I am often frustrated by comments on a number of social media platforms suggesting that science is dead. Commentators confuse science either with scientists or with the machinery of science. I believe that most of the confusion is perpetrated by non-scientists, often journalists looking for someone or something to blame. They are not malignant spirits only uninformed and looking for a hook upon which to catch more viewers or listeners. I do not include investigative journalist Tony Gosling on this list. He understands the difference between science and scientists and gave me the opportunity to debate this with him.
Scientists, through qualification and practice, are no different to the general public. There are good scientists, they do good science, and there are bad scientists, they do not. Bad scientists are not necessarily bad people (though some are) they are simply not that good at their profession. There are good scientists with integrity and there are good scientists always ready to accept thirty pieces of silver. The latter have their reasons and they are probably the scientists responsible for besmirching the good name of science. Many such ‘scientists’ were revealed by covid though only revealed, not necessarily made.
Science is the revealing of the unknown. If you have a religious bent then science is God’s truth waiting to be told. In either case science is extremely hard and few scientists are lucky enough to reveal such secrets. There is a scientific method, at least I believe in such and as a young scientist I read, absorbed and looked to practice what was called ‘The Logic of Scientific Discovery’ by Karl Popper. In essence you looked to disprove the null hypothesis. No experiment designed to achieve this aim is trivial and few scientists ever reach the pinnacle of elucidating something new, something not previously known. (Even if the new knowledge may eventually be overturned!)
In writing Dr’s Newsletter I continually expose myself to a majority whom do not have a background in science. I want to do this. However, I also want my readers, scientific background or otherwise, to be self-critical as I am. We are all being bombarded with what is sold as science but is it science. What can you begin to believe. Start with the peer-reviewed scientific literature. No it is not perfect and probably 99% of published research is either wrong at publication or soon turns out to be wrong. However, 99.99% of science that is not independently peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal is wrong and mostly from the outset. Yes, the outliers, probably less than 0.001%, can and do change the world but the true essence of an outlier is that it cannot be recognised as such at the time.
In practical terms. When someone or some organisation looks to sell you an idea or a product be immediately critical and ask the question, show me the science. This way you will at least give yourself a chance of making the right decision. Of course, once you think you may have grasped the issue in hand you can always ask your tame scientist (Dr’s Newsletter for example) if you have one to hand. Science can no more be dead than art or sport or truth and integrity.
Bad scientists live by Upton Sinclair's admonition that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
I'll add to your point about science that is my pet peeve in the alt media.
Example
When hucksters like Elon Musk claim they could do this and that, like neuralink, check what they actually were successful with. A patent doesn't mean shit. You can patent things that don't work.
But sadly a lot of the alternative media eats up dystopian sci fi pseudo-science vaporware like neuralink, smart dust, self replicating vaxes, and so on.
It's almost like they forget that a lot of the science that is claimed to exist still is bullshit.
Case and point, gain of function. All for what? The flu which was rebadged? Clowns 🤡