared and generally-ignorant public.
The measures themselves are also mostly common-sense, and designed in parallel ("Swiss Cheese Model") with the knowledge that they won't all be followed all the time, and are targeted and measured over large aggregates (states, counties, 100k people, weeks, months). Nobody is necessarily harmed by someone not wearing a mask, because its benefit is probabilistic by design.
But there's always that group of people, usually with exceptionally little knowledge of the subject area at hand, who insist that, e.g., construction workers must wear gloves and safety goggles while eating lunch (the sign does say "PPE must be worn at all times"!), that life jackets must be worn even on shore, and so on, who are so self-assured/righteous in their ignorance that not only are they unafraid, but feel compelled to push their ignorance on everyone else, because they misunderstand things so badly.
This seems to be the real crime, which made everything more authoritarian than it needed to be. Consent is predicated on being informed, and it's no surprise people felt all kinds of ways about having to make major life changes based on flimsy evidence, especially all of the overly-simple, factually-incorrect (but probably well-meaning) statements made - again, mostly not by Scientists writing Science -but blue checkmarks, journalists, the Tumblrati, etc.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353082/ [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004259117 [3] https://www.futurity.org/general-anesthesia-sleep-brains-neu... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ [5] https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 [6] https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/02/breakthrough-resea... [7] https://acumenmd.com/blog/seriously-use-a-parachute/ [8] https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/cer-2021-0171 [9] https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/File:Classofrecommendation...
Medicine vs. Quackery didn't really differentiate in the mind of the public until sometime between antibiotics and advances in trauma care (and CPR, to a lesser extent) in the mid-21st century. Things like antibiotics, X-rays, naloxone, tourniquets, hip replacements, "actually" work. Like work work, in a way that is visible and relatable in simple mechanical terms. Nothing like the Ghosts In The Blood and The Mysteries of The Poppy Seed of our ancestors.
Unfortunately, there's simply not a whole lot to do about a whole lot of things, other than essentially rest, eat well, stay hydrated (no alcohol), smoke fewer cigarettes, and maybe something to ease the discomfortable symptoms. This can be barely acceptable for a physician to say, let alone a press secretary, let alone one from The Bad Team.
Headaches[1] and anesthesia[2], as counterexamples, are not as straightforward. Note the number of ridiculous* headache treatments across time and space, as well as the number of "Science Has Solved Anesthesia!" articles[3] (it has but a first significant piece to the puzzle).
But these really only affect the individual and don't spread like a communicable disease (or ransomware, Big Homo, witchcraft, etc.), so they're also bad examples in a way. Humanity gets really weird when we can't see (and/or shoot) The Problem - Spooky Actions At A Distance or something, idk. Things also get controversial in the area of what the AHA classifies as IIB or III[A] recommendations[9], where there are different shades of "doesn't work", only one of which is really harmful.
Anyway, all of this is to say that there's a certain common-sense value to certain things [4,5,6,7,8], if only the appearance of doing something to appease a scared and generally-ignorant public.
The measures themselves are also mostly common-sense, and designed in parallel ("Swiss Cheese Model") with the knowledge that they won't all be followed all the time, and are targeted and measured over large aggregates (states, counties, 100k people, weeks, months). Nobody is necessarily harmed by someone not wearing a mask, because its benefit is probabilistic by design.
But there's always that group of people, usually with exceptionally little knowledge of the subject area at hand, who insist that, e.g., construction workers must wear gloves and safety goggles while eating lunch (the sign does say "PPE must be worn at all times"!), that life jackets must be worn even on shore, and so on, who are so self-assured/righteous in their ignorance that not only are they unafraid, but feel compelled to push their ignorance on everyone else, because they misunderstand things so badly.
