Scientific process and the pandemic
Everyone has an opinion
The coronavirus pandemic has shown with clarity that most people do not understand what science is all about. More precisely, what the scientific method is. In COVID-19, we are facing a disease that we do not understand because it is new and we lack the necessary data. It is natural, as a result, that there going to be a lot of going back and forth to what the scientists understand about the issue and their opinions will be reluctantly expressed and easily modified.
When science is dealing with a problem, the process goes roughly like this. Data will be collected, some hypotheses will be formed, and then will be tested by collecting more data, until there is a working theory that is not contradicted by data, or at least gives a correct answer in most cases.
The scientific opinion has an obligation, first and foremost to the science itself, to collect and analyze data through the process of scientific theory before presenting facts. Also, a scientific fact is not set in stone. It is the best approximation of the truth given the current data and tools available. This means that it is subject to change if the data contradict the scientific fact.
During ongoing scientific research, there are many times when presented data will contradict themselves, or the current consensus, due to lack of sufficient amount, diversity, confirmation bias, or straight-up human error. Thus, a few fringe hypotheses are formed, based on the evidence of a single study or the interpretation of a certain group of individuals. I will not analyze the possibility of intentional misinformation, because this is a different matter altogether. This does not mean that all of these fringe hypotheses are wrong, but that they give an incomplete picture that is very familiar to a scientist but creates confusion to the general public. A hypothesis needs to be tested by multiple sources and in multiple scenarios, before advancing to a theory. This is a crucial difference that people seem to ignore in a lot of public discussions. The fact that one study has given a certain result, does not mean that this result is the uncontested truth. It just means that there is the possibility that the result is true. Besides, a set of data does not result in an unambiguous conclusion, since the interpretation of the data is a crucial part of the scientific process.
This process is mostly unknown to people, as they tend to think that if a study is published, it means it is true and everyone contesting it must have an ulterior goal.
To put it simply, the more you know about a subject of ongoing research, the more reluctant you are to express a strong opinion about it.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
However, people of all walks of life find it easy to have an opinion and hold on to it. We feel obligated to have an opinion. These opinions are based on single sources that usually confirm the idea that is already present in our minds. This process is not uncommon and is called confirmation bias. It is a known psychological procedure and, as a matter of fact, there is a heated debate in the science community about its influence on the results of studies. People are really quick to find confirmation bias in others, but rarely recognize this tendency to themselves.
What is happening with the pandemic is that every voice that emphasizes these fringe elements of scientific research, while not entirely wrong, creates confusion to the untrained eye. A single study that says that lockdowns are useless or even dangerous appears extremely attractive to people losing income during these trying times, or simply tired of the lockdown. A similar pattern is followed with the vaccines. The ever-present side-effects of medicine are blown out of proportion by those that are already skeptical against vaccines.
The more certainty an individual has about an opinion, the more he is prone to misconceptions and errors. He tends to interpret all the available data through the lens of his preconceived opinion, without the flexibility of changing this opinion, when facts contradict it. An informed decision, an educated guess includes the possibility of error as a factor. Asking questions is good, but asking questions with predetermined answers is dangerous in the least. An open mind does not mean that we need to believe whatever is said. On the contrary.
