Hotez and his ilk are not scientists by my definition. They are not practicing science but instead practicing scientism; a faith-based religious perspective that hews to anointed narratives rather than the requisite absolute skepticism and openness to ALL possibilities that real science requires.
Hotez has far more in common with a priest or a bishop than he does with a real scientist. Unfortunately scientism is today far more common than true science, both inside the halls of what is called science and also in the public perception thereof. It's tragic all around.
I published my own little piece of "disinformation" defining and criticizing the practice of scientism and the imposition of COVID vaccine mandates on my substack: https://iamascientist.substack.com/p/epistemrna
I just testified as an expert witness for a vaccine mandate case where the plaintiffs were granted exemptions but fired anyway. I presented data on the inability of the vaccine to block transmission, on secondary attack rates being equal in vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, on equal viral load among vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, on hybrid immunity and what could have been done to keep the exempt workers working. On cross examination they showed editorials and essays I wrote about how the data does not support mandates. They never challenged the data I presented only me personally. That’s science!
While generally a very good article, ironically it spreads disinformation about disinformation. Specifically you state "History of Disinformation: Record a true history of disinformation, especially concerning scientific issues like oil & gas companies sowing doubt about climate change (while privately acknowledging it’s true)”. The first information debunking. It is not “climate change”, a nebulous propaganda phrase meaning virtually nothing and everything. It is forecasting the estimated impact of man’s CO2 production on a made up Global Average long term temperature variable. It is global warming modeling, not climate change. Our current understanding of our current climate is so poor, to think we could predict what an estimated 1 degree temperature change would do to the climate in 80 years is absurd. Secondly, even though the entire “climate change” business is based on temperature predictions, even the IPCC admits you can’t forecast long term temperature trends. From the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” In other words, we can’t predict the weather long term. Something we all knew. From something I recently had published states that "it is not that long term temperature models are wrong, it's that they can't be right. (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/the_blunt_truth_about_global_warming_models.html)
The reason I get a little bit into the weeds about forecasting is Oil & Gas (O&G) companies have no better weather crystal balls than anyone else, but they know a lot about forecasting. That is their core business. Forecasting the correctness of what they model. Whether gasoline demand, oil prices, or exploration potential, O&G companies see a lot of forecasts. They also know virtually all forecasts are wrong. A great explorationist is right maybe 1 out of 3 times. To think O&G people would blindly believe a 80 year weather forecast is “true” is both foolish and lacks understanding of the O&G business. Al Gore and some other global warming activists have used the "O&G industry knew and hide it" propaganda because a lot of their audience is emotional, not rational, and there is no better boogeyman for them than Big Oil. I suggest you look into the background of this disinformation and find out the real truth. Back to your statement "History of Disinformation: Record a true history of disinformation, especially concerning scientific issues like oil & gas companies sowing doubt about climate change (while privately acknowledging it’s true).” Since global warming is a future temperature prediction, how exactly can O&G companies "privately acknowledging” a future prediction is “true”? Until the future occurs, no one knows the truth. O&G companies know that. So do you. If any company, O&G or otherwise, were to claim its forecasts were "true", the SEC would be on them like a ton of bricks for fraud and misrepresentation. There are large disclaimers in any filed company documents that document the uncertainties in any future "forward looking" statement. No company would ever claim its forecasts were "true". So even if your statement was true, what exactly were O&G companies supposed to do? It is one thing for academic and government forecasters to claim to know the truth. Private Corporations have to follow SEC laws.
Excellent analysis, Alex. I wrote a book review on Amazon for Peter Hotez's book The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science in which I take a different but somewhat parallel slant. It bothers me to see on Amazon so many reviews with lauding praise or spitting criticism, but little reason or nuance to them.
Peter Hotez (and Tony Fauci, of similar smallness in both physical stature and viewpoint) misses the essence of science. In science we learn from experiments in the real world, not from abstract analysis. Experiments are trial and error, and science progresses most rapidly when errors are made and learned from. Science is bottom-up process, not top-down.