This seems to be the real crime, which made everything more authoritarian than it needed to be. Consent is predicated on being informed, and it's no surprise people felt all kinds of ways about having to make major life changes based on flimsy evidence, especially all of the overly-simple, factually-incorrect (but probably well-meaning) statements made - again, mostly not by Scientists writing Science -but blue checkmarks, journalists, the Tumblrati, etc.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5353082/ [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2004259117 [3] https://www.futurity.org/general-anesthesia-sleep-brains-neu... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/ [5] https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094 [6] https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2019/02/breakthrough-resea... [7] https://acumenmd.com/blog/seriously-use-a-parachute/ [8] https://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/10.2217/cer-2021-0171 [9] https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/File:Classofrecommendation...
> Perhaps we need to create a new degree program for, among other things, interpreting and reporting on press releases such that extremely basic facts and terms of art aren't mixed up.
I agree with this, but I think it needs to come from the other side. I personally think the scientific (community? world? sphere?) needs to step up and work on disseminating information to the general public in a way almost everyone can understand. Get rid of the middleman journalist who has to translate a press release or research paper that they probably don't understand, even if they had the time to look into it, into something the general public doesn't really completely understand either.
I also think this won't ever really happen, because the scientific community (imo) has a bit of an ego problem - same as the guy who makes themselves feel smarter by only explaining things using jargon.
There should also be more focus on critical thinking in middle and high schools, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I agree with this, but I think it needs to come from the other side. I personally think the scientific (community? world? sphere?) needs to step up and work on disseminating information to the general public in a way almost everyone can understand. Get rid of the middleman journalist who has to translate a press release or research paper that they probably don't understand, even if they had the time to look into it, into something the general public doesn't really completely understand either.
I also think this won't ever really happen, because the scientific community (imo) has a bit of an ego problem - same as the guy who makes themselves feel smarter by only explaining things using jargon.
There should also be more focus on critical thinking in middle and high schools, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I think what they said early was their was no evidence they worked outside of a medical setting (but not that there was evidence they didn't).
But we dont wait on randomly controlled trials in a different airport to use a parachute, and can use common sense reasoning in deciding yes to pull the cord if we find ourselves falling out of a plane instead of using setting dependent empiricism.
There could be some counterintuitive reason it is dangerous outside of medical settings but they never gave anything plausible and should have just left it at we need to conserve them for more exposed people in medical settings.
But we dont wait on randomly controlled trials in a different airport to use a parachute, and can use common sense reasoning in deciding yes to pull the cord if we find ourselves falling out of a plane instead of using setting dependent empiricism.
There could be some counterintuitive reason it is dangerous outside of medical settings but they never gave anything plausible and should have just left it at we need to conserve them for more exposed people in medical settings.
[deleted]
Masks worked to protect agency budgets from oversight lest the public notice that Centers for Disease Control… didn’t.
> With regard to <masks>, The Science™ really has never been controversial and has not changed significantly since the start of the pandemic
That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB):
> Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures.
It goes on, and helpfully points out the problems with these studies that means it would be hasty to use them as the final word.
> So we got into this situation unprepared with a faulty evidence base and hotly debated practices, after two decades of “pandemic preparedness”.
You'll note that the debate ended with the British Medical Journal's[2] executive editor, a proponent of masks who states that they think CEMB's review and subsequent articles on the subject are mistaken, defending the CEMB's views from being censored by Facebook:
> A disagreement among experts, especially about interpretation of a study, is a common occurrence. It is the usual business of science.
I wish I could make that bold and quoted.
> Only, Facebook didn’t see it that way. The social media platform that allows statements about injecting bleach to prevent covid-19, as well as calls to behead the leading US expert on pandemics,67 decreed that Heneghan and Jefferson should be censured for misinformation after they reposted their Spectator article on the site.
The Science™ certainly isn't settled on this, to portray as such does a disservice to the actual pursuit of truth. And that after lamenting bias in reporting.
> Perhaps we need to create a new degree program
You mean, like the CEMB has?[3]
> Our team research, practice and disseminate evidence-based medicine in health care decision making, and are committed to improving healthcare by fostering wider communication of high quality evidence, by promoting the principles of EBM through engagement, knowledge sharing, research and education.
