Such blather, really. “Let’s lump people into these silly groups of clones that we invent ourselves so we can hate them.” No thanks.
Also, “the climate is warming, due to human influence, and will likely have severe negative impacts”. You can *believe* that, but no one really knows. Sorry Mr. Science Editor.
Not to mention, anyone using the phrase “science denier” unironically has to be either a zealot, a political hack, or is just trying to cash in with a pop-culture book. “Harvard philosopher” says to me probably a combination of all three.
Michael K
2 years ago
OK so basically, scientific discourse is always being held between the side that is “right” (you know that by media coverage) and the science-denying side. As a result, any scientist is a science-denier, unless they side with the (paid-for) media narrative, which is regularly attributed to “experts” who often didn’t even study the actual field they comment on.
I would like to hereby prove myself to be a man of science, through and through. Hear me out:
“SARS”-CoV-2 is one of the most dangerous diseases to ever exist. Heavy restrictions and government regulations must be taken to control its spread around a spherical (!) earth. Regular and constant vaccination of everybody on earth (including cats) is the only way to effectively fight the virus. Live genetic manipulation of human cells is the only way to achieve immunity against this virus. There is no possibility of any unexpected side-effects with genetic manipulation of humans or any other organisms. Regulations taken by the government, such as lockdowns, will also be necessary to save the earth (which, again, is very round) from purely human-made climate change. Indeed, stay at home today, save the planet tomorrow!
Great job abolishing the West!
Michael Richardson
2 years ago
“And it’s true that all five groups are wrong, or at least their central claims are. The earth is in fact an oblate spheroid; the climate is warming, due to human influence, and will likely have severe negative impacts; vaccines work; GMOs are safe; and Covid is real.”
Tom Chivers would call me an anti-vaxxer. I also accept that vaccines work. I think that the point is that Tom Chivers does not necessarily know what claims are made by each group.
Jeremy Bray
2 years ago
I have commented on Paul Marshall’s article that the humanities educated politicians are incompetent to run scientific policy.
Here I think we have an illustration as to why those having a purely scientific view are not much more reliable in deciding on policy because inevitably they think having a deep knowledge of one aspect of science gives them unrivalled insight into the whole range of policy implications flowing from scientific views outside their own speciality. The covid advice on lockdown is probably again a good illustration of this.
Francis MacGabhann
2 years ago
Most scientists are pretty mediocre. They’re about recording endless streams of boring data for the one or two Newtons or Einsteins who exist in a given generation to properly interpret. The problem is, they ALL think they’re Newton or Einstein and they ALL think they should be doted on accordingly. This attitude skews the produce of science.
But a number of scientists, whatever their self assessment, which is probably expansive, are the Very Model of a Modern Major Bureaucrat. His Eminence Cardinal Fauci the prime example.
Most scientists are beholden to corporate and political money so interpret their findings accordingly.
gavin.thomas
2 years ago
I see Lee McIntyre is a graduate (BA) in Social Sciences and has a Ph.D in Philosophy. Not a ‘real’ scientist, then.
Perhaps the problem with his philosophy/ideology is that he ‘believes’ what he reads and is told by people he ‘trusts’ – irrespective of the validity of their qualifications.
As an example, the various ‘Chairs’ of the IPCC comprise: an economist (Lee), ‘climatologist’, manager, statistician, environmentalist and social ‘scientist’.
Real scientists deal in proven laws, (all) observed data and the Scientific Method, not beliefs, ideas, and ‘modelling’.
Which is why AGW is faltering in the scientific community – observed data is not supporting the hypothesis.
Why do you put climatologist in inverted commas? Climatology is a legitimate scientific discipline – the study of climate and how it changes over time. I would expect a statistician on the IPCC, and if there weren’t one would want to know why not, I would also expect an economist as the economic effects (if any) of any changes to the environment would need to be addressed. As far as environmentalist is concerned, such a person may or may not be a trained scientist, I expect he or she is a scientist. I have no comment about the . social ‘scientist’, as I share your concerns there. Overall these are the types of scientists that I would expect on the IPCC, I also hope that there are meteorologists, zoologists and botanists either on the panel or available for consultation. What I would not expect are physicists or astrophysicists if those are whom you term “real scientists”.
I felt moved to Wiki it (not that Wiki is reliable). 30 years? OK then. Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, “place, zone”; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the scientific study of Earth’s climate, typically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of at least 30 years.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry.
