Most conspiracy theories are adorably optimistic from the point of view of anyone who's done any kind of project management or even taken a leadership role. They may like to talk about 'sheeple' but that just shows that they haven't met the generous leavening of skeptics in any crowd.
The other thing that always puzzles me is: do they think the scientists don't have children? A generous percentage of scientists who investigate disorders and diseases are doing so precisely because they have a child or a parent or a sibling that is suffering from it. So many of these conspiracies hinge on scientists who don't really care about the people who have the diseases they're investigating, or even lacking the empathy to care about children in general. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"do they think the scientists don't have children?"
Most of those conspiracy theorists think that we should have stopped when childhood measles deaths were reduced to "only" 500 a year as a result of improvements in sanitation, general health, and medical care (the measles mortality rate is as high as 1 in 10 in countries without these improvement, but 1 in 1000 in countries that do), so you have to wonder whether THEY have any children or care about them.
Bravo! I often hear that "believing in science is the same as [fill in the blanks]." I have to explain that science is a process, not a belief system, and that theories result from massive amounts of accumulated evidence. Theories are capable of predicting future events, but they are never considered 100% true.
Critical thinking is not something taught in schools, which is a shame. It would arm society with an invaluable tool and likely decrease the spread of misinformation today.
Thank you for this. Every time I hear someone accuse scientists of conspiracy it makes me laugh until I snort. I would love to host a few of these folks at a scientific conference on any topic and have them listen to the discussions, questions, arguments, shouting matches.
" I would love to host a few of these folks at a scientific conference"
They will never go. That want to believe this is true. They also NEED to believe this is true, otherwise their pretty all of their talking points disappear in a cloud of smoke.
But I must point out that in one subject I am very familiar with, the system is not "so self-correcting, so willing to admit error, so responsive to inconvenient facts." Much of the scientific community holds a belief that the obvious rapid rise in autism case incidence (not the same as prevalence, but close enough for government work) is not real. Instead, the belief is that there is only an apparent increase caused by greater awareness (and other things that increase the probability of diagnosis) and broadened criteria (which would increase the proportion of the population that meet diagnostic criteria.) This is repeated so often that it is treated as if it were an obvious fact that does not even need evidence. But the evidence clearly shows a long running rapid increase, and there is almost no valid evidence cited supporting the belief that the increase is not real. At least, none that anyone appears to be able to find.
We need to improve the practice of autism epidemiology to make it self-correcting, willing to admit error and responsive to inconvenient facts.
And, I shouldn't have to say this, but just to be clear: The rapid, real increase in autism case incidence does not imply that vaccines have anything to do with it.
The very similar prevalence of autism in adults and in younger people is strong evidence that the apparent increase in autism is largely, probably entirely, due to widened diagnostic criteria, diagnostic substitution and reduced stigma. See, for example, Brugha et al's 'Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders in adults in the community in England'.
The increase numerically is complex and the reality is diagnosis and criteria have increased significantly to identify autism compared to before. But on a very practical level, many other variables like environmental toxins and genetic anomalies are being elucidated as contributing (evidence is evolving). Anyone that reduces this conversation to a single factor is absolutely wrong as autism, like other neurological conditions is complex and nuanced. Also looking for a “cure” is something that is not an appropriate response as some on the spectrum are highly productive members of society and would likely not want to change (nor do those that truly care about them). Focus on those on the spectrum that are truly debilitated and require full time care is another thing all together and require greater understanding but also interventions that could truly impact their quality of life. Autism is complex and spectrum by nature which means seeking a singular, simplistic “solution” is also not an appropriate response. It’s not a conspiracy or active campaign against understanding autism as many state - it’s rather a complex and evolving field and is why promising foolishly like RFK that we will fully understand or “cure” autism like MAHA or wellness influencer proclaim in a few months is not only delusional, but unscientific
I appreciate that you beat this drum. I don’t see what you see. Every article I can find uses language like “most likely.” I found no inconvenience. The highest level of autism that requires permanent care hasn’t gone up much, if at all, in 10 years. That was from a John’s Hopkins interview.
