Most Americans now "questioning science" do so because the phenomenon, and the term, have been wesponized by the rightwing media machine, along with foreign actors, and now our own government, seeking to delegitimize institutions and stoke divisiveness. All purposely facilitated by "social media." How did "Trust the science," become an insult to "own thlibtards?"
We are not at this point where something like 40% of Americans believe they know people that were killed by COVID vaccine, because the trajectory of advancement has changed so radically over the last five years.
Are tens of millions of "working class" Americans believing that Donald Trump acts in their interests to make America great for them "stupid?" Tens of millions believing Haitians ate all the dogs and cats in Springfield? They're something beyond "gullible."
There is an element of identity protective cognition. It's not about doubling down on a falsehood, it's about signaling to the other members of the tribe that you are one of them. If you know it's false, and I know it's false, and you know that I know that you know that I know it's false...then we've created a dog whistle.
Really enjoyed this NYT piece and also your reflection. Einstein said it best I think... “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”
The more we learn, the better our journey into the unknown.
Nice job, Jess. and hopefully will help public appreciate the complexities of scientific research, especially regarding health. A sick of the anti-whatever crowd jumping on some scientist who has the sense to admit "we don't know yet"
Important distinction between robust bodies of independent evidence changing dogma v corporate misconduct. I was a little doctor when we were told opiates would never be addictive if they were treating real pain. We were penalized for not writing a script for an opiate for a patient on discharge..not financially but as residents being evaluated. Why would I have ever thought to question my teachers for whom I had so much respect?
Mankind only truly advanced when it realised there was stuff out there we did not know and that is what science is to me. An exploration of what we don't know. Too often, people think science is about what we do know, but I disagree with that.
Military veteran here, 79-84. When I was in, smoking was allowed everywhere, including offices.
I was sent to a radar detachment in the middle of Nowhere, Nebraska. It consisted of an old one-room schoolhouse, where the plumbing was located, and several trailers, from tractor trailer rigs, all linked together.
I'd thought the cigarette smoke was bad in the offices I'd worked in on Offutt AFB. It was nothing compares to being in one of those trailers with a chain smoker who kept coming in --our air replacement system was an in-wall air conditioner. It couldn't keep up with his smoke.
I said something about the smoke to the new boss who had just arrived from Germany. He poo-poohed my health concerns. (I was also pregnant.) He was certain smoke from cigarettes did no harm to anyone but the smokers.
It wasn’t long after I separated from the military that studies about second-hand smoke began being published. It was still a few years before the military began banning cigarette smoking in buildings. It took them a while longer to move smokers away from building entrances.
I'm now 67. I have some pulmonary fibrosis in my lower lungs. I'm apprehensive about receiving a lung cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, if I do end up with it, I won't be surprised.
One thing I've noticed is doctors' offices asking patients if they are smokers or if they had ever been smokers. Every time, I've said no, but I'd been exposed to a lot of second-hand cigarette smoke in the military, and suggested they add that question to their intake. Finally, a few weeks ago, I was asked that question on an intake. Success!
Any physicians who might read my comment, please add that question to your intake. Those of us who were exposed to second-hand smoke might not think to mention it and it's just as important as the "Do you smoke?" "Have you ever smoked?" questions.
I'm also an Army vet, 79-85. I worked in veterinary medical attachment so there was less inside smoking but there was plenty elsewhere. I'm sorry to hear you have some scarring. Hope it isn't anything worse. My questions regard the inhalant anesthesia we used because it was just released into the room air, not filtered or collected in any way. I haven't been asked about second hand smoke yet but will suggest that at the next appt!
Nothing is static, not our bodies, our minds, nature, nothing in this universe. Why would science be any different? That is why we have research, investigation, development, expansion of knowledge and expertise. This world and every thing in it relies on change and growth.
Molecular biology student researcher here. I always have said that I do understand the distrust. The closer I get to science, the less I feel I know. But, I think people confuse a healthy dose of skepticism with danger, and this leads people to completely disregard the progress of science. Being aware of your own limitations is the only way we can progress. Anyways, this is all to say that it was nice to read an article that put my thoughts into words!