Instead of arrogantly lecturing us, Peter Hotez should be humbly admitting his mistakes. Or since humility doesn't come easily to his ilk, at least acknowledging his mistakes. Instead, he goes on the attack. It's a shame that he has been personally attacked, but that's no excuse for him to claim that the attacks are on science.
People like Rochelle Walensky and Mandy Cohen do a similar thing in a different way. They admit that mistakes were made, but to them the mistakes came because they didn't have enough funding, didn't do enough testing and didn't gather enough data, and they didn't communicate well enough. They didn't do enough, they say, and next time they will do more.
But not doing enough wasn't the problem. The problem was that they did too much. They took (and take) the stance that the CDC can find out what to do and impose their views on the country. They demand that we trust them, instead of earning our trust. That's an authoritarian stance, and it's like raising a middle finger to science.
Science has solved all the simple problems already, so what is left are the complex, messy problems. We can't use the reductionist tools that got us so far with physics and chemistry. We can't rely on formula, we have no laws, and math and models only help a little. We have to use new approaches, using bottom-up trial and error rather than top-down dictates.
We can see this in economics. Top-down socialist economies work when things are simple and unchanging (but not well even then). But when shocks occur and things are in flux, as always happens in our modern world, a bottom-up market economy performs much better. The government has a role in either case, but in the former it's running the whole production and in the latter it does better playing only a bit part.
Just like with science regarding the pandemic, and also problems like climate change. Many scientists and government officials take a top-down authoritarian stance on climate change, saying that the solutions to this complex problem are simple, and forcing them on us. Anyone who disagrees with their dictates is labeled a denier. We should, instead, be keeping an open mind to reach solutions from the bottom up.
I'm very much in agreement with your analysis. I do however find one unfortunate item (which has already been mentioned in comments above). That is your apparent unquestioning acceptance of the "climate consensus". I would suggest that your following statement would apply in this case: "It would be like me pontificating about string theory or quantum gravity - that’s why I have the humility to not do it, and instead enter rooms as a student with unbounded curiosity, no matter how old or prestigious I become." I predict that the authoritarian Covid measures supported by the scientists you rightly criticize here will be dwarfed by climate emergency measures to come and will have their own raft of authoritarian "scientist" promoters.
Alex - Once again you provide an antidote to the absolutely astounding failures of neuro-cerebral coordination presently dominant in our public sphere. THANK YOU!
You must understand that this is not normal science, but a science that has been placed under the authority of the US military. This is the case of infectious diseases and the risks of radiation.
Alex- You start off on an important though slightly cartoonish description of the slide into authoritarian science-establishmentarianism. It would have helped to note that there really has been a small consistently and explicitly anti-science streak among groups scattered around the political spectrum.
Then you unfortunately take a terrible turn into uncritical acceptance of the atrocious genuinely unscientific claims of Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, Kulldorf, and Gupta. Ioannidis came to my attention early with a STAT article torturing data to claim the 10k would be a high-end estimate of the US fatalities. (He combined two opposite incompatible limits to minimize IFR and minimize net infections.) He and Bhattacharya went on to publish the dishonest Santa Clara study, off by a factor of infinity in its nominal 95% error bars, with grossly biased data going into its point estimate, and giving a result that history has shown was just wrong. Gupta repeatedly said starting very early on that the pandemic in the UK was almost over and there would be essentially no more fatalities. Of course almost all the fatalities have occurred since she started that chant. Kulldorf just picked a fight with Nate Silver over whether mortality stats by regional politics showed vaccine effectiveness, with Kulldorf using cheap formal quibbles against Silver's massive evidence.
If I had to choose between these horrible alternatives, I'd probably go with Hotez. At least he's not an open sadist.
Excellent analysis.
Hotez and his ilk are not scientists by my definition. They are not practicing science but instead practicing scientism; a faith-based religious perspective that hews to anointed narratives rather than the requisite absolute skepticism and openness to ALL possibilities that real science requires.
Hotez has far more in common with a priest or a bishop than he does with a real scientist. Unfortunately scientism is today far more common than true science, both inside the halls of what is called science and also in the public perception thereof. It's tragic all around.
