What The Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science
The Covid-19 pandemic has stretched the bond between the public and the scientific profession as never before.
Scientists have been revealed to be neither omniscient demigods whose opinions automatically outweigh all political disagreement, nor unscrupulous fraudsters pursuing a political agenda under a cloak of impartiality.
Somewhere between the two lies the truth: Science is a flawed and all too human affair, but it can generate timeless truths, and reliable practical guidance, in a way that other approaches cannot.
In a lecture at Cornell University in 1964, the physicist Richard Feynman defined the scientific method. First, you guess, he said, to a ripple of laughter. Then you compute the consequences of your guess. Then you compare those consequences with the evidence from observations or experiments.
“If [your guess] disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make a difference how beautiful the guess is, how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is…it’s wrong.”
So when people started falling ill last winter with a respiratory illness, some scientists guessed that a novel coronavirus was responsible. The evidence proved them right.
Some guessed it had come from an animal sold in the Wuhan wildlife market. The evidence proved them wrong. Some guessed vaccines could be developed that would prevent infection. The jury is still out.
Seeing science as a game of guess-and-test clarifies what has been happening these past months.
Science is not about pronouncing with certainty on the known facts of the world; it is about exploring the unknown by testing guesses, some of which prove wrong.
Bad practice can corrupt all stages of the process. Some scientists fall so in love with their guesses that they fail to test them against evidence. They just compute the consequences and stop there.
Mathematical models are elaborate, formal guesses, and there has been a disturbing tendency in recent years to describe their output with words like data, result, or outcome. They are nothing of the sort.
An epidemiological model developed last March at Imperial College London was treated by politicians as hard evidence that without lockdowns, the pandemic could kill 2.2 million Americans, 510,000 Britons, and 96,000 Swedes.
The Swedes tested the model against the real world and found it wanting: They decided to forgo a lockdown, and fewer than 6,000 have died there.
In general, science is much better at telling you about the past and the present than the future.
As Philip Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania and others have shown, forecasting economic, meteorological, or epidemiological events more than a short time ahead continues to prove frustratingly hard, and experts are sometimes worse at it than amateurs, because they overemphasize their pet causal theories.
A second mistake is to gather flawed data.
On May 22, the respected medical journals the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine published a study based on the medical records of 96,000 patients from 671 hospitals around the world that appeared to disprove the guess that the drug hydroxychloroquine could cure Covid-19. The study caused the World Health Organization to halt trials of the drug.
It then emerged, however, that the database came from Surgisphere, a small company with little track record, few employees, and no independent scientific board.
When challenged, Surgisphere failed to produce its raw data. The papers were retracted with abject apologies from the journals. Nor has hydroxychloroquine since been proven to work. Uncertainty about it persists.
A third problem is that data can be trustworthy but inadequate. Evidence-based medicine teaches doctors to fully trust only science based on the gold standard of randomized controlled trials.
But there have been no randomized controlled trials on the wearing of masks to prevent the spread of respiratory diseases (though one is now underway in Denmark).
In the West, unlike in Asia, there were months of disagreement this year about the value of masks, culminating in the somewhat desperate argument of mask foes that people might behave too complacently when wearing them.
The scientific consensus is that the evidence is good enough and the inconvenience small enough that we need not wait for absolute certainty before advising people to wear masks.
This is an inverted form of the so-called precautionary principle, which holds that uncertainty about possible hazards is a strong reason to limit or ban new technologies.
But the principle cuts both ways. If a course of action is known to be safe and cheap and might help to prevent or cure diseases—like wearing a face mask or taking vitamin D supplements, in the case of Covid-19—then uncertainty is no excuse for not trying it.
A fourth mistake is to gather data that are compatible with your guess but to ignore data that contest it. This is known as confirmation bias.
You should test the proposition that all swans are white by looking for black ones, not by finding more white ones.
Yet scientists “believe” in their guesses, so they often accumulate evidence compatible with them but discount as aberrations evidence that would falsify them—saying, for example, that black swans in Australia don’t count. […]
As this example illustrates, one of the hardest questions a science commentator faces is when to take a heretic seriously.
It’s tempting for established scientists to use arguments from authority to dismiss reasonable challenges, but not every maverick is a new Galileo.
As the astronomer Carl Sagan once put it, “Too much openness and you accept every notion, idea, and hypothesis—which is tantamount to knowing nothing. Too much skepticism—especially rejection of new ideas before they are adequately tested—and you’re not only unpleasantly grumpy but also closed to the advance of science.”