Remember when scientists blamed autism on the pregnant mother's supposed psychological rejection of the child in utero? Remember when doctors actually recommended smoking as a treatment for asthma? And the increasing influence of corporate money on research, on top of the human bias of researchers, is making this problem worse. As with many other social problems, though, the way many people react to scientific misinformation only adds to the challenges. Wouldn't it be great if our educational system taught critical thinking skills to the point where the average citizen could read scientific papers for herself and analyze data?
I'm glad to see the word 'humility' in your post. I would add that it's not just intellectual humility that we need more of, but also personal humility. As Cousin Ellis says in 'No Country for Old Men', "It all ain't waiting on you. That's vanity."
You didn’t just revisit flipped meanings — you shifted the question from authority to practice. This is not “big science,” this is scientific thinking lived in real time.
It's natural that people will get confused - and frustrated - when legitimate professionals claim something shocking , for instance that a Covid vaccine causes a surge in certain disease ("turbo-cancers"), when the evidence is that the surge increased 79% among under 50s, and took place between 1990 and 2019.
We discuss the current scientific view, which is leaning in a different direction, at ournewrealityThePlasticene
Interesting isn't it that 180 countries simultaniously adopted the covid vaccine, which as you say, was rolled out in 2 days. As a sceptic i look at data and results which, in defense of science, you would surely agree with.....you would have to have locked yourself in a room full of christmas wrap for the last 6 months to have missed the mounting evidence of vaccine injury.....as a layman, i noticed the flaws in the 'science' almost immediately....reports of mass infections from weekend gatherings, on Monday morning.....the testing takes longer than that.....the first hand knowledge that the vaccine didn't prevent infection or transmission.....Ivermectin cured me overnite after 3 shots and a Covid bout i thought would kill me. Fauchi lied to Congressional hearings and changed his tune on distancing and masking......Bad actors 'used' science and the public distrust is a direct result of that.
Except nothing like that happened. 180 countries did not "simultaneously adopt COVID vaccines," which were not "rolled out in 2 days." You seem to be a perfect example of a "sceptic" spewing nonsensical talking points that you gleefully gobbled up.
Israel went all-in first, though. They prepaid for the whole population before vaccine existed. I'm sure you've got some theories about that.
Could you please provide links to those legitimate studies regarding the hazards of covid vaccinations?
Impressive you were cured by taking a horse dewormer for a virus.
I had covid three times. I also had all the shots. The first time I had it was at the very beginning. My son worked for the DC Fire Department and caught it from an assistant chief. I caught it from my son while talking to him in a parking lot. I used my inhaler and didn't have too bad of a problem.
Each time I had covid after, they got progressively worse, and I abused my inhaler even more. I came through them without too much trouble. Fortunately, I didn't end up in a hospital gasping for breath. Obviously, I didn't die.
Millions of people around the world died. Millions more survived because of the immunizations.
If bragging about your gullibility to the Trump bull excrement is your happy place, good for you. Perhaps I could interest you in a bridge I'm selling. It's a real bargain.
After the ridiculousness of ivermectin, bleach, and inner lightbulb cures, my fourth favorite eye roll about the covid panic was all the doctors' offices, covid testing facilities, and even the local polling place, insisting people use Purell in order to enter. It kills germs, not viruses, people. It's a false sense of security. One poor medical receptionist freaked when I pointed it out to her. She'd been counting on it keeping her safe. Surprise.
Your ignorance of the facts is understandable starting with your mischaracterization of Ivermectin.....a human drug which won the Nobel prize in medicine and saved millions of lives....get your google out and check the world wide investigation into Fauci and big pharma.
My degree is in English. I have no claim to knowledge of medical anything, except as a layman, so I queried alcohol and viruses.
What I came across mentioned how it worked more effectively on some viruses than others, mentioning enveloped and non-enveloped viruses. Coronaviruses being one that it works on, enveloped.
Again, my question is, why don't hand sanitizers of at least 70% isopropal or ethyl alcohol say on the bottle they are effective at killing viruses of a specific type, like the flu, coronovirus, herpes, and others? On the front, they say 99.9% effective on germs. There is nothing on the bottles that say anything about viruses. Are they not confident in their product?