Climatology is certainly a real field. As are meteorology and oceanography, as related fields. They are all a long way from having much of a clue about any of it though, as it consists of enormous complexity piled on top of enormous complexity. So anyone who claims that any of it is “settled” science or any such absurdity is a know-nothing. There is a grand tradition of these people going back farther than I can remember, always sure of themselves and always wrong.
An astrophysicist, or more specifically a solar physicist, absolutely belongs on the IPCC. The sun is dynamic. It’s influence on our climate is huge, undeniable and very poorly understood, especially by journalists, politicians and the general public. I suspect this lack of understanding extends to the field of climatology which explains the failure of its models to predict anything past tomorrow’s weather.
Climate models are akin to covid models. Really just toys at their best and instruments of manipulation at their worst.
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
Talking about books, I have started reading RFK’s book The Real Anthony Fauci (et al) and already have a crick in my neck after the first chapter.
Of course there are those who believe that Fauci is a man of good character, consistency, truth and integrity. A man who has built strong public health institutions that operate independently solely in the interests of citizens and that are impervious to manipulation by organisations and people driven by financial gain.
aaron david
2 years ago
I am the son of a scientist, as my father had a Ph.D. in Genetics and was a professor for his professional life. I am also the nephew of a scientist (Ph.D. in nuclear physics) and grandnephew of multiple scientists (astronomy, soil science, organic chem). And while I am very much not a scientist, being much more of a lit guy, the two most important things I took away from all of these people were 1) actually understanding the scientific method and how to actually apply it, and 2) that science will always be suborned to morals.
This is why we are horrified by the actions of Joseph Mengele, the Japanese experiments on airmen, the Tuskeegee Syphilis study, and countless other actions that absolutely “follow the science” but pervert our morals. Indeed, this is why the scientific method, replicability, and oversight are so important. Science can take people to some very dark places when moral and social control is removed.
Science is like money; it doesn’t care what you do with it. Only you can do that.
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago
Tom Chivers – science editor – he knows nothing about physics and so accepts the utter nonsense that we can control the climate. He also does not even see that empirical evidence does not support the claim. Time for an editor that knows something about science.
David Bell
2 years ago
Too long as usual and presumptious, especially concerning alleged global warming and that it is due to human agency.
Andrew Sweeney
2 years ago
It’s funny how people who accuse everyone else of indulging in conspiracy theories seem to see conspiracy theories everywhere.
Leftism 101. Always accuse the other guy of doing what YOU’RE doing. It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya..
Mark Kerridge
2 years ago
This Harvard prof and James O’Brien would get on famously.
Jonathan Andrews
2 years ago
In the olden days, when I was in college, there were usually flat earth societies but these were just drinking clubs where I suspect they talked about football
In my experience just about the entire university system is a flat earth society!
William McClure
2 years ago
Chicken Little must be right! The sky is falling. The laws of conservation of matter and energy be damned.
The population bomb never exploded.
Algore was correct about the polar ice caps melting wasn’t he?
And Greta can dance blah, blah, blah.
Herr Dr. Fauxci can’t be wrong, because at 81, his vast experience at filp-floping is unmatched in the world of science.
Oh well, Joe Biden will save us…
Enjoyed this piece immensely. C.S. Lewis’s Old Professor in The Lion etc. puts his young charges through some logic paces, and at the end, wonders, “What do they teach at schools nowadays?” Logic, in itself may bear no necessary relation to reality — but the subjective “reality” of the woke seems to not have even a passing acquaintance with logic.
Wokeism is more like a religious cult. Complete with dogma, sinners and heresies
jonathan carter-meggs
2 years ago
Newton was sort of right but also completely wrong about gravity. The natural universe is run on simple laws that lead to great complexity. The goal you choose determines which elements of truth you need to cling to.
I think you’ll find that even Einstein considered Newton’s gravity to be unfalsified. Just the myth has been promoted by those who were too taken in by the “spheres” on mattress “theory”. (Spheres because the word beginning with b was rejected by uh’s system.)
Last edited 2 years ago by Robin P
T Doyle
2 years ago
Tom Chivers also comes across as patronising. Conflating flat earthers with climate change sceptics is totally disingenuous. It’s comparable to the cliche that all Brexit voters are racists. There are two types of people in the world – the elite smug commentariat conditioned to one way of thinking……and the rest of us.