Where are these inconvenient facts? I’d like to see what you’re seeing.
Thank all of you for the thoughtful, constructive comments. This discussion illuminates why Substack is such a great forum. And, in particular, Jess Steier's substack. Your comments provide rich material to address.
All of you raise interesting points that deserve complete responses. I will put them in my substack (when I have time). Please read and subscribe (always free) to https://substack.com/@autismloveandscience
Background: I am a serious epidemiologist focused on autism, and I am a parent of a young adult woman with what would now be called profound or severe autism. Her disorder drives almost everything our family does. She is why I changed fields and went into epidemiology. I know that only the truth, not beliefs, can help my daughter and others like her. Only when I am sure I have found something valid and worthwhile do I raise it publicly.
It's an interesting debate. I think the less expertise and training and wisdom we each have, the more humble we ought to be when drawing conclusions. Parsing through complex scientific and meta-analytic studies is no small feat, so we really ought to hold on to our conclusions with some tentativeness.
Just want to communicate how grateful I am for you! I help admin a large Facebook group for Christian women interested in evidence-based living, and we rely on excellent science communication like this to help people navigate difficult topics. My fellow admins and I appreciate your content for the charitable, kind tone and clarity. We never have to worry that sharing your articles will alienate people. This piece is a great example of that. We very frequently have to address the idea that scientists/doctors are indoctrinated, and here you have addressed the topic with humility and openness. Already shared to my group!
Oh my!! I thought I was the only one that entertained those thoughts! Thanks so much for your work. The idea of seeing many preventable childhood diseases, that I have not seen in my life,
–and the ones that I no longer see– keeps me up at night. Sometimes I feel that I am living in the middle of a bad movie, in which I would say... That would never happen!
Another tremendous article Jess. I'm completely on the same page in terms of the way I think about the scientific process. There are pockets of so-called scientific work, however, that are exceptions to the rule. In the mental health field, for example, the "chemical imbalance" myth persists despite there never being any evidence for it and there's quite a lot of evidence about the ways in which the scientific process can be corrupted even when using rigorous methodologies like RCTs. The diet and nutrition area and, in particular, the links between diet, cholesterol levels, and heart disease is another place where the scientific process doesn't seem to proceed in the way you describe it. Despite the anomalies, the scientific process is still a powerful way of generating new knowledge and improving our understanding of the world (including us) and how it all works.
It's just that sometimes the time scale of change is far too slow.
The truth rises to the surface in the long run, even if it means people promoting untruths have to die for those untruths to die.
" The diet and nutrition area and, in particular, the links between diet, cholesterol levels, and heart disease is another place where the scientific process doesn't seem to proceed in the way you describe it. "
Wow, hold on, what are you trying to say there?
I hope you not one of those who need to die off before the general population comes to accept the truth about the link between high cholesterol and atherosclerosis, and the value of lowering cholesterol levels through diet, exercise, and cholesterol lowering medication.
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Maybe it's a slow time scale but that just becomes a circular argument. If science is supposed to be self-correcting but it hasn't self-corrected yet in a particular area then it hasn't self-corrected. To say that it will self-correct in the future doesn't seem very scientific to me! :-)
No, I don't think they need to die off, I just think the diet and nutrition area needs to pay closer attention to the science. Any Gary Taubes has written is a great place to start. Work by Malcolm Kendrick is also excellent.
"Maybe it's a slow time scale but that just becomes a circular argument."
Please explain how is that a circular argument.
Science is self-correcting and we have seen evidence of that over the 400-year history of science.
"If science is supposed to be self-correcting but it hasn't self-corrected yet in a particular area then it hasn't self-corrected."
Is that an argument or a failure of critical thinking on your part?
The argument is whether it is self-correcting not whether it has self-corrected.
"To say that it will self-correct in the future doesn't seem very scientific to me!"
So, science being self-correcting over its entire 400-year history is not an indication that it will continue to be into the future? Well, if you say so, but I that doesn't seem very rational to me |:
"Any Gary Taubes has written is a great place to start. Work by Malcolm Kendrick is also excellent.''
