In Science We Trust

“How the doctrine of “Trust The Science” has blindsided critical evaluation and exiled independent thinkers”

New research published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology reveals that “Trusting Science” has made people more likely to disseminate false claims than those who use critical evaluation. The study revealed that when an article contains scientific references, people view the article as credible and boldly share it without considerations for reporting bias, prejudice or political motivations.

Blind acceptance of information in the presence of simple scientific references - which readers seldom check - sterilises critical analysis. It cultivates a damaging attitude of “blind faith” towards anything that seems remotely “scientific” when it is, in function, propaganda. The unfolding consequence is that perspectives and policies are no longer based off of sound data and critical observation, but rather ideological submission, where people are forced to “believe the science” when there isn’t any.

For example, a headline may read “Study finds blue crayons are 80% more effective than red crayons in helping children develop creative writing skills.” This sounds incredible. Until you read the study and find that it doesn’t mean they’re 80% effective, it means they add 80% of the comparative value. If the added value of red crayons is 1%, blue crayons only contribute a benefit of 1.8% to the development of writing skills. The benefit exists, but is no longer as impressive. However, educators have now campaigned to ban the use of red crayons in the classroom and have forced all students to purchase blue crayons. This then influences the culture of the classroom which filters all the way through to the department of education where the “Blue-80” study is cited as the reason for mandating stationary supplies. Some educators and institutions have read the full study, in context,    and disagree with the mandates as they feel the approach is excessive given the total benefit is only 1.8%. This does not matter. The “Blue-80” study now has a cult-like following and anyone who criticises the study is seen as a “science denier” and an obstacle to the progress of education. This radical stance then establishes hostile environments, where students are reprimanded for using red crayons and educators are either shunned, suspended or fired for refusing to endorse the “Blue-80” doctrine. I’m sure it wouldn’t take much effort for anyone reading this to think of instances where they have seen this kind of scenario play out in the real world. Whether over mask mandates, pressure to vaccinate, LGBT issues or gender politics, examples of misrepresented data are plentiful.

Case in point, within the context of wearing masks to prevent the spread of covid, we can see that the virus itself is 1 micron, the aerosols that carry the virus are between 10 and 60 microns. The smallest gap, i.e: most protection, that a cloth or surgical mask can offer is 80 microns, which is 20 microns larger than the largest aerosol. The virus flows straight through. Masks are not effective in stopping the spread of coronavirus, they only may help to reduce the spread. This isn’t a statistical probability, but rather a possibility. It means it’s not likely to happen, but it could potentially happen. And the chances of it potentially happening are so small that it doesn’t warrant mandating the wearing of masks with the penalty of prison or the cost of excluding people from society. However, much like the “Blue-80” example from earlier, the “mask science” doctrine has grown a cult-like following, where anyone who doesn’t fall in line with the chosen stance is labelled as a conspiracy theorist or a science denier. But that’s not where it stops. It’s about principle.

Let’s take a look at HIV. The human immunodeficiency virus is a virus that attacks the immune system, damaging CD4 cells that help the body fight infection. If left unmanaged, it will most likely lead to acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). The virus can be transmitted through contact with contaminated blood or other bodily fluids and is most often spread through sexual contact. Statistics have shown that although transmission of the virus has occurred  in situations of rape, the overwhelming  majority of sexually transmitted cases occur during acts of consensual sex. Consensual sex is when two or more sexual partners willingly engage with the act of intercourse. All parties involved are most likely aware of the risks associated with sex. Whether it’s sexually transmitted diseases and infections or pregnancy, consenting adults that engage with act of sex, do so while knowing the risks. They each perform a cost benefit analysis and arrive at the conclusion that, when taking the right precautions, the good time and joy of experiencing sex outweighs the risks involved. Occasionally, even when precautions aren’t taken, they still decide that the benefits outweigh the risks because they are prepared to handle the consequences. This is their personal choice. The information and resources on how to practice safer sex are completely accessible, yet the choice is still theirs. If they don’t want to contract a disease or fall pregnant, they can choose to either abstain from sex altogether, and if not, choose to use condoms and prescription medication in order reduce the risks. The same principles behind managing our personal, sexual health apply to covid. We could “abstain” from the risk altogether by never leaving our homes, but that is neither sustainable nor practical for many of us, especially essential workers. The cost of losing our income outweighs the benefit of staying home. The next best thing is to make use of the resources that have proven to be effective; sanitising, social distancing and in some cases vaccination. And even if we contract covid, we have no choice but to handle the consequences as best we can. We quarantine, we rest, and we use prescription medication to reduce symptoms. The same rules apply. Yes, the way covid and HIV are transmitted are vastly different, and I’m not saying they’re the same. But this isn’t about transmission, it’s about risk. In an attempt to reduce to spread of HIV governments can’t step into the homes of private citizens and monitor how they have sex or ban sex altogether, because the risks are personal. Understandably there is a group cost if HIV continues to spread, but it is up to each individual within that group to behave responsibly and follow proven measures that mitigate risks and reduce transmission.