In other words, as some wit once put it, don’t be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
Peer review is supposed to be the device that guides us away from unreliable heretics. A scientific result is only reliable when reputable scholars have given it their approval.
Dr. Yan’s report has not been peer-reviewed. But in recent years, peer review’s reputation has been tarnished by a series of scandals.
The Surgisphere study was peer-reviewed, as was the study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the hero of the anti-vaccine movement, claiming that the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) caused autism.
Investigations show that peer review is often perfunctory rather than thorough; often exploited by chums to help each other, and frequently used by gatekeepers to exclude and extinguish legitimate minority scientific opinions in a field.
Herbert Ayres, an expert in operations research, summarized the problem well several decades ago: “As a referee of a paper that threatens to disrupt his life, [a professor] is in a conflict-of-interest position, pure and simple. Unless we’re convinced that he, we, and all our friends who referee have integrity in the upper fifth percentile of those who have so far qualified for sainthood, it is beyond naive to believe that censorship does not occur.”
Rosalyn Yalow, the winner of the Nobel Prize in medicine, was fond of displaying the letter she received in 1955 from the Journal of Clinical Investigation noting that the reviewers were “particularly emphatic in rejecting” her paper.
The health of science depends on tolerating, even encouraging, at least some disagreement. In practice, science is prevented from turning into a religion not by asking scientists to challenge their own theories but by getting them to challenge each other, sometimes with gusto.
Where science becomes political, as in climate change and Covid-19, this diversity of opinion is sometimes extinguished in the pursuit of a consensus to present to a politician or a press conference, and to deny the oxygen of publicity to cranks.
This year has driven home as never before the message that there is no such thing as “the science”; there are different scientific views on how to suppress the virus. […]
Read rest at WSJ ($)
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
The comment about peer review is nonsense. A scientific study is does NOT become reliable when approved by reputable scientists. It becomes reliable when the study has been repeated by independent scientists and if it gives the same results. Good examples of this were the measurements made in 1919 to prove that gravity bend light – two independent teams made measurements. It was also true of the Higgs-Bosun particle – again two independent teams using different detection methods. Importanly these were observations, not model results which prove nothing, unless compared with observations of the system being modelled.
Reply
Tom O
| #
I did not give the article a thorough reading, as I should before I comment, but I don’t intend to comment on the entire article. It did not take long before I started to lose interest in the article when I read this particular quote –
“So when people started falling ill last winter with a respiratory illness, some scientists guessed that a novel coronavirus was responsible. The evidence proved them right.”
The reason I lost interest is in the obviousness of “the evidence proved them right” to be wrong. There is NO evidence that proved them right since no one proved there was A virus responsible. It is an assumption based on bits and pieces of RNA being found in the body fluids of sick people. And we all know what happens when we (ass)(u)(me.).
There were other statements made as well, but this was enough to keep me from giving the article a deep read.
Reply
Saeed Qureshi
| #
“There is NO evidence that proved them right since no one proved there was A virus responsible.” 100% correct and I agree!
There is no valid analytical test available at present to monitor and/or quantify THE virus (SARS-COV2) in humans and its associated disease (COVID19). Guesses remain wild and incorrect guesses.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
“What The Pandemic Has Taught Us About Science?
It tells us that once any branch of science becomes politicized it loses credibility and rapidly morphs into bipolar political nonsense. From that point onward science is very rarely used, and when it is used, it is often used incorrectly.
E.g. the PCR test method is NOT a diagnostic tool!
The PCR test is NOT based on ‘gold standard’ methods of having samples of the virus. These non-existent ‘gold standard’ virus have not been tested on animals and maybe humans, verifying that this virus causes lung infection/lung dysfunction and all the other relevant symptoms. These non-existent ‘gold standard’ viruses have not been used to make the PCR test samples.
No the PCR tests were built up from information from the Chinese (see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6988269/pdf/eurosurv-25-3-5.pdf )
and
And although this methodology was tested against 297 other COVID and lung infections is was never tested against the truly massive number of microbes there are on and within the human body.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_microbiome
IMHO there’s little wonder that the PCR test have many false positives.
It also make me wonder what happens when the vast majority of the population has been infected, most with no life threatening symptoms, and most people will then test positive for the virus.
Will governments then leap into full hyper-extreme-panic mode? National lockdown, welded shut steel doors and windows on homes, and armed guards to ensure compliance? 24/7 propaganda broadcasts of ‘STAY HOME UNTIL YOU HAVE BEEN VACCINATED’ ?