[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-masks-on-or-off/
[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586
[3] https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/about-us/about-cebm
That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB):
> Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures.
It goes on, and helpfully points out the problems with these studies that means it would be hasty to use them as the final word.
> So we got into this situation unprepared with a faulty evidence base and hotly debated practices, after two decades of “pandemic preparedness”.
You'll note that the debate ended with the British Medical Journal's[2] executive editor, a proponent of masks who states that they think CEMB's review and subsequent articles on the subject are mistaken, defending the CEMB's views from being censored by Facebook:
> A disagreement among experts, especially about interpretation of a study, is a common occurrence. It is the usual business of science.
I wish I could make that bold and quoted.
> Only, Facebook didn’t see it that way. The social media platform that allows statements about injecting bleach to prevent covid-19, as well as calls to behead the leading US expert on pandemics,67 decreed that Heneghan and Jefferson should be censured for misinformation after they reposted their Spectator article on the site.
The Science™ certainly isn't settled on this, to portray as such does a disservice to the actual pursuit of truth. And that after lamenting bias in reporting.
> Perhaps we need to create a new degree program
You mean, like the CEMB has?[3]
> Our team research, practice and disseminate evidence-based medicine in health care decision making, and are committed to improving healthcare by fostering wider communication of high quality evidence, by promoting the principles of EBM through engagement, knowledge sharing, research and education.
[1] https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-masks-on-or-off/
[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4586
[3] https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/about-us/about-cebm
> That is, in actual fact, not the case. From an article at the beginning of the pandemic published by Oxford uni's Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEMB):
> Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures.
Perhaps The Science™ did change a bit, particularly with regard to public policy, but I don't think anyone except the headline-skimming public and adults who still pull their shirt up over their nose when someone farts expected masks to do much of anything. It was always a kind of improvisational measure, as Science™ of course already knew the correct answer to be D) None of the above.
The 2003 SARS studies in particular have been used in wilderness/disaster medicine as evidence for a lecture that goes something like this: "Stateside, you'll mostly always have enough top-notch equipment to go around, but should you find yourself in a clinic in sub-Saharan Africa, rural SE Asia, etc. during a disease outbreak, a surgical mask is probably better than nothing. Sure, you're fucked without a PAPR, and if there are no surgical masks available, perhaps wrapping a bandana or some gauze around your face (and/or saying a prayer) will keep you from dying, who knows. Good luck; have fun!"
The difference between "things that sometimes work for certain patients/scenarios" and "things that we can prove work well enough to justify forcing on an entire population" is also relevant, and why I say I don't think <strike>Science</strike> Medicine has learned much from this - the answer has always been "use the correct mask for the situation", and these masks have never been the correct mask.
This[1], for example, is one of those best-effort hacks one keeps in their toolbox, and anyone using it knows it's sub-par. No ortho would be surprised that their cell phone vibrator diagnosis didn't match the X-ray (and likely, neither would their patient) - but after six months of "Cell Phones Are X-Ray Machines" articles, the public is gonna be upset when they finally realize they aren't.
> You mean, like the CEMB has?
No, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/d...
[1] https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf
> Evidence from 14 trials on the use of masks vs. no masks was disappointing: it showed no effect in either healthcare workers or in community settings. We could also find no evidence of a difference between the N95 and other types of masks but the trials comparing the two had not been carried in aerosol-generating procedures.
Perhaps The Science™ did change a bit, particularly with regard to public policy, but I don't think anyone except the headline-skimming public and adults who still pull their shirt up over their nose when someone farts expected masks to do much of anything. It was always a kind of improvisational measure, as Science™ of course already knew the correct answer to be D) None of the above.
The 2003 SARS studies in particular have been used in wilderness/disaster medicine as evidence for a lecture that goes something like this: "Stateside, you'll mostly always have enough top-notch equipment to go around, but should you find yourself in a clinic in sub-Saharan Africa, rural SE Asia, etc. during a disease outbreak, a surgical mask is probably better than nothing. Sure, you're fucked without a PAPR, and if there are no surgical masks available, perhaps wrapping a bandana or some gauze around your face (and/or saying a prayer) will keep you from dying, who knows. Good luck; have fun!"