What people need to understand is that whenever there is risk involved, there needs to be personal choice. It is up to each of us, as independents, to decide whether or not we are prepared to take the risk and handle the consequences. We each have different values, capacities and tolerances. There is no one stop fix. No person, party or government can accommodate the variables in ways that fairly represent everyone involved. It therefore stands to reason that the only thing leaders should be doing, is providing the information and resources that empower people to do what they feel is best for themselves. But in an attempt to look effective, governments and leaders have stepped into the homes and businesses of citizens and forced them to comply. They do this with the belief that their solutions are best. This is done without care or concern for individual liberties and freedoms. They have made it clear that the health and wellbeing of the herd comes before the safety and freedom of the individual. But what is a group if not a collection of individuals? Why are some individuals included while others are excluded? What is it that permits inclusion? What justifies or warrants exclusion? It would seem that the answer is compliance. Those who conform and submit to the governments solutions, are offered the support and care of the government. Those who disagree and don’t comply are reprimanded, excommunicated and penalised. Their access to a free and open society is revoked. Without a mask they aren’t allowed to enter buildings. Without getting vaccinated they aren’t allowed to travel and can even be denied employment. The system argues that they still have their freedom. They are free to choose. They just have to choose to wear a mask, choose to get vaccinated and choose to comply. The choice is theirs and the options are clear. Choose to agree or leave. But leave to where? There is no where else to go so what choice do people have other than “choosing” to concede. And what choice is that?

We need to remind ourselves that improving on what came before us is our responsibility, and protecting our freedom is our obligation. This obligation is both to ourselves and future generations. We have to  secure equal and fair representation. We have seen the consequences of how much damage can be done when manipulative and coercive tactics become commonplace. History has an extensive list of horrendous examples that shows us what happens when people aren’t allowed to represent themselves. Freedom is a privilege, not a right. It’s not guaranteed, it is fought for. When it’s not protected, it is stolen. And when we don’t monitor it, freedom gets contaminated by opportunistic diseases that aim to destroy it from the inside. Many people are disengaged. They remain blissfully unmoved by the lessons history has taught them and tell others they are overreacting. And this is okay. They have that freedom. They’re allowed to choose ignorance. There’s a reason the cliche of “ignorance is bliss” exists, because the alternative to ignorance is facing the reality that many of history’s horror stories haven’t left us. They’re still alive and breathing down our necks today. The people that refuse to accept this reality do so because they remain convinced that it’s someone else’s problem. It’s not directly affecting them so they simply don’t care. This can be difficult to stomach but it’s a reality we have to accept. There are people that care and there are people that don’t. Thats a fact. And we mustn’t forget that although the world is changed by people who care, it is destroyed by people who don’t.

So to all my readers, I say this:

Give yourself permission to care. Seize the opportunity to make a difference in any way that you can. We can only be effective if we choose to be both discerning and accepting. Acceptance doesn’t mean that we agree, but we have to accept that an obstacle exists in order to design a solution around it. We have to accept that many people will be against us and that many more simply won’t care. But I’m here to remind to that we cannot hold society to the standard of its lowest performing members. We have to embody the change we wish to see. As Robert Jarvik said: “Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds stacked against them”.

So I guess it’s time to be both fearless and delusional. When the odds are stacked against against us, we need to remember that we can choose to meet them. Because when facing Goliath, we can choose to be David.