Please, this is a science-based blog, not a venue for promoting the personal opinions of your favourite grifting internet gurus.
Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Nope, that's not exactly right. I can't speak for you. What you do is what you'll do. I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Richard Feynman. Every scientific proposition is contingent, subject to being discarded when a better hypothesis, grounded in explanatory knowledge, is presented. A better explanation is one that covers specific observations, and which cannot be easily amended. By and large, since the Enlightenment, science is the continuing story of discovering the ways in which we have fooled ourselves, again and again. It is not a recipe book.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself"
You've got no idea how many times that Richard Feynman quote has been used and abused by the anti-science crowd, including antivaxxers.
Full quote:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
And that second part is often left out by science illiterate fools and applies especially to those science illiterate fools who attack science by using and abusing...science!
Great piece. I always marvel at the number of people that have never been directly involved in scientific research that think they know about how it all "works" based on something they've read, or heard. There are many simple truths in this article!
Such good points! “When people point to these theory changes as evidence that "science has been wrong before, so why can't it be wrong now?" they misunderstand how the scientific process works. Science isn't "wrong" when it updates—it's working exactly as designed. Each revision brings us closer to understanding reality, not further from it. The fact that scientists abandoned outdated theories when presented with better evidence is a feature, not a bug.”
Absolutely, this isn’t discussed enough. Science is a cyclical method, one that requires revision!
Thanks for this amazing article. Fellow scientist here - I wrote an article about how popular science fuels some of these problems you bring up, hope you can check it out if you’re interested!
I would also add that scientists and universities across many different countries would also have to participate in the "elaborate ruse", making it even more improbable.
Most conspiracy theories are adorably optimistic from the point of view of anyone who's done any kind of project management or even taken a leadership role. They may like to talk about 'sheeple' but that just shows that they haven't met the generous leavening of skeptics in any crowd.
The other thing that always puzzles me is: do they think the scientists don't have children? A generous percentage of scientists who investigate disorders and diseases are doing so precisely because they have a child or a parent or a sibling that is suffering from it. So many of these conspiracies hinge on scientists who don't really care about the people who have the diseases they're investigating, or even lacking the empathy to care about children in general. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"do they think the scientists don't have children?"
Most of those conspiracy theorists think that we should have stopped when childhood measles deaths were reduced to "only" 500 a year as a result of improvements in sanitation, general health, and medical care (the measles mortality rate is as high as 1 in 10 in countries without these improvement, but 1 in 1000 in countries that do), so you have to wonder whether THEY have any children or care about them.
Bravo! I often hear that "believing in science is the same as [fill in the blanks]." I have to explain that science is a process, not a belief system, and that theories result from massive amounts of accumulated evidence. Theories are capable of predicting future events, but they are never considered 100% true.
Critical thinking is not something taught in schools, which is a shame. It would arm society with an invaluable tool and likely decrease the spread of misinformation today.
What an INCREDIBLE discussion, so well thought out, thank you so much for what you do, it is SO appreciated
Thank you for this. Every time I hear someone accuse scientists of conspiracy it makes me laugh until I snort. I would love to host a few of these folks at a scientific conference on any topic and have them listen to the discussions, questions, arguments, shouting matches.
" I would love to host a few of these folks at a scientific conference"
They will never go. That want to believe this is true. They also NEED to believe this is true, otherwise their pretty all of their talking points disappear in a cloud of smoke.
Excellent article. I've been arguing much the same on social media, though less articulately, for longer than I care to remember.
Likewise. I have already used a couple of quotes from this article.
Thank you, Jess. Excellent article.
But I must point out that in one subject I am very familiar with, the system is not "so self-correcting, so willing to admit error, so responsive to inconvenient facts." Much of the scientific community holds a belief that the obvious rapid rise in autism case incidence (not the same as prevalence, but close enough for government work) is not real. Instead, the belief is that there is only an apparent increase caused by greater awareness (and other things that increase the probability of diagnosis) and broadened criteria (which would increase the proportion of the population that meet diagnostic criteria.) This is repeated so often that it is treated as if it were an obvious fact that does not even need evidence. But the evidence clearly shows a long running rapid increase, and there is almost no valid evidence cited supporting the belief that the increase is not real. At least, none that anyone appears to be able to find.