The difference between "things that sometimes work for certain patients/scenarios" and "things that we can prove work well enough to justify forcing on an entire population" is also relevant, and why I say I don't think <strike>Science</strike> Medicine has learned much from this - the answer has always been "use the correct mask for the situation", and these masks have never been the correct mask.
This[1], for example, is one of those best-effort hacks one keeps in their toolbox, and anyone using it knows it's sub-par. No ortho would be surprised that their cell phone vibrator diagnosis didn't match the X-ray (and likely, neither would their patient) - but after six months of "Cell Phones Are X-Ray Machines" articles, the public is gonna be upset when they finally realize they aren't.
> You mean, like the CEMB has?
No, this one: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/d...
[1] https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(13)00261-5/pdf
"Ahh" , the scientist laments, "if only they had sufficient data they would make the right choice."
This is just smart people being dumb because they're science smart, but people dumb.
Firstly, you cannot reason someone out of a position they have not been reasoned into.
Secondly, people believe what they believe because it suits them to believe it. "I don't care about the science of vaccines, I am scared of injecting something into my body."
Thirdly, follow the money. Smoking might be bad for you, but making cigarettes is big business. With big social change comes big shifts in money. Thus coal ignores climate change, because to do otherwise is suicide.
Fourthly there's a trust problem. If you know your leader lies, or acts in bad faith, then by extension they all do [1]. If all leaders lie or act in bad faith then I no longer trust any leader. I assume you are telling me something to help you, not help me.
Ultimately the problem is not one of data (give the people data, and the tools (science) to interpret that data) but rather the implications of change, The abandonment of existing social circle, The financial loss, The improvement of others at my expense.
Science can't solve these issues, because they aren't science issues.
[1] if I assume the opposite, that only my leader lies, then clearly following him is stupid, and I am not stupid, qed.
This is just smart people being dumb because they're science smart, but people dumb.
Firstly, you cannot reason someone out of a position they have not been reasoned into.
Secondly, people believe what they believe because it suits them to believe it. "I don't care about the science of vaccines, I am scared of injecting something into my body."
Thirdly, follow the money. Smoking might be bad for you, but making cigarettes is big business. With big social change comes big shifts in money. Thus coal ignores climate change, because to do otherwise is suicide.
Fourthly there's a trust problem. If you know your leader lies, or acts in bad faith, then by extension they all do [1]. If all leaders lie or act in bad faith then I no longer trust any leader. I assume you are telling me something to help you, not help me.
Ultimately the problem is not one of data (give the people data, and the tools (science) to interpret that data) but rather the implications of change, The abandonment of existing social circle, The financial loss, The improvement of others at my expense.
Science can't solve these issues, because they aren't science issues.
[1] if I assume the opposite, that only my leader lies, then clearly following him is stupid, and I am not stupid, qed.
I think there is a data problem as well. There's the issue that you can find a scientific study making the case for whatever view you hold if it's sufficiently marketable to do one. Because hundreds of studies got done about masks, at least 1 or 2 will have returned an unclear result, and you can bet those 1 or 2 studies will be promoted by biased politicians, public health officials, etc.
Here's 150 studies that conclude masks don't work/are harmful to certain populations https://centerforneurologyandspine.com/do-masks-work-see-the...
Here's 49 that say masks do work https://kfor.com/news/health/coronavirus/do-face-masks-work-...
I haven't looked through every single one but there are plenty of reputable research institutions in both articles. Even if the general consensus among the scientific community is pro-mask, people are going to take away whatever they want because there are no clear answers anymore.
Here's 150 studies that conclude masks don't work/are harmful to certain populations https://centerforneurologyandspine.com/do-masks-work-see-the...
Here's 49 that say masks do work https://kfor.com/news/health/coronavirus/do-face-masks-work-...