I published my own little piece of "disinformation" defining and criticizing the practice of scientism and the imposition of COVID vaccine mandates on my substack: https://iamascientist.substack.com/p/epistemrna
I just testified as an expert witness for a vaccine mandate case where the plaintiffs were granted exemptions but fired anyway. I presented data on the inability of the vaccine to block transmission, on secondary attack rates being equal in vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, on equal viral load among vaccinated and unvaccinated cases, on hybrid immunity and what could have been done to keep the exempt workers working. On cross examination they showed editorials and essays I wrote about how the data does not support mandates. They never challenged the data I presented only me personally. That’s science!
Tremendous Essay! Absolutely Tremendous! That gets Anthologized in the Masterpieces of Riposte! Wow! Roman Senate would be moved!
Timely and well written thesis. Thank you.
Really well written essay
While generally a very good article, ironically it spreads disinformation about disinformation. Specifically you state "History of Disinformation: Record a true history of disinformation, especially concerning scientific issues like oil & gas companies sowing doubt about climate change (while privately acknowledging it’s true)”. The first information debunking. It is not “climate change”, a nebulous propaganda phrase meaning virtually nothing and everything. It is forecasting the estimated impact of man’s CO2 production on a made up Global Average long term temperature variable. It is global warming modeling, not climate change. Our current understanding of our current climate is so poor, to think we could predict what an estimated 1 degree temperature change would do to the climate in 80 years is absurd. Secondly, even though the entire “climate change” business is based on temperature predictions, even the IPCC admits you can’t forecast long term temperature trends. From the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” In other words, we can’t predict the weather long term. Something we all knew. From something I recently had published states that "it is not that long term temperature models are wrong, it's that they can't be right. (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/the_blunt_truth_about_global_warming_models.html)
The reason I get a little bit into the weeds about forecasting is Oil & Gas (O&G) companies have no better weather crystal balls than anyone else, but they know a lot about forecasting. That is their core business. Forecasting the correctness of what they model. Whether gasoline demand, oil prices, or exploration potential, O&G companies see a lot of forecasts. They also know virtually all forecasts are wrong. A great explorationist is right maybe 1 out of 3 times. To think O&G people would blindly believe a 80 year weather forecast is “true” is both foolish and lacks understanding of the O&G business. Al Gore and some other global warming activists have used the "O&G industry knew and hide it" propaganda because a lot of their audience is emotional, not rational, and there is no better boogeyman for them than Big Oil. I suggest you look into the background of this disinformation and find out the real truth. Back to your statement "History of Disinformation: Record a true history of disinformation, especially concerning scientific issues like oil & gas companies sowing doubt about climate change (while privately acknowledging it’s true).” Since global warming is a future temperature prediction, how exactly can O&G companies "privately acknowledging” a future prediction is “true”? Until the future occurs, no one knows the truth. O&G companies know that. So do you. If any company, O&G or otherwise, were to claim its forecasts were "true", the SEC would be on them like a ton of bricks for fraud and misrepresentation. There are large disclaimers in any filed company documents that document the uncertainties in any future "forward looking" statement. No company would ever claim its forecasts were "true". So even if your statement was true, what exactly were O&G companies supposed to do? It is one thing for academic and government forecasters to claim to know the truth. Private Corporations have to follow SEC laws.
Excellent analysis, Alex. I wrote a book review on Amazon for Peter Hotez's book The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science in which I take a different but somewhat parallel slant. It bothers me to see on Amazon so many reviews with lauding praise or spitting criticism, but little reason or nuance to them.
Peter Hotez (and Tony Fauci, of similar smallness in both physical stature and viewpoint) misses the essence of science. In science we learn from experiments in the real world, not from abstract analysis. Experiments are trial and error, and science progresses most rapidly when errors are made and learned from. Science is bottom-up process, not top-down.
Instead of arrogantly lecturing us, Peter Hotez should be humbly admitting his mistakes. Or since humility doesn't come easily to his ilk, at least acknowledging his mistakes. Instead, he goes on the attack. It's a shame that he has been personally attacked, but that's no excuse for him to claim that the attacks are on science.
