For several months, we have been hearing voices resounding on how science should be used in order to solve the problems linked to the pandemic or to justify its actions. Among these voices, a minority constantly repeats that it is essential to question scientific knowledge. Through this discourse, these people then justify their opposition to public health measures and to certain widely documented strategies that are put in place to combat the pandemic. As soon as we criticize their logic and their bad justification, these people cry out against science and muzzling.
Recently, an actress changing her career to get into politics hammered elsewhere, to support her arguments against certain means used to fight COVID-19, that to question the science was necessary. Unfortunately, this argument is fallacious and, above all, completely contrary to real scientific principles.
The adage that a theory is good until proven otherwise has unfortunately distorted this principle and led to believe that any theory is valid if no one has demonstrated the opposite. For some individuals, it may also imply that a theory necessarily becomes invalid as soon as evidence is shown that contradicts it. From this perspective, skepticism can indeed be relevant, because it leaves room for the emergence of new hypotheses and makes it possible to question established theories that could potentially turn out to be false.
However, this principle taken in isolation is worthless. Other principles of science must be added to it. First, empiricism, that is to say the idea that a fact used to support a theory must be observed in a controlled and valid experimental context. Thus, the questioning of a dominant method or theory should not be done on the fly, but rather by relying on another theory properly supported by studies and empirical evidence. Convergence is also key, the principle according to which a theory can settle (or disappear) when a majority of independent and valid studies point in the same direction. For example, the mere presence of a few studies on the absence of a link between climate change and human action cannot compete with the plethora of other studies that converge on the existence of such a link.
Finally, circumspection is critical. Before proposing a different hypothesis and extracting a theory from it, caution and restraint are in order. We must also avoid seeing things as black or white and try to remain cautious by agreeing to navigate through shades of gray. Virologists and epidemiologists remind us that vaccines do not necessarily represent an ultimate solution, but that they are effective in getting out of the pandemic. These individuals therefore remain cautious in raising the reported benefits of vaccines, while avoiding blindly putting all their eggs in one basket.
Not a panacea, but a necessary tool
That said, is science perfect? The answer is no. Although the principles of science tend towards a robust and expansive method for accessing knowledge and truth, their application is managed and established by humans. Consequently, there are flaws: people with bad intentions sometimes produce false data that slips under the radar of peer review; studies are sometimes produced and financed for and by private interests for purely pecuniary purposes; scientists sometimes present only the evidence that suits them and omit those that are contrary to their hypotheses.
These rare situations are not, however, a reason to completely reject scientific principles, or even science as a whole. As with vaccines, the science itself is not perfect; however, one must use one’s full potential to improve the lot of humanity. Questioning scientific facts is sometimes an easy avenue for some people who may feel fear, or even have difficulty understanding the complexity of the principles and workings of science. Several specialists, however, have the vocation of producing these facts and questioning them by using their considerable wealth of knowledge, experience and tools. Even though Hollywood has too often shown us mad or ill-intentioned scientists, let’s trust scientists as a whole; with caution, of course, but remembering that we must properly support our counter-hypotheses before saying that the scientists are wrong. Merely questioning a theory is neither sufficient nor valid.