I haven't looked through every single one but there are plenty of reputable research institutions in both articles. Even if the general consensus among the scientific community is pro-mask, people are going to take away whatever they want because there are no clear answers anymore.
> you cannot reason someone out of a position they have not been reasoned into
Yes you can, that’s one of the best things about reason. I see this phrase pop up from time to time and I guess it’s just too cute to die
Yes you can, that’s one of the best things about reason. I see this phrase pop up from time to time and I guess it’s just too cute to die
I understand the expression to be shorthand for the principle that a person will defend a comfortable bunker position stubbornly and with main force. Changing the person's thinking will require significant energy and may exhaust your resources.
Your adversary may die in that bunker. But there's an entire economic system that got your opponent to enter the position and believe in it.
Your adversary may die in that bunker. But there's an entire economic system that got your opponent to enter the position and believe in it.
Exactly. If that were the case, it would be impossible for people raised to be religious as children to become atheists as adults when they've realized that the evidence for their religion doesn't hold up, but this is very common.
The tabaco and oil industry (and other huge non-sustainabe and dangerous business models) cultivated this trust issue over decades with their silence denial methods like FLACC. It will not be easy against such powerfully interests, if even possible.
One of my best sport buddies today told me that he won't come to global climate strike this year, because (true story) China used so much concrete for infrastructure lately that the earth will move which will make the poles melt anyways... Wtf. He "read it somewhere, it looked official, some institutional webpage". I was so deeply disappointed of the guy.
We are doomed as long as spreading intentional disinformation via manipulated masses, fabricated mostly by PR agencies and think tanks is not a crime. Shit like this even brought Trump in office and keeps people like Putin or Erdogan in it. Spreading lies and manipulating people has nothing to do with free speech. Actually it will become our undoing I believe. This is the core of our problems in these times or maybe ever has been.
One of my best sport buddies today told me that he won't come to global climate strike this year, because (true story) China used so much concrete for infrastructure lately that the earth will move which will make the poles melt anyways... Wtf. He "read it somewhere, it looked official, some institutional webpage". I was so deeply disappointed of the guy.
We are doomed as long as spreading intentional disinformation via manipulated masses, fabricated mostly by PR agencies and think tanks is not a crime. Shit like this even brought Trump in office and keeps people like Putin or Erdogan in it. Spreading lies and manipulating people has nothing to do with free speech. Actually it will become our undoing I believe. This is the core of our problems in these times or maybe ever has been.
> The tabaco and oil industry (and other huge non-sustainabe and dangerous business models) cultivated this trust issue over decades
There's this popular myth that nobody knew smoking was bad for you until the 1960s. My dad would laugh at this, saying when he was a boy (1930's) his fellows called them "coffin nails". Doctors then always advised their patients to quit smoking.
In the 1960s, I saw a smoker's lung on display in a bottle of formaldehyde. It was black and looked horribly diseased. Another non-smoker's lung was also there, it looked pink and normal. A doctor who ever saw a smoker's lung would have to be crazy to not conclude smoking was bad for your health.
It wasn't exactly rocket science.
There's this popular myth that nobody knew smoking was bad for you until the 1960s. My dad would laugh at this, saying when he was a boy (1930's) his fellows called them "coffin nails". Doctors then always advised their patients to quit smoking.
In the 1960s, I saw a smoker's lung on display in a bottle of formaldehyde. It was black and looked horribly diseased. Another non-smoker's lung was also there, it looked pink and normal. A doctor who ever saw a smoker's lung would have to be crazy to not conclude smoking was bad for your health.
It wasn't exactly rocket science.
I think your friend was looking for any reason to not spend their time involved with an activist cause they don’t care about on a personal level.
I have a theory that since this sentiment is difficult to put into words, where an individual is disinclined to just say “nah I don’t really care enough”, they reach for dubious sources that make them sound more ridiculous than if they stated their subjective opinion bluntly.