Yes, I saw that less than 60% isn't a good choice, that ideal is between 60% and 90%, that pure alcohol won't work as well because it may dry out too quickly. The Purell bottles online that I looked at say 85% alcohol.
I'm also curious why the medical personnel I asked about Purell, nurses and doctors, did not inform me about the alcohol content being effective on covid.
Well, the bottle says it kills 99% of germs. There are others that specify viruses. It the one kills germs and viruses, why wouldn't it say that on the label?
Obnoxiously cocksure, how, because I was messing with the recptionist, or because I asked why the information about something being a virus killer wasn't on the label?
Just so you know, and you become informed, most consumers are not medical personnel who have the training to know things somewhat automatically when they encounter labels pertaining to health products. Consumers, mostly laymen, are supposed to be able to learn what they need to know from reading labels. That information falls under "Truth in Labeling Laws," along with "The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act."
Indeed. We should never trust the government to ensure we are provided with correct information, well, before this current administration anyway.
"Consumers, mostly laymen, are supposed to be able to learn what they need to know from reading labels."
Then you should have read the WHOLE SENTENCE on the bottle that says, "Kills 99.99% of germs that may cause illness." And known what "germs" are - if you needed to ridicule people incorrectly, magoid style. That's not part of FDA required labeling anyway. That's permitted marketing. You're hilarious, in an insufferable way.
Which bottle, what? A bottle of Purell? Do you need me to post a link to what one looks like plus help you wipe your nose?
You aren't the least bit capable of using Google, or maybe Amazon? All you need to do is type the word in the little box and you'll get several different results. When you find one that just might look promising, just tap it with your finger, or place the cursor over it and click the mouse. If that doesn't work for you, just use the back arrow.
You will,of course, need to reed the product specifications for yourself. Some of the specs give different alcohol contents.
Good luck. I'm cheering for you!
Gee, I can be just as big an a**hole to you as you are to others.
Most Americans now "questioning science" do so because the phenomenon, and the term, have been wesponized by the rightwing media machine, along with foreign actors, and now our own government, seeking to delegitimize institutions and stoke divisiveness. All purposely facilitated by "social media." How did "Trust the science," become an insult to "own thlibtards?"
We are not at this point where something like 40% of Americans believe they know people that were killed by COVID vaccine, because the trajectory of advancement has changed so radically over the last five years.
Are tens of millions of "working class" Americans believing that Donald Trump acts in their interests to make America great for them "stupid?" Tens of millions believing Haitians ate all the dogs and cats in Springfield? They're something beyond "gullible."
There is an element of identity protective cognition. It's not about doubling down on a falsehood, it's about signaling to the other members of the tribe that you are one of them. If you know it's false, and I know it's false, and you know that I know that you know that I know it's false...then we've created a dog whistle.
Well said.
Really enjoyed this NYT piece and also your reflection. Einstein said it best I think... “As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”
The more we learn, the better our journey into the unknown.
Nice job, Jess. and hopefully will help public appreciate the complexities of scientific research, especially regarding health. A sick of the anti-whatever crowd jumping on some scientist who has the sense to admit "we don't know yet"
Important distinction between robust bodies of independent evidence changing dogma v corporate misconduct. I was a little doctor when we were told opiates would never be addictive if they were treating real pain. We were penalized for not writing a script for an opiate for a patient on discharge..not financially but as residents being evaluated. Why would I have ever thought to question my teachers for whom I had so much respect?
Mankind only truly advanced when it realised there was stuff out there we did not know and that is what science is to me. An exploration of what we don't know. Too often, people think science is about what we do know, but I disagree with that.
Military veteran here, 79-84. When I was in, smoking was allowed everywhere, including offices.
I was sent to a radar detachment in the middle of Nowhere, Nebraska. It consisted of an old one-room schoolhouse, where the plumbing was located, and several trailers, from tractor trailer rigs, all linked together.
I'd thought the cigarette smoke was bad in the offices I'd worked in on Offutt AFB. It was nothing compares to being in one of those trailers with a chain smoker who kept coming in --our air replacement system was an in-wall air conditioner. It couldn't keep up with his smoke.