We need to improve the practice of autism epidemiology to make it self-correcting, willing to admit error and responsive to inconvenient facts.
And, I shouldn't have to say this, but just to be clear: The rapid, real increase in autism case incidence does not imply that vaccines have anything to do with it.
The very similar prevalence of autism in adults and in younger people is strong evidence that the apparent increase in autism is largely, probably entirely, due to widened diagnostic criteria, diagnostic substitution and reduced stigma. See, for example, Brugha et al's 'Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders in adults in the community in England'.
The increase numerically is complex and the reality is diagnosis and criteria have increased significantly to identify autism compared to before. But on a very practical level, many other variables like environmental toxins and genetic anomalies are being elucidated as contributing (evidence is evolving). Anyone that reduces this conversation to a single factor is absolutely wrong as autism, like other neurological conditions is complex and nuanced. Also looking for a “cure” is something that is not an appropriate response as some on the spectrum are highly productive members of society and would likely not want to change (nor do those that truly care about them). Focus on those on the spectrum that are truly debilitated and require full time care is another thing all together and require greater understanding but also interventions that could truly impact their quality of life. Autism is complex and spectrum by nature which means seeking a singular, simplistic “solution” is also not an appropriate response. It’s not a conspiracy or active campaign against understanding autism as many state - it’s rather a complex and evolving field and is why promising foolishly like RFK that we will fully understand or “cure” autism like MAHA or wellness influencer proclaim in a few months is not only delusional, but unscientific
I appreciate that you beat this drum. I don’t see what you see. Every article I can find uses language like “most likely.” I found no inconvenience. The highest level of autism that requires permanent care hasn’t gone up much, if at all, in 10 years. That was from a John’s Hopkins interview.
Where are these inconvenient facts? I’d like to see what you’re seeing.
Thank all of you for the thoughtful, constructive comments. This discussion illuminates why Substack is such a great forum. And, in particular, Jess Steier's substack. Your comments provide rich material to address.
All of you raise interesting points that deserve complete responses. I will put them in my substack (when I have time). Please read and subscribe (always free) to https://substack.com/@autismloveandscience
See, for example, this post: https://open.substack.com/pub/autismloveandscience/p/tough-love-for-autism-fact-checkers
Background: I am a serious epidemiologist focused on autism, and I am a parent of a young adult woman with what would now be called profound or severe autism. Her disorder drives almost everything our family does. She is why I changed fields and went into epidemiology. I know that only the truth, not beliefs, can help my daughter and others like her. Only when I am sure I have found something valid and worthwhile do I raise it publicly.
"This discussion illuminates why Substack is such a great forum.'
Yeah, but which you have successfully de-railed!
Again!
Not every article is about your autism fetish.
Please stop turning them into one.
It's an interesting debate. I think the less expertise and training and wisdom we each have, the more humble we ought to be when drawing conclusions. Parsing through complex scientific and meta-analytic studies is no small feat, so we really ought to hold on to our conclusions with some tentativeness.
Just want to communicate how grateful I am for you! I help admin a large Facebook group for Christian women interested in evidence-based living, and we rely on excellent science communication like this to help people navigate difficult topics. My fellow admins and I appreciate your content for the charitable, kind tone and clarity. We never have to worry that sharing your articles will alienate people. This piece is a great example of that. We very frequently have to address the idea that scientists/doctors are indoctrinated, and here you have addressed the topic with humility and openness. Already shared to my group!
Great article!
Oh my!! I thought I was the only one that entertained those thoughts! Thanks so much for your work. The idea of seeing many preventable childhood diseases, that I have not seen in my life,
–and the ones that I no longer see– keeps me up at night. Sometimes I feel that I am living in the middle of a bad movie, in which I would say... That would never happen!