The world has gone mad and the lunatics are government officials.
*Note that the Chinese database that is referenced is no longer available to check and verify the veracity of the Chinese records!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO,
You wrote: “It tells us that once any branch of science becomes politicized it loses credibility and rapidly morphs into bipolar political nonsense.”
If you study the history of 20th physical Science you might consider the Continental Drift affair (Alfred Wegener), the Immanual Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision, 1950) affair, Louis A Frank (Small comets, 1986) and H. C. Brown (chemist who challenged the ideas of theoretical chemists and could not get his experimental results published in any peer-reviewed chemistry journal before he won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
These affairs all had nothing to do with politics outside of the scientific community. It could be said that all these men challenged, with ‘novel’ ideas supported with evidence that the scientific community did not want to accept, the accepted ideas of accepted ‘authorities’ in the particular physical sciences involved. For to even consider these novel ideas was to suggest that these novel ideas might have validity which in one way or another questioned the validity of the accepted ideas of the authorities.
So, TomO, I believe your statement not not focus one’s attention upon the fundament problem faced by ‘good’ scientist since the advent of Physical Science given us by Galileo who faced problems identical to those faced by these four men during the 20th Century.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
I wrote “It tells us that once any branch of science becomes politicized it loses credibility and rapidly morphs into bipolar political nonsense.” and the bottom line is that as government & military funding dominates science research then science begins to be led by the politics of the day instead of science.
Yes I agree “It could be said that all these men challenged, with ‘novel’ ideas supported with evidence that the scientific community did not want to accept, the accepted ideas of accepted ‘authorities’ in the particular physical sciences involved. ” But when dirty politics/military joins in the arguments, funds what it wants from science, then it morphs challenging scientific ideas into political ones.
IMO Politics should not have a place in science. Politics has a place in the application of science but not in scientific investigations themselves.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO,
Who is qualified to be a scientist? Two founders (Tyco Brahe and Johannes Kepler) of ‘modern science’ were directly supported by benefactors who considered these people’s efforts worthy of financial support regardous of what the result was. You, must face the fact that it is the ‘scientific community’ which telling the political governments what should be financed and which should not be financed. I have been part of two committee’s to evaluate proposed educational projects which attempted to improve the teaching of chemistry. For we in chemical education were observing the fact that our students ability to perform was following below the levels of our previous students. Something which the educators of mathematics and other physical sciences refused to admit.
I was there when this decline of student performance occurred across many academic curriculums occurred. Of course, there were some individual exemptions. But in the USA we have generally believed in educating the masses instead of the few.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
” You, must face the fact that it is the ‘scientific community’ which telling the political governments what should be financed and which should not be financed.”
To which I’ll ask was there a time when the ‘scientific community’ was better, when the teaching of science was not so politically motivated.
Was the teaching of science subjects better when politics was kept out of teaching? Is government funding of a broad range of science subjects not an impediment to learning and researching the truth that science seeks?
IMHO massive government funding is the corrupter of both teaching and scientific research.
tom0mason
| #
The excess deaths throughout Europe currently (week 42) show that this highly politicized COVID-19 is barely impacting the figures. see https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps
Reply
Joel Walbert
| #
It taught me that a friend who teaches high school science has no business teaching anything. Sent him a study on the ineffectiveness of masks. His response? Its too long ( it was 10 pages) and that he didnt care what the facts were but he BELIEVED that masks work. I knew public school was bad these days but never have i actually experienced first hand proof as i have no children. When a science teacher states he cares not one bit about scientific fact it tells me Team Science Incorporated truly has taken Kontrol and infected the minds of millions with witchcraft and sorcery.
Reply
Tom O
| #
I went to my optometrist today to have my annual exam. We are in a mask regimen here as well. I told the oculist as we were deciding on my new glasses, that masks were not only useless but they are dangerous. Said the same thing to the optometrist. I pointed out that there still isn’t a lab that has isolated the virus, that masks are about as efficient at protection against a virus as chicken wire was at stopping machine gun bullets. The response was with one person wearing a mask it doesn’t protect either of us but with both of us wearing a mask, it protects both of us. They also said that if this was what it takes to continue to be safe, it wasn’t a big deal if we had to wear mask always.
These aren’t ignorant people, but the brainwashing has been incredible it would seem. Just as your science teacher frightens me, so does this growing belief that the loss of freedom of any type is worth it if we are safe.