Martin Johnson
2 years ago
You give McIntyre way too much credit. He is just performing for his audience of white academic progressives, confirming for them what they already believe, which is a proven path to money and media adulation. Convincing those with different opinions would mean treating them with respect and is the farthest thing from his mind. Whether or not he admits it, or even know it.
Last edited 2 years ago by Martin Johnson
Robin P
2 years ago
How not to talk to a pseudoscientific charlatanism denier….
Ask them to explain why they believe what they do.
And see how the RUN AWAY from the opportunity for a scientific discussion.. They RUN AWAY because they know in their marginally conscious that they have no rationality behind their behaviour.
“Excuse me, why are you wearing a mask (in the street?)”
“Because I want to” And runs off before you can ask why he wants to.
Another instantly raises the “no such thing as truth” pearl of “wisdom”. Strange that they never apply that principle to anything else. Why bother to eat if the need for food is not true? Why bother to wear clothes if they don’t really exist anyway? And why believe “there is no such thing as truth” if by self-definition the statement is inherently not true, and hence self-disproving?
To another lady I mentioned that Dr Fauci sneered at the mask wearing in 2019, you can find the video on youtube Peak Prosperity channel. “But that’s not true, I’m a scientist” AND RUNS OFF. (Because questions are violence you know!)
Ultimately you can show them the decisive FACTS… http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/cherry.pdf http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/clarke-covid3.pdf
and then you have to leave them to their pathetic fate, like the drowning sailor who has no arms or legs to swim with.
The main point is, if someone is paid a lot of money to say something, and honoured as “Professor Sir….” as well, you can be sure he is only interested in telling you the truth.
Last edited 2 years ago by Robin P
Jerry Jay Carroll
2 years ago
“Harvard philosopher” says all you need to know.
Martin Smith
2 years ago
Excellent piece, thank you.
Cheryl Jones
2 years ago
I think part of the reason some people are willing to reject certain ideas is because those ideas have been politicised, and because people have lost trust in our institutions to have their best interests at heart rather than the interests of politicians and corporations. When the only people who gain out of a global pandemic are big business and billionaires it stinks. When the Left treat climate change like a religion and that any disagreement on the specifics or the solutions is deemed heretical then that gets an opposite reaction. I don’t doubt we are killing our planet but I don’t know why far left utopianism is the only solution. No-one even mentions the elephants in the room which I think are really driving it – 3 to 7 billion population growth in 50 years, the creation of new consumer economies and the hypocrisy of corporations proclaiming their green credentials while still measuring their performance on growth. Growth of sales, growth of global supply chains, of consumerism. So I’m not a denier but I AM a sceptic.
Mike Bell
2 years ago
My observation is that most ‘deniers’ lack a basic understating of an evidence-based approach.
All civilisations have used such an approach, even if just a ‘trial-and-error’ approach. How else would Chinese have built the Great Wall, Romans the Colosseum etc etc. However, before about 1800 this was heavily balanced by a super-naturalist belief system. For example: thunder as Thor’s anger; diseases caused by God’s punishment for sins; etc.
The modern era saw a shift in the balance towards evidence. The resulting benefits from engineering, chemistry etc were so obvious that most people, who did not understand the science, went along with it and valued the scientist.
Consequently, we, the evidence-based community, never developed the skills to explain the method to the majority (because we didn’t need to).
Now we are reaping the dis-benefits if this. If people do not know even the basic science of animal cells, nucleus, ribosome, protein formation, virus structure, RNA, antibodies, immunity, vaccination etc, how are they to make sense of COVID? (Note: the Google spell-checker doesn’t recognise the word ‘ribosome!)
The problem is that, those who do not share the evidence-based model of disease (for instance) will have their own model in their heads. The brain produces these automatically. It is pointless trying to persuade someone that their ideas are wrong if their unconscious model in their head is also wrong.
Recently a climate-denier told me: “It was 3C warmer in the Medieval Warm Period.” He had know idea where this figure came from nor how it was derived. There’s no evidence to support it.
You can also read that the mRNA vaccine with wrap itself around your DNA and permanently change you genome. Again, completely oblovious to the fact that your cells are churning out mRNA al the time to code for proteins.
We’ll have to start with education, so that at least a minority of politicians and journalists understand the basics. No doubt, the deniers will accuse us of indoctrination.
This is a central crisis of modernity. If we do not take it seriously………
Here’s a tip for you sir: humans of all stripes and eras have made decisions based on their observations and understanding. There is no special class of wizards who are the ones who do this and need to explain this process to others.