I have a theory that since this sentiment is difficult to put into words, where an individual is disinclined to just say “nah I don’t really care enough”, they reach for dubious sources that make them sound more ridiculous than if they stated their subjective opinion bluntly.
Who decides the truth without it being a zero-steps path to abuse?
The scientific method. If you ask how the hypothesis that Chinese concrete moved the Earth was tested, you won't receive a response.
We don't have to go for the truth even if we believe it to be obtainable. We can start by linking to accessible sources and requiring exact citations. Wikipedia has been doing it for ages. Then we may require impactful publications to be available to the public including a comment section for professionals in that field.
then we can do an itemized bill disclosing who paid for the study again with a link to the entity explaining why they did and a comment section with the finances for professionals only.
Have fines depending on the size of the org and the size of the audience and require retractions, updates and/or disclosure of the objections raised.
That way it would be hard to publish that chocolate helps losing weight (as the funding is revealed) but if you manage to do it the citations by others would eventually link to retractions.
then we can do an itemized bill disclosing who paid for the study again with a link to the entity explaining why they did and a comment section with the finances for professionals only.
Have fines depending on the size of the org and the size of the audience and require retractions, updates and/or disclosure of the objections raised.
That way it would be hard to publish that chocolate helps losing weight (as the funding is revealed) but if you manage to do it the citations by others would eventually link to retractions.
Wikipedia doesn't have keys to power. If you want the truth to die screaming in agony you tie power to whom is decided is "right".
[deleted]
> We are doomed as long as spreading intentional disinformation via manipulated masses, fabricated mostly by PR agencies and think tanks is not a crime.
Not only is it not a crime to promote falsehood, lunacy, and propaganda, it is simply easier, more lucrative, and politcally useful for the media business to participate in the intellectual gerrymandering of a population.
On this very topic, but from half a century ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)
Not only is it not a crime to promote falsehood, lunacy, and propaganda, it is simply easier, more lucrative, and politcally useful for the media business to participate in the intellectual gerrymandering of a population.
On this very topic, but from half a century ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)
When science does not serve people, and merely the interests of those with capital, it is natural that some people will want to reject it. Though, ideally we can find a middle ground.
I guess there are many causes for anti-science sentiment, but interestingly, part of it comes from being "too objective". Positivism often fails at trying find truth that's useful/empowering to individual people, even if it is good at mastering nature/growing economies.
We're seeing history repeat itself. Overabundance of positivist rationality at the cost of human subjectivity is precisely what the Counter-Enlightenment and Romantics were reacting to. It's also what sociologists such as Max Weber spoke about, and Marx, and especially the philosophers of the Frankfurt School (e.g. Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse).
Let's hope we can find a new Romanticism, to come to value the subjective in addition to the objective as a society, to create science like literature that's actually empowering to people. Otherwise, radical rejections of objective truth—e.g. the Flat Earth movement, fascism—are natural, albeit deluded responses, as has been seen historically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
I guess there are many causes for anti-science sentiment, but interestingly, part of it comes from being "too objective". Positivism often fails at trying find truth that's useful/empowering to individual people, even if it is good at mastering nature/growing economies.
We're seeing history repeat itself. Overabundance of positivist rationality at the cost of human subjectivity is precisely what the Counter-Enlightenment and Romantics were reacting to. It's also what sociologists such as Max Weber spoke about, and Marx, and especially the philosophers of the Frankfurt School (e.g. Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse).
Let's hope we can find a new Romanticism, to come to value the subjective in addition to the objective as a society, to create science like literature that's actually empowering to people. Otherwise, radical rejections of objective truth—e.g. the Flat Earth movement, fascism—are natural, albeit deluded responses, as has been seen historically.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism
> there are many causes for anti-science sentiment
There are many scientists who infuse their scientific pronouncements with opinions and politics.
There are many scientists who infuse their scientific pronouncements with opinions and politics.
