We have just come through an amazingly disruptive and destructive pandemic. The loss of life has been extensive. The economic loss has touched most and perhaps all Americans. We find ourselves in retrospect looking back at the scientific reactions.
We heard from the scientists. "don't wear masks," "wear masks," "wear this kind of mask," "stay home," "keep distance," and more. I have commented before about the perceptions of some that consensus has been substituted for science. See Consensus in the Absence of Proof (January 2021); Tootsie Pops Make you Think (August 2021); The Science of Consensus and Masks Again (June 2021).
I think of consensus every time I read about science. The scientists have been so profoundly mistaken in so many instances. Remember the Body Mass Index? See The BMI Conundrum (August 2022), and racist assumptions, see Race Based Medicine (August 2021). How can the science be so wrong? And, how are we to accept and adopt today's conclusions, opinions, and conjectures without thinking of these spectacular prior fails?
I have the opportunity periodically to speak to physicians about their processes and procedures. I know, what can I offer a bunch of much more intelligent and intellectual scientists? Not much perhaps, but they do invite me back. One of them told me once how humorous my presentation was. I think he meant it as a compliment, but I did not tell any jokes that day. That made me wonder.
The Associated Press recently published Science Paints a New Picture, September 2023. It is an amazing article, with some intriguing revelations. These scientists today have concluded that beliefs held by scientists "for a long time" are not so supportable (not true). You see, the experts have been convinced that we Homo Sapiens "were the only true humans to ever walk the earth." Ooops.
The scientists of the past cannot be faulted. They did what they could with the evidence they had. They lacked some data points, particularly DNA, that might have helped them. They were in a significantly closed scientific community. You think cancel culture is a new thing, think again. Scientists who have different theories are often subjected to ridicule, ostracizing, and worse.
Ask Katalin Kariko of the University of Pennsylvania. That school failed to support her, demoted her, and cut her pay. She won the Nobel Prize in 2023 for being brilliant. Somehow, her peers (if in fact, anyone in that community is even near her prowess) failed utterly to see her brilliance. In fact, they treated her horribly. They ridiculed her. Those in charge of that University (somewhat), that College (yes), and her department (absolutely) deserve to be called out for their treatment of her. Science is not an exercise in group think, consensus, and punishment. But, I digress (only a bit).
Turns out, when you get past the artifacts, fossils, and bad assumptions, the human DNA tells a bit different version of human existence. As the AP notes, "we are not that special." In fact, for the greater part of history "we shared the planet with other kinds of early humans." Not only that (are you sitting down?), they "were a lot like us." Different? sure. But closer to us than we might have ever imagined. Or perhaps as close as some did imagine and were shouted down for their heresy.
The Sapiens, it turns out, had "close - even intimate" interactions with these other categories "Neanderthals, Denisovans, and 'ghost populations' we know only from DNA." Hold on. They are telling us now that there were people like us that they never knew about. People that were not in their fossils and artifacts. People they never discovered, imagined, or knew about when they were hypothesizing and guessing, lecturing about who we are and from where we came.
Turns out that they are still learning. Science is not so absolute. There are challenges, curiosities, and questions. No matter how convincing some theory may be, nor how many PhDs you get to endorse it, that is just a theory. There is nothing wrong with theories, but science is about hypotheses that are put to tests. Results are measured, experiments are repeated, confirmed, or disproven. It is there, in the science that we see emergence of facts (truth). The guesses and hyperbole? That is all just theory. If one hundred million PhDs believe and endorse it, it will still be a theory.
W. Edward Deming once said "In God we trust. All others must bring data." Amen. Want to know how to be credible? Here it is
- Do the work, test the hypothesis, and show the work you did. Not the answer alone, the work.
- If all you have is a consensus, bring it. But admit it is consensus. That it is the best there is may be a good second place winner when science does not exist.
- If you are guessing, well . . .. At least say so. Tell us it is a guess. Tell us why there is no science or consensus. Tell us why the resort to the guess is unavoidable now and why this guess is the best of possible options.
- Don't hide guesses or consensus behind the guise of science. It may work once, but we may lose faith in you when the next test or experiment comes along.
Last bit of advice. Put your "no, no, no" glasses away and pull your fingers from your ears. I am not asking that you agree with the folks like Dr. Kariko. I would just appreciate it if you would put aside your "can't work" and "can't be" attitude and listen to those with different ideas. Check your bias at the door and listen. Then, let's have an honest debate without the hyperbole, cliques, and groupthink.
Just think where we might go.