I said something about the smoke to the new boss who had just arrived from Germany. He poo-poohed my health concerns. (I was also pregnant.) He was certain smoke from cigarettes did no harm to anyone but the smokers.
It wasn’t long after I separated from the military that studies about second-hand smoke began being published. It was still a few years before the military began banning cigarette smoking in buildings. It took them a while longer to move smokers away from building entrances.
I'm now 67. I have some pulmonary fibrosis in my lower lungs. I'm apprehensive about receiving a lung cancer diagnosis. Unfortunately, if I do end up with it, I won't be surprised.
One thing I've noticed is doctors' offices asking patients if they are smokers or if they had ever been smokers. Every time, I've said no, but I'd been exposed to a lot of second-hand cigarette smoke in the military, and suggested they add that question to their intake. Finally, a few weeks ago, I was asked that question on an intake. Success!
Any physicians who might read my comment, please add that question to your intake. Those of us who were exposed to second-hand smoke might not think to mention it and it's just as important as the "Do you smoke?" "Have you ever smoked?" questions.
I'm also an Army vet, 79-85. I worked in veterinary medical attachment so there was less inside smoking but there was plenty elsewhere. I'm sorry to hear you have some scarring. Hope it isn't anything worse. My questions regard the inhalant anesthesia we used because it was just released into the room air, not filtered or collected in any way. I haven't been asked about second hand smoke yet but will suggest that at the next appt!
It's not so much "trust the science" but who's claiming the science.
Nothing is static, not our bodies, our minds, nature, nothing in this universe. Why would science be any different? That is why we have research, investigation, development, expansion of knowledge and expertise. This world and every thing in it relies on change and growth.
Molecular biology student researcher here. I always have said that I do understand the distrust. The closer I get to science, the less I feel I know. But, I think people confuse a healthy dose of skepticism with danger, and this leads people to completely disregard the progress of science. Being aware of your own limitations is the only way we can progress. Anyways, this is all to say that it was nice to read an article that put my thoughts into words!
Remember when scientists blamed autism on the pregnant mother's supposed psychological rejection of the child in utero? Remember when doctors actually recommended smoking as a treatment for asthma? And the increasing influence of corporate money on research, on top of the human bias of researchers, is making this problem worse. As with many other social problems, though, the way many people react to scientific misinformation only adds to the challenges. Wouldn't it be great if our educational system taught critical thinking skills to the point where the average citizen could read scientific papers for herself and analyze data?
I'm glad to see the word 'humility' in your post. I would add that it's not just intellectual humility that we need more of, but also personal humility. As Cousin Ellis says in 'No Country for Old Men', "It all ain't waiting on you. That's vanity."
It's a system that treats being wrong as progress rather than failure.
You’re not saying “methods are bad” — you’re showing when methods become excuses for error. That’s the key distinction.
@lintara
You didn’t just revisit flipped meanings — you shifted the question from authority to practice. This is not “big science,” this is scientific thinking lived in real time.
@lintara
It's natural that people will get confused - and frustrated - when legitimate professionals claim something shocking , for instance that a Covid vaccine causes a surge in certain disease ("turbo-cancers"), when the evidence is that the surge increased 79% among under 50s, and took place between 1990 and 2019.
We discuss the current scientific view, which is leaning in a different direction, at ournewrealityThePlasticene
Interesting isn't it that 180 countries simultaniously adopted the covid vaccine, which as you say, was rolled out in 2 days. As a sceptic i look at data and results which, in defense of science, you would surely agree with.....you would have to have locked yourself in a room full of christmas wrap for the last 6 months to have missed the mounting evidence of vaccine injury.....as a layman, i noticed the flaws in the 'science' almost immediately....reports of mass infections from weekend gatherings, on Monday morning.....the testing takes longer than that.....the first hand knowledge that the vaccine didn't prevent infection or transmission.....Ivermectin cured me overnite after 3 shots and a Covid bout i thought would kill me. Fauchi lied to Congressional hearings and changed his tune on distancing and masking......Bad actors 'used' science and the public distrust is a direct result of that.
Except nothing like that happened. 180 countries did not "simultaneously adopt COVID vaccines," which were not "rolled out in 2 days." You seem to be a perfect example of a "sceptic" spewing nonsensical talking points that you gleefully gobbled up.