"Follow the science!" implies that science can determine an exactly correct public policy but this is nonsense. Public policy is all about tradeoffs,e.g. excess deaths for economics and mental health. It has to take into account how people want to live and their emotional reactions and all the unpredictable complex effects of human behavior. The scientist can say what he thinks would happen to cases in New York City if 95% of people wore surgical masks whenever they left the house and (if he is being honest) how confident he is in that prediction.
How to balance that predicted effect's benefits for society against the negative effects of requiring this is absolutely not up to the scientist and is no more in his field of expertise than it is in mine
How to balance that predicted effect's benefits for society against the negative effects of requiring this is absolutely not up to the scientist and is no more in his field of expertise than it is in mine
One to one mentoring has been systematically underestimated in scientific education, content helps less than commentary on how to ...
Adopting beliefs that conflict with your preexisting belief system is incredibly difficult. It’s arduous and confusing. It’s not as simple as looking at one piece of evidence and saying “oh I was wrong”. This is because beliefs form a web of knowledge, and they reinforce each other.
On the other hand, adopting evidence based beliefs is very very easy when those beliefs line up with your existing belief system.
If you’ve ever tried to, say, talk an anti vaxxer into taking a COVID vaccine this becomes very obvious.
The discussion notably is not straightforward. It’s not “here’s the report saying it reduces hospitalizations and deaths” “oh I can’t refute that okay”
It’s more like “here’s the report saying it reduces hospitalizations and deaths” “that report is lying because Fauci ordered it, here’s a headline i saw that there were tons of deaths in the Israeli vaccine trial, and here’s a link that describes the evil peoples intentions with the vaccine”
Instead of convincing them with evidence you’ve forked into 3 separate arguments (trust in validity of peer review + what happened in the Israeli trial + can you trust this article that claims fauci and bill gates are satanic cultists)
And that’s without diving into the ocean of human bias that allow us to reinforce our belief system with little effort.
On the other hand, adopting evidence based beliefs is very very easy when those beliefs line up with your existing belief system.
If you’ve ever tried to, say, talk an anti vaxxer into taking a COVID vaccine this becomes very obvious.
The discussion notably is not straightforward. It’s not “here’s the report saying it reduces hospitalizations and deaths” “oh I can’t refute that okay”
It’s more like “here’s the report saying it reduces hospitalizations and deaths” “that report is lying because Fauci ordered it, here’s a headline i saw that there were tons of deaths in the Israeli vaccine trial, and here’s a link that describes the evil peoples intentions with the vaccine”
Instead of convincing them with evidence you’ve forked into 3 separate arguments (trust in validity of peer review + what happened in the Israeli trial + can you trust this article that claims fauci and bill gates are satanic cultists)
And that’s without diving into the ocean of human bias that allow us to reinforce our belief system with little effort.
Which "masks"? "Work" by what metric? Under what circumstances? Or, is it as the True Believers and Most Faithfully Devoted to Science might have it: that all masks are effective against all things in all situations (or at least certainly have some kind of effect)?
With regard to <masks>, The Science™ really has never been controversial and has not changed significantly since the start of the pandemic, but they used "masks won't work [to keep you from inhaling it] (so don't buy them all)" early on to ease supply chain problems, followed by "masks do work [like covering your mouth when you cough]", resulting in what might have been the dumbest two years of public discourse in the history of humanity, inclusive of The Burning Years, as at least it might be said that they genuinely didn't know whether or not witches floated.
There was never any ambiguity or confusion among Science™ or Medicine™ or Public Health Policy™ here - only among the loud and clueless - 1000% the result of mismanaged communications and a thousand know-nothings echoing calls (largely along Red and Blue lines) to Do The Thing or Not Do The Thing.
Perhaps we need to create a new degree program for, among other things, interpreting and reporting on press releases such that extremely basic facts and terms of art aren't mixed up. (See also: Fig 1a. "Journalists' Guide to Aircraft" and Fig 1b. "Journalists' Guide to Firearms", Fig 2. Any news article with Quantum, Hacking, or Crypto- in the title)