How to "Follow the Science"

Some notes on Huemer's latest article in his blog. The very simple argument made by Huemer is the following: we should underlie the difference between trusting science and trusting non-academic journals that talk about science. The first kind of behavior is trivially correct (not trivially in the philosophical sense, of course; it is just to say that it is obvious for every rational individual living in our age). But the second attitude is something quite different.

Then, Huemer took some examples of that (especially about wearing a mask against COVID-19 transmission). Although Huemer’s thesis can easily be supported, I think he gave unsuitable examples, which in turn confirm an idea that isn’t scientific (and evidence) based.

 

#1 (Different opinions throughout time is not a defeater)

First of all, it is not appropriate to cite CDC’s guidance and how the strategy of wearing a mask had changed throughout these years. Indeed, we can’t compare the first indications at the start of the pandemic (when there was not enough information on covid transmission) and what the major institutions around the world now advise. It would be like as we say that what we know today is not reliable just because we made a mistake two years ago (at a different time and with a different amount of information). Exempli gratia: before Semmelweis' insights into antiseptic procedures people didn’t think it necessary to sanitise their hands in obstetric clinics to avoid the transmission of puerperal fever. His discoveries can be dated to the mid-19^th century, but they will only be accepted after his death (about 20 years later). Now, despite the evidence, people chose not to accept these advances (even within the scientific community). If people had trusted Semmelweis (and his scientific discoveries) they would have avoided many deaths. Anyway, now we share the confidence in hand disinfection practices and it would be unreasonable not to believe this due t the fact that years ago scientific community did not accept this practice.

(it is an example in which the interval between now and a specific point in the past is larger than what actually exists between now and the start of the pandemic, but we can reformulate the example by replacing the present with the years immediately following Semmelweis’s death – reducing the time interval to only 20 times larger than it actually is).

 

#2 (More Evidence Argument)

The line of reasoning exposed to prove that wearing a mask is not really effective has as the beam of the argumentation an article written by Jeffrey Anderson. But this article is a summary of researches dating from before the pandemic or, at the latest, from the end of 2020. But now we have many studies that support the idea that wearing a mask is useful. Thus, we have more evidence in favour of the positive effects of using mask against transmission. The fact that all of the studies are not RCT doesn’t imply that other studies are not reliable (in any case, here are some examples:  Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (science.org), Face masks effectively limit the probability of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (science.org), Safe traveling in public transport amid COVID-19 (science.org), and so on).

 

Conclusion

A long time ago, Michail Bakunin argued that scientists study science for science's sake and that, therefore, in order to use science for social purposes one should not be a scientist (Bakunin M. (1873), Où aller et que faire?, «Archives Bakounine» (1971), Leiden: J. Brill, vol. II: 385-389). I think Bakunin was wrong because science is not an abstract collection of data. On the contrary, science keeps pace with events, and the pandemic teaches us that, among these, there are also social events (this is demonstrated by the dependence of forecast on the dynamics of aggregation of human beings, and therefore also on the level of awareness, selfishness or solidarity, etc., which leads in this period to aggregate in safety or as if nothing had happened in the last two years). Thus, we should appreciate that information (i.e. non-academic journals) allows us to keep updated on progress in managing this health crisis (although we should still verify the information by looking for first-hand studies).

To conclude, despite Huemer’s clarification of the difference between believing in science and believing in journals is correct, we don’t need to refute every kind of informal information about scientific progress, especially when it’s something about our everyday life. In this vein, following science remain hard but not impossible also for people who are not insiders thanks to the fact that we can always check the evidence linked to newspaper’s article. But if we want to be radical about how science should be followed, we should avoid some mistakes such as these about wearing a mask. Keep this in mind.