Also, Fauci and the rest of the public health establishment have no desire or interest in explaining anything to the unwashed. Hence, they have not done so.
Such blather, really. “Let’s lump people into these silly groups of clones that we invent ourselves so we can hate them.” No thanks.
Also, “the climate is warming, due to human influence, and will likely have severe negative impacts”. You can *believe* that, but no one really knows. Sorry Mr. Science Editor.
Not to mention, anyone using the phrase “science denier” unironically has to be either a zealot, a political hack, or is just trying to cash in with a pop-culture book. “Harvard philosopher” says to me probably a combination of all three.
OK so basically, scientific discourse is always being held between the side that is “right” (you know that by media coverage) and the science-denying side. As a result, any scientist is a science-denier, unless they side with the (paid-for) media narrative, which is regularly attributed to “experts” who often didn’t even study the actual field they comment on.
I would like to hereby prove myself to be a man of science, through and through. Hear me out:
“SARS”-CoV-2 is one of the most dangerous diseases to ever exist. Heavy restrictions and government regulations must be taken to control its spread around a spherical (!) earth. Regular and constant vaccination of everybody on earth (including cats) is the only way to effectively fight the virus. Live genetic manipulation of human cells is the only way to achieve immunity against this virus. There is no possibility of any unexpected side-effects with genetic manipulation of humans or any other organisms. Regulations taken by the government, such as lockdowns, will also be necessary to save the earth (which, again, is very round) from purely human-made climate change. Indeed, stay at home today, save the planet tomorrow!
Great job abolishing the West!
“And it’s true that all five groups are wrong, or at least their central claims are. The earth is in fact an oblate spheroid; the climate is warming, due to human influence, and will likely have severe negative impacts; vaccines work; GMOs are safe; and Covid is real.”
Tom Chivers would call me an anti-vaxxer. I also accept that vaccines work. I think that the point is that Tom Chivers does not necessarily know what claims are made by each group.
I have commented on Paul Marshall’s article that the humanities educated politicians are incompetent to run scientific policy.
Here I think we have an illustration as to why those having a purely scientific view are not much more reliable in deciding on policy because inevitably they think having a deep knowledge of one aspect of science gives them unrivalled insight into the whole range of policy implications flowing from scientific views outside their own speciality. The covid advice on lockdown is probably again a good illustration of this.
Most scientists are pretty mediocre. They’re about recording endless streams of boring data for the one or two Newtons or Einsteins who exist in a given generation to properly interpret. The problem is, they ALL think they’re Newton or Einstein and they ALL think they should be doted on accordingly. This attitude skews the produce of science.
The number of scientists who think they are Newton or Einstein is zero or very close.
It’s more than zero, as proven in http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/biogr6.pdf
But a number of scientists, whatever their self assessment, which is probably expansive, are the Very Model of a Modern Major Bureaucrat. His Eminence Cardinal Fauci the prime example.
Most scientists are beholden to corporate and political money so interpret their findings accordingly.
I see Lee McIntyre is a graduate (BA) in Social Sciences and has a Ph.D in Philosophy. Not a ‘real’ scientist, then.
Perhaps the problem with his philosophy/ideology is that he ‘believes’ what he reads and is told by people he ‘trusts’ – irrespective of the validity of their qualifications.
As an example, the various ‘Chairs’ of the IPCC comprise: an economist (Lee), ‘climatologist’, manager, statistician, environmentalist and social ‘scientist’.
Real scientists deal in proven laws, (all) observed data and the Scientific Method, not beliefs, ideas, and ‘modelling’.
Which is why AGW is faltering in the scientific community – observed data is not supporting the hypothesis.
Why do you put climatologist in inverted commas? Climatology is a legitimate scientific discipline – the study of climate and how it changes over time. I would expect a statistician on the IPCC, and if there weren’t one would want to know why not, I would also expect an economist as the economic effects (if any) of any changes to the environment would need to be addressed. As far as environmentalist is concerned, such a person may or may not be a trained scientist, I expect he or she is a scientist. I have no comment about the . social ‘scientist’, as I share your concerns there. Overall these are the types of scientists that I would expect on the IPCC, I also hope that there are meteorologists, zoologists and botanists either on the panel or available for consultation. What I would not expect are physicists or astrophysicists if those are whom you term “real scientists”.
I felt moved to Wiki it (not that Wiki is reliable). 30 years? OK then.
