The Dangers of a Semi-Scientific Viewpoint

Photo by Julia Koblitz on Unsplash

It seems that when someone in a political discussion claims to support science, what they mean is they support the scientific ideas that support their preconceived notions. Most politicians, as far as I can tell, do not actually hold a scientific viewpoint — they hold a semi-scientific viewpoint. They use science to prove their points, but ignore it when it disproves their points. The problem is that people view science as a tool to prove a point, rather than as the basis for their entire worldview.

What is Science

Science is fundamentally a method of investigation. There are a few main steps to the scientific method:

1. Observe the world and discover some curious phenomenon.
2. Construct a question about that phenomenon.
3. Create a hypothesis that might answer the question, based on prior knowledge.
4. Devise a repeatable way to gather data to attempt to falsify the hypothesis.
5. Gather the data through a study or experiment.
6. If the data disagrees with the hypothesis, alter the hypothesis to fit the data and return to step 4.
7. Develop a theory based on the non-falsified hypothesis and experimental data. Return to step 1 to continue developing the theory.
8. Report your findings to the scientific community, and let your fellow scientists attempt to falsify your results.

This is the scientific method, and it is not limited to a lab setting. This process can be — and should be — used on a daily level to determine fact from fiction. There are a few main points I’d like to bring up here:

• The primary goal of the scientific method is to remove the subjective experience from idea generating. Humans are incredibly fallible, and so we devised a process to limit our ability to introduce our biases. Our senses can be fooled by a simple optical illusion — a few lines drawn on paper. So, we use technology and each other to get as objective as a measurement as possible.
• The goal of a scientist is to attempt to falsify common beliefs, especially those held by you. It is not possible for science to objectively prove anything; science simply collects data that suggests beyond a reasonable doubt that an idea is true. No idea is beyond criticism or scrutiny, and it is crucial you are your biggest critic. Despite that, you must discuss your ideas with fellow scientists, so they may attempt to falsify them. It is this attempt at falsification that I have realized is central to the scientific method.
• Without freedom of speech, science does not work. It is essential to the entire process of science for people to ask questions, have access to information, and to especially discuss their findings with others. Anyone who censors skeptical discussion or immediately dismisses wild ideas is fundamentally acting against the scientific method. Through scientific discussion, good ideas shall prevail.

Now that we’ve seen what the scientific method is in principle, how can someone use it to create a worldview founded in science?

A Scientific Worldview

To truly be a scientist, one should apply the scientific method to everything. I would like to take this moment to point out that religion and science are a false dichotomy. Logically, if religion is to be viewed through the lens of a material science, most religions I am aware of will not hold up; however, if viewed through the lens of a non-literal set of stories, then there is no conflict. The ideal scientist avoids arrogance, as it blinds them to reality, and seeks out wisdom as it is necessary for us to live. Wisdom is the other half of knowledge that one cannot achieve through a material investigation of the world; however, the scientific method can still be applied when doing literary and historical investigations into human beliefs. Non-material beliefs must still make sense in given contexts and must still hold up — the analysis is simply much harder to perform because we lack the tools to properly do so.

Understand, then, a scientific worldview is not inherently without traditionally non-scientific views. What matters is categorizing all views in a manner that accurately describes them and provides utility. Anyway, a scientific worldview is founded on skepticism. Claims should be met with “I’m not sure about that, so let me investigate it further”. Choosing to believe a claim or disbelieve a claim without investigation is not scientific and not logical. In a philosophical argument, you may be able to dismiss an idea without justification; however, in a worldview, you must do your due diligence and ensure what you believe is founded — even if that belief is of the falsehood of a claim. There are always at least three sides to any discussion: for, against, and apathetic. The default state is not to be against, but to be apathetic — you simply lack the information required to make a decision. That is humility and that is scientific. You should begin to form a hypothesis that you will then try to falsify. I think right here is where the falsification element of science truly comes through. Your goal isn’t to simply search for data proving your belief. In modern day, you can find information to prove anything you like. Your goal is to truly test your idea and see what information suggests that it is true and what information suggests that it is false. Lastly, you must discuss your belief and information with others to continue testing it. Without discussion, you cannot become aware of the implicit assumptions you made.