People like Rochelle Walensky and Mandy Cohen do a similar thing in a different way. They admit that mistakes were made, but to them the mistakes came because they didn't have enough funding, didn't do enough testing and didn't gather enough data, and they didn't communicate well enough. They didn't do enough, they say, and next time they will do more.
But not doing enough wasn't the problem. The problem was that they did too much. They took (and take) the stance that the CDC can find out what to do and impose their views on the country. They demand that we trust them, instead of earning our trust. That's an authoritarian stance, and it's like raising a middle finger to science.
Science has solved all the simple problems already, so what is left are the complex, messy problems. We can't use the reductionist tools that got us so far with physics and chemistry. We can't rely on formula, we have no laws, and math and models only help a little. We have to use new approaches, using bottom-up trial and error rather than top-down dictates.
We can see this in economics. Top-down socialist economies work when things are simple and unchanging (but not well even then). But when shocks occur and things are in flux, as always happens in our modern world, a bottom-up market economy performs much better. The government has a role in either case, but in the former it's running the whole production and in the latter it does better playing only a bit part.
Just like with science regarding the pandemic, and also problems like climate change. Many scientists and government officials take a top-down authoritarian stance on climate change, saying that the solutions to this complex problem are simple, and forcing them on us. Anyone who disagrees with their dictates is labeled a denier. We should, instead, be keeping an open mind to reach solutions from the bottom up.
I'm very much in agreement with your analysis. I do however find one unfortunate item (which has already been mentioned in comments above). That is your apparent unquestioning acceptance of the "climate consensus". I would suggest that your following statement would apply in this case: "It would be like me pontificating about string theory or quantum gravity - that’s why I have the humility to not do it, and instead enter rooms as a student with unbounded curiosity, no matter how old or prestigious I become." I predict that the authoritarian Covid measures supported by the scientists you rightly criticize here will be dwarfed by climate emergency measures to come and will have their own raft of authoritarian "scientist" promoters.
Alex - Once again you provide an antidote to the absolutely astounding failures of neuro-cerebral coordination presently dominant in our public sphere. THANK YOU!
You must understand that this is not normal science, but a science that has been placed under the authority of the US military. This is the case of infectious diseases and the risks of radiation.
https://danielcorcos.substack.com/p/bca
Alex
I’m reminded of Comte’s era of ‘positive knowledge’.
Twelve ‘scientists’ directing the whole world.
Well . . . looks like he has won over modernity.
Think also, C S Lewis and N.I.C.E.
Philosophy and religion can’t be subsumed, reduced to ‘science’.
In fact, there is physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc., etc..
Where is ‘science’. The use of ‘scientist’ instead of physicist, chemist, biologist indicates the problem.
Science is appeal to philosophy not observation or results.
As the famous religious teacher taught . . .
“Wisdom proved righteous by its works.’’
Thanks for your essay
Clay
Alex- You start off on an important though slightly cartoonish description of the slide into authoritarian science-establishmentarianism. It would have helped to note that there really has been a small consistently and explicitly anti-science streak among groups scattered around the political spectrum.
Then you unfortunately take a terrible turn into uncritical acceptance of the atrocious genuinely unscientific claims of Ioannidis, Bhattacharya, Kulldorf, and Gupta. Ioannidis came to my attention early with a STAT article torturing data to claim the 10k would be a high-end estimate of the US fatalities. (He combined two opposite incompatible limits to minimize IFR and minimize net infections.) He and Bhattacharya went on to publish the dishonest Santa Clara study, off by a factor of infinity in its nominal 95% error bars, with grossly biased data going into its point estimate, and giving a result that history has shown was just wrong. Gupta repeatedly said starting very early on that the pandemic in the UK was almost over and there would be essentially no more fatalities. Of course almost all the fatalities have occurred since she started that chant. Kulldorf just picked a fight with Nate Silver over whether mortality stats by regional politics showed vaccine effectiveness, with Kulldorf using cheap formal quibbles against Silver's massive evidence.
If I had to choose between these horrible alternatives, I'd probably go with Hotez. At least he's not an open sadist.
EXCELLENT !!!