At Big Think, theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel tells us about four myths that cause commoners like ourselves to abandon science.

Specifically, he offers to “slay the four most common myths that agenda-driven advocates — who rely on deceiving you about what’s scientifically true — leverage to sow doubt about bona fide knowledge.”

And if we commoners are truly penitent, he graciously offers a path back.

Siegel’s approach to public discussion of science is common enough: the exalted scientist reaches down to the ignorant masses. But he had the rotten luck to be doing this right after Anthony Fauci’s “diary” — all of which are government documents — dropped.

Commentators are still combing the 1000 plus-page archive. But there is enough out there already to enable thoughtful responses.

Myths and responses

Let’s look at them in the four myths Siegel identifies:

“1.) Science is biased by who funds it.” His view: “Research only gets to be conducted when there’s funding of some type for that research, and the types of research that receive funding frequently depend on whether someone is motivated enough to be willing to pay for it. However, this doesn’t mean there’s built-in bias toward obtaining a particular result. In fact, it’s clearly in everyone’s interests if the research is conducted ethically and scrupulously.”

“Ethically and scrupulously” was far from evident during the Covid years. For example, from the Twitter Files: “Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb secretly pressed Twitter to hide posts challenging his company’s massively profitable Covid jabs /To funnel his demands, Gottlieb used the same Twitter lobbyist the White House did – fresh evidence of overlap between the company selling mRNA shots and the government forcing them on the public.”

We are only now beginning to unravel most of this publicly and the words “ethically and scrupulously” won’t get much of a workout.

“2.) Science is driven by public opinion.” His view: “It’s often been said that “science doesn’t care what you believe,” but the truth is that science doesn’t care what any humans believe, in general.”

But then here is the example he offers: “Similarly, many people still feel that the novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, was created in a lab and was accidentally unleashed on humanity, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of its natural origin and spillover: evidence that is written in the virus’s genome itself.”

What? We now know that 9 of the original 12 top experts that Covid czar Fauci polled believed that the virus had originated in a lab leak. It was a reasonable assumption due to the virus’s unusual characteristics, matching those sought at the Wuhan lab.

However, a lab origin was unpopular with governments and quickly discredited via gullible legacy media, probably because the Western governments that had been fooling around with gain-of-function viruses did not want to disclose that fact during a pandemic. But the campaign to discredit the idea was not because there was or is no evidence for a lab origin.

Indeed, Siegel’s comments here are a classic example of one of the true causes of reduced trust in science in many quarters. To bolster trust, politically driven narratives may be crafted out of a partial reading of the science facts — and then, just when the triggerng episode is fading away, something like the Fauci diaries comes along and blows it all out of the water — this time with revelations.

“3.) Science is limited to knowing ‘just the facts’ that are uncovered through scientific investigation.” Siegel’s view: “Scientists don’t make recommendations because they have a power-hungry desire to tell us what to do. They make recommendations because they are the ones who both know what needs to be done and also know what interventions will accomplish those ends.”

If Anthony Fauci’s changing diktats were any indicator, some scientists are very sure that they know best and they are generally given the benefit of the doubt in a crisis. It is hard to read excerpts from his diary without getting a sense that he felt that he was a very powerful being, in charge of telling us all what to do: “Press still hot and heavy about me. Multiple stories per day directly or indirectly involving me.”

In fairness, it was not entirely Fauci’s fault. Legacy media, struggling for a continuing role in the age of the internet, found viewpoint policing on this issue a very satisfying role. They are still trying to keep the Fauci legend alive.

At any rate, during the Covid years, “science” had certainly come to be about something quite other than Siegel’s description.

“4.) Science is immune to even the most legitimate challenges.” His view: “Science not only accepts these challenges, but welcomes and thrives on them, with one big caveat: they have to be legitimate challenges on scientific grounds, where the evidence merits challenging the accepted wisdom.”

Really? No one who watched what happened during the Covid era to scientists who brought up inconvenient facts or suggested alternative approaches can easily believe that “the science” even tolerates, let alone “welcomes and thrives on” challenges. Certainly, no such claim would accurately represent what happened. See, for example, “How Fauci and Collins Shut Down Covid Debate. They worked with the media to trash the Great Barrington Declaration. (Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, December 21, 2021)

On a positive Siegel’s essay at Big Think can have one very desirable result: It ia a good, though unwitting, summary of attitudes that must change if public trust in science is to be improved.