Climatology (from Greek κλίμα, klima, “place, zone”; and -λογία, -logia) or climate science is the scientific study of Earth’s climate, typically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of at least 30 years.[1] This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry.
Climatology is certainly a real field. As are meteorology and oceanography, as related fields. They are all a long way from having much of a clue about any of it though, as it consists of enormous complexity piled on top of enormous complexity. So anyone who claims that any of it is “settled” science or any such absurdity is a know-nothing. There is a grand tradition of these people going back farther than I can remember, always sure of themselves and always wrong.
An astrophysicist, or more specifically a solar physicist, absolutely belongs on the IPCC. The sun is dynamic. It’s influence on our climate is huge, undeniable and very poorly understood, especially by journalists, politicians and the general public. I suspect this lack of understanding extends to the field of climatology which explains the failure of its models to predict anything past tomorrow’s weather.
Climate models are akin to covid models. Really just toys at their best and instruments of manipulation at their worst.
Talking about books, I have started reading RFK’s book The Real Anthony Fauci (et al) and already have a crick in my neck after the first chapter.
Of course there are those who believe that Fauci is a man of good character, consistency, truth and integrity. A man who has built strong public health institutions that operate independently solely in the interests of citizens and that are impervious to manipulation by organisations and people driven by financial gain.
I am the son of a scientist, as my father had a Ph.D. in Genetics and was a professor for his professional life. I am also the nephew of a scientist (Ph.D. in nuclear physics) and grandnephew of multiple scientists (astronomy, soil science, organic chem). And while I am very much not a scientist, being much more of a lit guy, the two most important things I took away from all of these people were 1) actually understanding the scientific method and how to actually apply it, and 2) that science will always be suborned to morals.
This is why we are horrified by the actions of Joseph Mengele, the Japanese experiments on airmen, the Tuskeegee Syphilis study, and countless other actions that absolutely “follow the science” but pervert our morals. Indeed, this is why the scientific method, replicability, and oversight are so important. Science can take people to some very dark places when moral and social control is removed.
Science is like money; it doesn’t care what you do with it. Only you can do that.
Tom Chivers – science editor – he knows nothing about physics and so accepts the utter nonsense that we can control the climate. He also does not even see that empirical evidence does not support the claim. Time for an editor that knows something about science.
Too long as usual and presumptious, especially concerning alleged global warming and that it is due to human agency.
It’s funny how people who accuse everyone else of indulging in conspiracy theories seem to see conspiracy theories everywhere.
Leftism 101. Always accuse the other guy of doing what YOU’RE doing. It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya..
This Harvard prof and James O’Brien would get on famously.
In the olden days, when I was in college, there were usually flat earth societies but these were just drinking clubs where I suspect they talked about football
In my experience just about the entire university system is a flat earth society!
Chicken Little must be right! The sky is falling. The laws of conservation of matter and energy be damned.
The population bomb never exploded.
Algore was correct about the polar ice caps melting wasn’t he?
And Greta can dance blah, blah, blah.
Herr Dr. Fauxci can’t be wrong, because at 81, his vast experience at filp-floping is unmatched in the world of science.
Oh well, Joe Biden will save us…
I think 7 billion on the planet is way too many though. I’d like to see reduction, not celebrating a slight flattening of the growth curve.
By what measure is 7 billion “way too many”?
Enjoyed this piece immensely. C.S. Lewis’s Old Professor in The Lion etc. puts his young charges through some logic paces, and at the end, wonders, “What do they teach at schools nowadays?” Logic, in itself may bear no necessary relation to reality — but the subjective “reality” of the woke seems to not have even a passing acquaintance with logic.
Wokeism is more like a religious cult. Complete with dogma, sinners and heresies
Newton was sort of right but also completely wrong about gravity. The natural universe is run on simple laws that lead to great complexity. The goal you choose determines which elements of truth you need to cling to.
It must take someone with a massive ego to trash Newton so casually and confidently.
I think you’ll find that even Einstein considered Newton’s gravity to be unfalsified. Just the myth has been promoted by those who were too taken in by the “spheres” on mattress “theory”. (Spheres because the word beginning with b was rejected by uh’s system.)
Tom Chivers also comes across as patronising. Conflating flat earthers with climate change sceptics is totally disingenuous. It’s comparable to the cliche that all Brexit voters are racists. There are two types of people in the world – the elite smug commentariat conditioned to one way of thinking……and the rest of us.