Science is Never Settled

Now that we’ve seen what a truly scientific viewpoint is, in my opinion of course, we should see what I consider to be semi-scientific viewpoints. One such example I see frequently is when people say things like “the science says X” or “the science is settled on X”. There is no entity known as “the science”. There are scientists who perform research and if you are referring to a result they obtained, you should really be directly citing that study. This will not only help prove your argument much more, but will also decrease the vagueness. I take offense with the idea that science is settled, though. A fundamental component of the scientific method is that it continues to repeat. Science is never “settled” because the scientific method doesn’t prove things, it simply fails to falsify them. Consider something as monumental as gravity. For centuries, Issac Newton’s theory of universal gravitation was considered to be absolute. One could easily have claimed that the science was settled on gravity — until we discovered a deviation in Mercury’s orbit. It took hundreds of years until Albert Einstein discovered that Newton’s theory was incomplete (not wrong). He then proposed the general theory of relativity that explained far more about the universe. It is one of the most proven theories in all physics, and yet, we know it is incomplete as well because of singularities and potentially dark matter. The science was not settled on gravity after Einstein’s ideas were experimentally proven time after time. Once we find some quantum theory of gravity, the science will still not be settled.

Science Creates Models

This is another major misunderstanding in science. The purpose of science is not to generate proven facts about the universe — it is to generate models of how the universe works. This is why Newton was not proven incorrect by Einstein. Newton’s model continues to be incredibly accurate for low speeds and low gravity. If you take Einstein’s equations and plug in speeds far from the speed of light and low mass gravitational bodies, Einstein’s equations become Newton’s equations. Newton’s model is a sub-model of general relativity. Viewing these models as mathematical sets, Einstein’s model describes a proper subset of the universe, and Newton’s model describes a proper subset of that subset. It is crucial to not mix up the idea of a scientific model, which is what a scientific theory is, and a law of nature, which is what a scientific observation is. Theories are not hypotheses, as many deniers of natural selection will like to claim. A scientific theory is a rigorously tested idea that models reality in a manner that explains our observations.

Semi-Scientific Covid Responses

This is the reason I am writing this article in the first place. I want to bring a few ideas to your attention. My biochem-major friend and I were discussing natural selection as applied to prolonged mask usage. We agreed that mask usage is obviously beneficial in preventing the spread of pathogens, if they are designed to block transmission of something as small as a virus. However, when a large percentage of the world is wearing masks, that creates enormous evolutionary pressure. This is due to masks being imperfect. Since there are still some pathogens that will be transmissible enough to get past masks, those will have a huge advantage. Ordinarily, those mutations occur due to evolutionary sacrifices that cause the pathogen to die out due to competition with less transmissible strains; however, mask wearing removes that competition and so over time, we are selecting for more transmissible strains.

This idea is crucial in the general Covid discussion and yet, I haven’t heard a single person talk about it besides my friend and I. People are insisting that wearing a mask is harmless, and they are simply wrong. That is an example of a semi-scientific viewpoint. They accurately consider the benefits of mask wearing, but they ignore the caveats that come with it. This is not a scientific viewpoint to hold, and so I call it semi-scientific. There has been a severely propagandistic response to Covid, and it is appalling to see. I am certainly no scientific saint that embodies the scientific method completely, but I sure do aim at that. Science does not need propaganda to support its discoveries— that is what logical discussion and peer reviewed articles are for. The reason to adopt propaganda tactics is that you yourself are unable to perform a proper scientific analysis, and or because you are so arrogant that you believe the average person cannot think critically for themselves as autonomous individuals.

How can an entire population consent to mask-wearing, nobody has explained the long-term consequences of wearing them? Keep in mind, not only do masks select for more transmissible strains of Covid, but of every single pathogen. Another mistake of mask mandates is they forget that other pathogens exist and that wearing a mask against your face all day is great for bacteria and mold. In the medical industry, they changed masks incredibly frequently throughout the day, even before Covid, according to my cousin that is in nursing. Many mask mandates do not even require masks to be sufficient in blocking Covid transmission! If people wear poor masks or wear masks poorly, that increases risk.