I’ll be honest – I have never felt less safe in my life because people that can be made to believe totally false information are capably of doing virtually anything out of fear, including giving up their way of life for the good of everyone, and forcing me to do the same or else, even though I know it isn’t good for anyone.
The rebellion that we, as concerned people, need to have is against the Main “Scream” Media. We need to find a way to have the government shut them down. Even “state propaganda” can’t be worse than the bullshine we are being pummeled with constantly by MSM and the social media censors.
Reply
geran
| #
The media are definitely part of the problem. If they can’t make the “news” exciting, people won’t watch.
But, the big problem is the people. Watching the public response to AGW and Covid, it appears to me that a large majority of the U.S. (I can’t speak for other countries) WANT to believe in government and institutions. People just want to believe in something, so they have chosen to believe in government and institutions.
When we get aboard a passenger jet, we trust the pilot. So, why not trust governments and institutions?
There’s a BIG difference.
Pilots are exceptionally well trained and experienced. In addition, the pilot knows if he messes up, he doesn’t get home either. With governments and institutions, there is no such incentive to do the right thing. It’s all about money, ego, power, etc. The sheep don’t really count.
Until the vast majority of people realize what is going on, nothing will change.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Tom O.:
I have never felt less safe in my life because people that can be made to believe totally false information are capably of doing virtually anything out of fear, including giving up their way of life for the good of everyone, and forcing me to do the same or else, even though I know it isn’t good for anyone.
Geran:
it appears to me that a large majority of the U.S. (I can’t speak for other countries) WANT to believe in government and institutions. People just want to believe in something, so they have chosen to believe in government and institutions.
JMcG:
The problem in science isn’t just liberals believing stupid shit. It also involve conservatives believing in stupid shit. You two should try to come to grips with the fact that pointing out the stupid shit that liberals believe does not make you less blind to the stupid shit that you believe
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunder
bolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
geran
| #
Well you get to have your own beliefs, James.
Thanks for sharing them.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Science like aging, is discovering what beliefs you know for a fact, are actually stupid shit.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
You got nothing!!!
Dr Roger Higgs
| #
“Investigations show that peer review is often perfunctory rather than thorough; often exploited by chums to help each other”
Yes. Anyone who’s published in scientific journals knows that the review system is unsound in two ways: (1) authors obviously prefer to submit manuscripts to journals with sympathetic editors; and (2) authors are generally asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers (who, if not their direct friends, will at least be in the same ‘camp’).
This ‘pal review’ applies to an extreme degree in the covid and ‘man-made’ global warming scams (perpetrated by the bent, globalist-controlled, United Nations WHO and IPCC). Pal review does not mean that the science is sound; on the contrary.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Roger,
You just wrote: “Anyone who’s published in scientific journals knows that the review system is unsound in two ways: (1) authors obviously prefer to submit manuscripts to journals with sympathetic editors; and (2) authors are generally asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers (who, if not their direct friends, will at least be in the same ‘camp’).”
If this is automatically the case, please read about the cases of the Louis Frank affair and the H. C. Brown affair which I just drew to your attention. In the case of Louis Frank the peer reviewers review was his articles should not be published. But Lewis reputation was such the journal editor chose to publish Frank’s two articles. With the result that Frank’s scientific colleagues would not eat with him for some time. In the case H. C Brown, an eventual Nobel Prize winner could not get past the editors who would not even consider to publish the results of an experiment he had concluded. I only learned about this affair because I was a post-doc at Cornell University and had the opportunity to attend his Baker Lecture Series shortly before he was awarded his Nobel Prize for his other achievements which it is considered he should have won far earlier. Some brilliant theoretical scientists, chemists even, are offended that anyone should question their theories. Especially an experimentalist who may not be nearly as ‘intelligent’.as they are.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
VILLGE IDIOT GATES is being interviewed on CNBC SQUACK BOX currently 7:00AM spreading lies about the SCAMDEMIC. If you miss it the CNBC website has podcasts after the fact.
Reply
JaKo
| #
This article as well as some commentators here failed to recognize that there is a simple explanation behind most of failures of today’s science — a clique of mega-rich persons with a clear and obvious, yet hard-to-believe agenda.
There has never been CAGW and neither there may have been any SARS-CoV-2.
As Drs RH above and SQ further up clearly explained.
And any associated consensuses with either of those propaganda objects is just consequence of sort of “vote-buying” aka “Who’s bread you eat, their song you sing.”
Reply