You give McIntyre way too much credit. He is just performing for his audience of white academic progressives, confirming for them what they already believe, which is a proven path to money and media adulation. Convincing those with different opinions would mean treating them with respect and is the farthest thing from his mind. Whether or not he admits it, or even know it.
How not to talk to a pseudoscientific charlatanism denier….
Ask them to explain why they believe what they do.
And see how the RUN AWAY from the opportunity for a scientific discussion.. They RUN AWAY because they know in their marginally conscious that they have no rationality behind their behaviour.
“Excuse me, why are you wearing a mask (in the street?)”
“Because I want to” And runs off before you can ask why he wants to.
Another instantly raises the “no such thing as truth” pearl of “wisdom”. Strange that they never apply that principle to anything else. Why bother to eat if the need for food is not true? Why bother to wear clothes if they don’t really exist anyway? And why believe “there is no such thing as truth” if by self-definition the statement is inherently not true, and hence self-disproving?
To another lady I mentioned that Dr Fauci sneered at the mask wearing in 2019, you can find the video on youtube Peak Prosperity channel. “But that’s not true, I’m a scientist” AND RUNS OFF. (Because questions are violence you know!)
Ultimately you can show them the decisive FACTS…
http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/cherry.pdf
http://www.pseudoexpertise.com/clarke-covid3.pdf
and then you have to leave them to their pathetic fate, like the drowning sailor who has no arms or legs to swim with.
The main point is, if someone is paid a lot of money to say something, and honoured as “Professor Sir….” as well, you can be sure he is only interested in telling you the truth.
“Harvard philosopher” says all you need to know.
Excellent piece, thank you.
I think part of the reason some people are willing to reject certain ideas is because those ideas have been politicised, and because people have lost trust in our institutions to have their best interests at heart rather than the interests of politicians and corporations. When the only people who gain out of a global pandemic are big business and billionaires it stinks. When the Left treat climate change like a religion and that any disagreement on the specifics or the solutions is deemed heretical then that gets an opposite reaction. I don’t doubt we are killing our planet but I don’t know why far left utopianism is the only solution. No-one even mentions the elephants in the room which I think are really driving it – 3 to 7 billion population growth in 50 years, the creation of new consumer economies and the hypocrisy of corporations proclaiming their green credentials while still measuring their performance on growth. Growth of sales, growth of global supply chains, of consumerism. So I’m not a denier but I AM a sceptic.
My observation is that most ‘deniers’ lack a basic understating of an evidence-based approach.
All civilisations have used such an approach, even if just a ‘trial-and-error’ approach. How else would Chinese have built the Great Wall, Romans the Colosseum etc etc. However, before about 1800 this was heavily balanced by a super-naturalist belief system. For example: thunder as Thor’s anger; diseases caused by God’s punishment for sins; etc.
The modern era saw a shift in the balance towards evidence. The resulting benefits from engineering, chemistry etc were so obvious that most people, who did not understand the science, went along with it and valued the scientist.
Consequently, we, the evidence-based community, never developed the skills to explain the method to the majority (because we didn’t need to).
Now we are reaping the dis-benefits if this. If people do not know even the basic science of animal cells, nucleus, ribosome, protein formation, virus structure, RNA, antibodies, immunity, vaccination etc, how are they to make sense of COVID? (Note: the Google spell-checker doesn’t recognise the word ‘ribosome!)
The problem is that, those who do not share the evidence-based model of disease (for instance) will have their own model in their heads. The brain produces these automatically. It is pointless trying to persuade someone that their ideas are wrong if their unconscious model in their head is also wrong.
Recently a climate-denier told me: “It was 3C warmer in the Medieval Warm Period.” He had know idea where this figure came from nor how it was derived. There’s no evidence to support it.
You can also read that the mRNA vaccine with wrap itself around your DNA and permanently change you genome. Again, completely oblovious to the fact that your cells are churning out mRNA al the time to code for proteins.
We’ll have to start with education, so that at least a minority of politicians and journalists understand the basics. No doubt, the deniers will accuse us of indoctrination.
This is a central crisis of modernity. If we do not take it seriously………
Here’s a tip for you sir: humans of all stripes and eras have made decisions based on their observations and understanding. There is no special class of wizards who are the ones who do this and need to explain this process to others.
Also, Fauci and the rest of the public health establishment have no desire or interest in explaining anything to the unwashed. Hence, they have not done so.