Should We Trust Science?

"Science says" or "Experts says" has become a phrase that sells pretty well in recent times. Be it in areas of diet, diseases or the environment, the corporate controlled media realises that anything could be given credibility by using the prefix of "Science says". Not to say that none of the articles published have anything to with scientists at all. Upon digging a little, one can certainly find one or a few scientists backing a certain claim in the published article or the news piece. However, the question of trust still remains. With the alleged online misinformation campaigns run by various conspiracy theorists, media pundits have been upfront in warning the public about the evil gangs of flat earthers lurking deep online. Be it the pandemic deniers or the reptilian conspiracy theorists.

In the meantime I came across the book titled "Why trust science?" by Naomi Oreskes.

Naomi argues that science is the most reliable source of knowledge we have and

explores the reasons why we should trust it. She examines the scientific process, the

role of experts, and the importance of consensus and peer review in scientific research.

Oreskes also addresses common misconceptions about science, such as the idea that

scientific knowledge is always provisional and that scientists are biased. She argues

that while science is not infallible, it is self-correcting and has a track record of

producing accurate and reliable knowledge. Ultimately, Oreskes concludes that we

should trust science because it is the best method we have for understanding the

natural world and making informed decisions.

These views when skimmed through seems quite straight forward and honest. However "Trust the science" slowly reveals the devil's horns upon closer examination. Naomi, in the book speaks of consensus and where should it come from. While she is of the opinion that scepticism

in science should come from the inside and from the experts rather than come from the outside,

from the observers, from the people who are at the receiving end of the information. This was important because most of the policies endured by the people in the name of science came from a few scientists who recommend policy to people in power (Note that lobbying is legal in the US and the corporation also happen to fund research). Naomi notes about the pseudoscientific movement of Eugenics. She argues that Eugenics eventually fell out of favour in the scientific community as its flaws became more apparent and as evidence mounted against its claims. She uses this history

to illustrate the importance of rigorous scientific inquiry and critical evaluation of scientific

claims to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. However, with the wisdom of

hindsight, it would be easy to come up with such an opinion. The damage caused by

Eugenics cannot simply be reversed. The point is what happens to people who raise their

voices against the policy "backed by science" today?

The episode of COVID was one such event where any slight scepticism of the lockdown

policies "based on science" was outright struck down as "conspiracy theories" and these

experts who criticised the same were compared with flat earthers. Oppositions like the

Great Barrington Declaration which expressed "grave concerns about the damaging

physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies" were outright

shunned as conservative propaganda. The declaration contains 9,00,000+ signatures of which 16,000+ were medical & public health scientists, and 47,000+ were medical practitioners. Consider the median infection fatality rate (IFR) for COVID 19 which was found to be 0.05% for individuals below the age of 70 years and an IFR of 0.27% overall from a study from 2021. The numbers only seem to shrink with time. Sure, just like Naomi did say from the wisdom of hindsight that Eugenics were unjustifiable. But what happened to people back in 2021 who dared

question the lockdowns that were backed by "science"?

Having said that, there are some who say one must look at the risk-benefit analysis and do

the math. Do lockdowns cause more damage than they help? All of this finally comes

under the realm of ethics and not science. When experts say that lockdowns are backed

by science, they make no sense to me as science should not be weaponised to impose policies.

To me, a person questioning eugenic policies back in the early 20th century would

be in the same position today if he questioned the repressive lockdown policies.

Another great example I came across was the Swine flu pandemic of 2009. When the

world was panicking with fear, there were those selling drugs backed by science so as to

cure the flu. But with the 2010 report by the EU report by the parliamentary assembly, a

lot of unexpected things came out.

One of the conclusions of the report stated

"When the next pandemic arises many persons may not give full credibility to recommendations put forward by WHO and other bodies. They may refuse to be vaccinated and may put their own health and lives at risk".

It also went on to say

"Independent experts from the medical community mainly criticised the agenda setting and governance process concerning the H1N1flu in terms of the criteria used for declaring a pandemic, the lack of empirical evidence justifying such a step and the clearance to use certain medicines and vaccines. They also repeatedly raised the issue of the influence that private stakeholders from the pharmaceutical industry might have had on major decisions taken by international and national authorities."

The takeaway from these case studies is simple. To me, trusting science is oxymoronic.

When scientists leave their area and enter the territory of ethics, and policy-making

which has to be endured by the rest of people, there be a continuous watch and scepticism

that needs to come from the outside. People who question scientific theories

need not be given the treatment they would receive for committing blasphemy. Ultimately it must be the responsibility of individuals who can critically think, read up and take independent decisions. Thanks to website like opensecrets.org which brings into light the legal state of lobbying in the US govt and gives out information of which policies are really backed by science and which ones have vested interests. Tools like scihub and preseach.org have been instrumental in browsing the internet unbiased and unfiltered. Science to me is not something that needs to be trusted but can be verified by the way it is designed.