Another tremendous article Jess. I'm completely on the same page in terms of the way I think about the scientific process. There are pockets of so-called scientific work, however, that are exceptions to the rule. In the mental health field, for example, the "chemical imbalance" myth persists despite there never being any evidence for it and there's quite a lot of evidence about the ways in which the scientific process can be corrupted even when using rigorous methodologies like RCTs. The diet and nutrition area and, in particular, the links between diet, cholesterol levels, and heart disease is another place where the scientific process doesn't seem to proceed in the way you describe it. Despite the anomalies, the scientific process is still a powerful way of generating new knowledge and improving our understanding of the world (including us) and how it all works.
There aren't really any exceptions.
It's just that sometimes the time scale of change is far too slow.
The truth rises to the surface in the long run, even if it means people promoting untruths have to die for those untruths to die.
" The diet and nutrition area and, in particular, the links between diet, cholesterol levels, and heart disease is another place where the scientific process doesn't seem to proceed in the way you describe it. "
Wow, hold on, what are you trying to say there?
I hope you not one of those who need to die off before the general population comes to accept the truth about the link between high cholesterol and atherosclerosis, and the value of lowering cholesterol levels through diet, exercise, and cholesterol lowering medication.
We'll just have to disagree on this one. Maybe it's a slow time scale but that just becomes a circular argument. If science is supposed to be self-correcting but it hasn't self-corrected yet in a particular area then it hasn't self-corrected. To say that it will self-correct in the future doesn't seem very scientific to me! :-)
No, I don't think they need to die off, I just think the diet and nutrition area needs to pay closer attention to the science. Any Gary Taubes has written is a great place to start. Work by Malcolm Kendrick is also excellent.
"Maybe it's a slow time scale but that just becomes a circular argument."
Please explain how is that a circular argument.
Science is self-correcting and we have seen evidence of that over the 400-year history of science.
"If science is supposed to be self-correcting but it hasn't self-corrected yet in a particular area then it hasn't self-corrected."
Is that an argument or a failure of critical thinking on your part?
The argument is whether it is self-correcting not whether it has self-corrected.
"To say that it will self-correct in the future doesn't seem very scientific to me!"
So, science being self-correcting over its entire 400-year history is not an indication that it will continue to be into the future? Well, if you say so, but I that doesn't seem very rational to me |:
"Any Gary Taubes has written is a great place to start. Work by Malcolm Kendrick is also excellent.''
Please, this is a science-based blog, not a venue for promoting the personal opinions of your favourite grifting internet gurus.
Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree here. Nope, that's not exactly right. I can't speak for you. What you do is what you'll do. I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree.
God heavens, you don't even realise what sort for situation you "agree to disagree" about.
None of what I said is controversial. Okay?
This is science-based blog, and you are sullying it with the unsolicited personal opinions of your favourite grifting internet gurus.
Shame on you.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Richard Feynman. Every scientific proposition is contingent, subject to being discarded when a better hypothesis, grounded in explanatory knowledge, is presented. A better explanation is one that covers specific observations, and which cannot be easily amended. By and large, since the Enlightenment, science is the continuing story of discovering the ways in which we have fooled ourselves, again and again. It is not a recipe book.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself"
You've got no idea how many times that Richard Feynman quote has been used and abused by the anti-science crowd, including antivaxxers.
Full quote:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
And that second part is often left out by science illiterate fools and applies especially to those science illiterate fools who attack science by using and abusing...science!
Thanks a million!! Excellent article
Great piece. I always marvel at the number of people that have never been directly involved in scientific research that think they know about how it all "works" based on something they've read, or heard. There are many simple truths in this article!
Brilliant.
Such good points! “When people point to these theory changes as evidence that "science has been wrong before, so why can't it be wrong now?" they misunderstand how the scientific process works. Science isn't "wrong" when it updates—it's working exactly as designed. Each revision brings us closer to understanding reality, not further from it. The fact that scientists abandoned outdated theories when presented with better evidence is a feature, not a bug.”
Absolutely, this isn’t discussed enough. Science is a cyclical method, one that requires revision!
Thanks for this amazing article. Fellow scientist here - I wrote an article about how popular science fuels some of these problems you bring up, hope you can check it out if you’re interested!
I would also add that scientists and universities across many different countries would also have to participate in the "elaborate ruse", making it even more improbable.