Navigating the Chaotic Seas of Science
Of the Contemporary Battle Against Disinformation and/or Misinformation
It is an immense privilege that we live in an information age. With a smartphone and access to the internet, one practically has a deluge of information at their fingertips. Among the many pros, the information age has greatly contributed to the growth of science communication, ushering laypeople to the exclusive edifice of science. Ideally, an informed population is invaluable to dealing with a number of problems facing society, such as pandemics, climate change, or biodiversity and conservation.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. The information age has equally increased polarized thinking among people. One need not go farther than the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic to notice the various echo chambers that people have found themselves in, with some camps touting the ‘trust the science’ mantra, and others priding themselves as ‘freethinkers’ for neither trusting nor taking the mRNA vaccine. Unsurprisingly, such polarizations are based on what different experts have to say on a given topic. Thus, laypeople tend to side with expert takes that confirm their preexisting, often cherished, beliefs and biases.
Dr. Robert W. Malone, one of the pioneers of mRNA technology, stands out in the COVID-19 saga. Consider this Twitter interaction between Kevin Folta (scientist) and a conservative (as per bio) individual named April regarding Dr. Malone’s take on mRNA vaccines. Even more ridiculous are Dr. Sabine Hazan’s responses to Dr. Elisabeth Bik’s comments on her ivermectin paper.
Extensively, studies in biological evolution or the origin of life see a number of laypeople cherry-picking scientists who align with their beliefs. As recent as December 12, 2022, the eminent evolutionary biologist, Jerry A. Coyne, wrote about the misrepresentation of evolutionary thought by a professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. Elsewhere, the prolific American chemist, James M. Tour — among the many individuals working with the Discovery Institute — has gone to great lengths to discredit abiogenesis, and has, on multiple occasions, been debunked by American science educator David Farina, popularly known via his YouTube channel Professor Dave Explains.
The examples are inexhaustible, but my main worry has been the looming consequences of such shenanigans. This undoubtedly makes it harder for the general public to buy into what science has to say about anything, in turn diminishing trust in scientific knowledge. Who, then, should the genuinely curious layperson listen to amidst the chaos? Which science should laypeople ‘trust’?
Scientists are human beings and, much like everyone else, they are not infallible. While integrity is an admirable quality for a scientist, sometimes a scientist’s work can be influenced by other factors, including money and ideological inclinations. Scientists may not unanimously agree on a given topic, but scientific consensus usually is a good starting point (indicator) for differentiating useful information from mis/disinformation. Sure, there are some biologists who deny biological evolution, but what is the overall consensus among experts in the field? Sure, there are some scientists who discredit or vilify the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, but what is the consensus within the scientific community? What are the statistics? For argument’s sake, let us assume the absurdity that the majority of scientists across the globe have been paid to lie about COVID-19 — or anything, really — and only the few contrarians uphold integrity. What then?
We all know that science is fact-based. It is interested in answering questions about the natural world. Thus, the layperson trying to make an informed opinion must now seek to understand the underlying facts. It is the great English biologist, Thomas Henry Huxley, who said “sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.” Before dismissing mRNA vaccines, for example, one ought to know some basic facts about molecular biology, like what an mRNA is and how it works, or the central dogma of molecular biology. What do the statistics say about the risks, and what does that mean? Why not learn the elementary principles of biological evolution first before opining? In our day, this is no longer esoteric knowledge. Unfortunately, most people form opinions prior to knowing the facts, and seldom consider giving up their preconceived notions.
“The human mind treats a new idea the same way the body treats a strange protein; it rejects it.”- Sir Peter Medawar.
This brings me to the slipperiest of all slopes. Correlation and causation. Distinguishing these two things can be an extreme sport, but by now we should know that just because two things go together does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. Consider my favorite example of correlation vs. causation, narrated by Dr. Nessa Carey (British biologist) in one of her brilliant books:
“A PhD student was investigating how frogs hear. He developed an experimental system where he surgically removed certain parts of a frog and then monitored if it could hear a loud noise, in this case a gunshot. One day he rushed into his supervisor’s office, yelling that he had worked out how frogs hear. ‘They hear with their legs!’ he told the bemused supervisor. When she asked how he could be so sure he said, ‘It is simple. Normally if I fire the gun, the frog hears it and jumps in fright. But when I remove the frog’s legs it doesn’t jump anymore when I fire the gun, so it must hear through its legs.’”
Hilarious story, I hope you see the point being made. Ergo, correlation should not lead one to automatically assume a causal relationship. Science excels at explaining how things work. There are many things science is yet to explain. Ther are also many things science is trying to correct, as the self-correcting discipline it is. However, it is prudent for one to first understand the underlying principles of a phenomenon before deciding to side with a particular notion.
So then, care to navigate the world of science and challenge some of your preconceived notions? As the battle against disinformation and misinformation continues, stay curious, stay open-minded, and:
“Above all, don’t lie to yourself.”- Fyodor Dostoevsky.