Inexcusably Ignorant or Malicious

I have recently discovered a scientific article published in 2015 that makes my concern with masks look inconsequential. Vaccines are much more of a risk than masks. Vaccines that prevent individuals from dying but do not block transmission create a horrible evolutionary pressure.

Could some vaccines drive the evolution of more virulent pathogens? Conventional wisdom is that natural selection will remove highly lethal pathogens if host death greatly reduces transmission. Vaccines that keep hosts alive but still allow transmission could thus allow very virulent strains to circulate in a population. Here we show experimentally that immunization of chickens against Marek’s disease virus enhances the fitness of more virulent strains, making it possible for hyperpathogenic strains to transmit. Immunity elicited by direct vaccination or by maternal vaccination prolongs host survival but does not prevent infection, viral replication or transmission, thus extending the infectious periods of strains otherwise too lethal to persist. Our data show that anti-disease vaccines that do not prevent transmission can create conditions that promote the emergence of pathogen strains that cause more severe disease in unvaccinated hosts.

Read, A. F., Baigent, S. J., Powers, C., Kgosana, L. B., Blackwell, L., Smith, L. P., Kennedy, D. A., Walkden-Brown, S. W., & Nair, V. K. (2015). Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens. PLoS biology, 13(7), e1002198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002198

I had not even considered the possibility. The current understanding of the approved vaccines is that they prevent deaths and decrease transmission — but do not prevent transmission. This is why vaccinated people are still required in some places to wear masks. Otherwise, there is no reason. This is the exact kind of vaccine described in this article. This means that more virulent strains of Covid are being selected for because of these leaky vaccines. Not only that, but once again applying natural selection, only the most infectious and dangerous strains will succeed in a vaccinated person. Vaccines decrease deaths, hospitalization, and transmission, but that is only one side of the story. Long term, they are selecting for much more dangerous strains. This brings light to another mainstream pathologically semi-science belief — these vaccines are completely safe.

These vaccines are, for the most part, decently safe, but not enough is known to truly draw this conclusion. We don’t know the long-term effects of the vaccines. I am vaccinated since I took the time to be skeptical, do research into mRNA vaccines, and I understand the risks of the unknown. However, the media is simply lying to people who know less about biology. These people are not making a decision with informed consent. It is, in fact, these tactics being used that have substantially grown the anti-vax movement. Many people simply see the tactics being used as semi-scientific and conclude that there is a conspiracy at play, because they can see that these people are lying and manipulative. It is absolutely pathetic that the media, who likely haven’t taken a single biology class in their lives, think they are above the average uneducated person enough to declare what is and isn’t safe for them. These people only listen to the science when it is in their favor, and they will find any way to quell skepticism.

Consider this article from Yahoo and this article from MSN: they are exactly the same article, with different word choices. You know, when I was in school, this was called plagiarism and was not allowed. Why do people accept this from the mainstream media? This is absolutely pathetic.The article — singular — insists that this is not a concern and that people should continue to get vaccinated. The issue is so much more complex than that. We probably shouldn’t have rushed vaccines that do not stop transmission. Everyone said it was safe and there would be no problems, but every single decision has consequences. Rather than have a discussion about it, the mainstream media just continues to push a narrative. This is why I am trying to point out these semi-scientific viewpoints. For months, we were told that masks and vaccines are completely safe when there is a risk to everything. These are dishonest manipulation tactics, and they drive people away. It was never going to be the case that we would vaccinate the entire population. There was always going to be some individuals with medical conditions or preconceived notions preventing them from getting the vaccine. It was our governments’ job to recognize that and create policy for everyone.

The way in which those in power have handled this pandemic is absolutely pathological. They claim to follow scientists, and yet they inhibit the scientific method within the general population. Free discussion was censored, and information is withheld to manipulate people into making decisions they cannot truly consent to. This clear manipulation helped to drive many people into the anti-vax and anti-mask camps, and may very well have aided in the emergence of the delta strain. We can only hope that the consequences of this poor mismanagement do not continue to ripple out into new deaths.