Israel went all-in first, though. They prepaid for the whole population before vaccine existed. I'm sure you've got some theories about that.
Could you please provide links to those legitimate studies regarding the hazards of covid vaccinations?
Impressive you were cured by taking a horse dewormer for a virus.
I had covid three times. I also had all the shots. The first time I had it was at the very beginning. My son worked for the DC Fire Department and caught it from an assistant chief. I caught it from my son while talking to him in a parking lot. I used my inhaler and didn't have too bad of a problem.
Each time I had covid after, they got progressively worse, and I abused my inhaler even more. I came through them without too much trouble. Fortunately, I didn't end up in a hospital gasping for breath. Obviously, I didn't die.
Millions of people around the world died. Millions more survived because of the immunizations.
If bragging about your gullibility to the Trump bull excrement is your happy place, good for you. Perhaps I could interest you in a bridge I'm selling. It's a real bargain.
After the ridiculousness of ivermectin, bleach, and inner lightbulb cures, my fourth favorite eye roll about the covid panic was all the doctors' offices, covid testing facilities, and even the local polling place, insisting people use Purell in order to enter. It kills germs, not viruses, people. It's a false sense of security. One poor medical receptionist freaked when I pointed it out to her. She'd been counting on it keeping her safe. Surprise.
Your ignorance of the facts is understandable starting with your mischaracterization of Ivermectin.....a human drug which won the Nobel prize in medicine and saved millions of lives....get your google out and check the world wide investigation into Fauci and big pharma.
My degree is in English. I have no claim to knowledge of medical anything, except as a layman, so I queried alcohol and viruses.
What I came across mentioned how it worked more effectively on some viruses than others, mentioning enveloped and non-enveloped viruses. Coronaviruses being one that it works on, enveloped.
Again, my question is, why don't hand sanitizers of at least 70% isopropal or ethyl alcohol say on the bottle they are effective at killing viruses of a specific type, like the flu, coronovirus, herpes, and others? On the front, they say 99.9% effective on germs. There is nothing on the bottles that say anything about viruses. Are they not confident in their product?
Yes, I saw that less than 60% isn't a good choice, that ideal is between 60% and 90%, that pure alcohol won't work as well because it may dry out too quickly. The Purell bottles online that I looked at say 85% alcohol.
I'm also curious why the medical personnel I asked about Purell, nurses and doctors, did not inform me about the alcohol content being effective on covid.
Well, the bottle says it kills 99% of germs. There are others that specify viruses. It the one kills germs and viruses, why wouldn't it say that on the label?
Why would you be so obnoxiously cocksure without even knowing basic definitions?
Obnoxiously cocksure, how, because I was messing with the recptionist, or because I asked why the information about something being a virus killer wasn't on the label?
Just so you know, and you become informed, most consumers are not medical personnel who have the training to know things somewhat automatically when they encounter labels pertaining to health products. Consumers, mostly laymen, are supposed to be able to learn what they need to know from reading labels. That information falls under "Truth in Labeling Laws," along with "The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act."
Indeed. We should never trust the government to ensure we are provided with correct information, well, before this current administration anyway.
"Consumers, mostly laymen, are supposed to be able to learn what they need to know from reading labels."
Then you should have read the WHOLE SENTENCE on the bottle that says, "Kills 99.99% of germs that may cause illness." And known what "germs" are - if you needed to ridicule people incorrectly, magoid style. That's not part of FDA required labeling anyway. That's permitted marketing. You're hilarious, in an insufferable way.
*if
Which bottle, what? A bottle of Purell? Do you need me to post a link to what one looks like plus help you wipe your nose?
You aren't the least bit capable of using Google, or maybe Amazon? All you need to do is type the word in the little box and you'll get several different results. When you find one that just might look promising, just tap it with your finger, or place the cursor over it and click the mouse. If that doesn't work for you, just use the back arrow.
You will,of course, need to reed the product specifications for yourself. Some of the specs give different alcohol contents.
Good luck. I'm cheering for you!
Gee, I can be just as big an a**hole to you as you are to others.