Journalists should be skeptical of all sources including scientists
I think we&#x27;ve made a huge mistake in our notions of &quot;experts&quot;, especially the blind assumption that we need experts to tell us something on every arbitrary issue.<p>On all the recent issues, you can and should engage with reality directly. They&#x27;re all compact in scope and source materials. There&#x27;s not a lot to read re: COVID origin arguments, mask efficacy, etc. For example, with masks there&#x27;s hardly any research, no randomized trials in America, only one in the West (that isn&#x27;t good enough to use anyway).<p>There&#x27;s no secret knowledge on these issues, nor are there any priestly intellectual capacities. Moreover, COVID origin isn&#x27;t centrally a scientific question as much as a <i>forensic&#x2F;investigatory issue</i>. Reality is exogenous to academic journals, and this question is structurally exogenous. For example, that Fauci and friends funded research at the Wuhan lab and had an unusually severe conflict of interest by our customary standards is an important fact, one that we don&#x27;t need peer-reviewed research to know.<p>It would be worthwhile to model the cognition of &quot;experts&quot; when they address these issues and formulate their opinions and statements. We can easily see in many cases that there&#x27;s not anything proprietary or extravagant going on.<p>For example, Sen. Rand Paul was censored and condemned by leftists for saying that cloth masks don&#x27;t work, or &quot;do anything&quot;, which I take to mean reduce COVID spread (in either direction). He&#x27;s likely correct, though we don&#x27;t know because we haven&#x27;t done the trials for any mask type (we don&#x27;t need trials for all questions, but we need them for mask efficacy for several reasons).<p>YouTube censored his videos (media interviews). Politifact, a leftist activist&#x2F;censorship outfit, purported to debunk him by citing an <i>animation</i> of a mask (on the New York Times website). An animation. (And it was an animation of an N95, but treating an animation of any mask as evidence is savagely stupid, truly idiocratic.)<p>(<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politifact.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;2021&#x2F;aug&#x2F;11&#x2F;examining-false-claims-got-rand-paul-marjorie-tayl&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.politifact.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;2021&#x2F;aug&#x2F;11&#x2F;examining-fal...</a>)<p>Politifact also cited an &quot;expert&quot;. He was a random doctor in Minnesota, a pediatrician. Doctors aren&#x27;t experts on mask efficacy, much less for a specific pathogen, much less a new pathogen. They&#x27;re not experts on arbitrary biomedical or epidemiological topics. This experts thing is starting to look like a mystical superstition that will get us all killed. *The experts on scientific questions are the people who conduct research on those questions.* Since there&#x27;s hardly any research here, there are hardly any experts on this question, and more importantly, we can just read the research and ask whatever questions we have.<p>The doctor lamented &quot;lies&quot; about masks. He didn&#x27;t cite any research. I&#x27;d bet thousands of dollars he hadn&#x27;t read any of the few journal articles on the subject at the time (August, 2021).<p>It turned out he was just a maniacal leftist activist on Twitter, a man who had called for two different Republican politicians to resign in just the previous couple of weeks, for being &quot;traitors&quot; and &quot;liars&quot;, retweeted that the governor of Massachusetts &quot;hates children and science&quot;. There was no reason for Politifact to cite or know of the existence of a random Minnesota pediatrician, other than he was a Twitter maniac who would give them the quotes they wanted. The Politifact activist who wrote the piece exclusively &quot;debunks&quot; claims by non-leftists or that are incongruous with current mandatory Democratic Party narratives. He stopped fact checking Rachel Maddow when she infamously claimed that the COVID shots prevent infection and transmission, (it&#x27;s not clear that leftists are aware, even in July 2023, that the shots don&#x27;t do these things, and why):<p>&quot;A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus, the virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else,&quot; she added with a shrug. &quot;It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to go get more people.&quot;&quot;<p>(<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxnews.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;social-media-users-demand-apology-msnbc-rachel-maddow-vaccines" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.foxnews.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;social-media-users-demand-apol...</a>)<p>Politifact never fact-checked the above, just stopped checking Maddow altogether, giving her a free pass. Note that Biden made the same wildly false claims, and to my knowledge has never corrected or apologized.<p>So the &quot;experts&quot; thing is getting in the way, obscuring reality, preventing us from thinking clearly. You&#x27;ll also see bizarre citations of the CDC, of some anonymously written CDC webpage, a page full of errors and false citations (their science of masking page), with no stated methodology (e.g. meta-analysis with inclusion criteria). There&#x27;s no need to just cite other people&#x27;s opinions, and whether any organization is reliable is an empirical question. The CDC&#x27;s reliability cannot simply be assumed, and because there&#x27;s so little research we can just read it, then look at what the CDC says and ask any questions we have. (The CDC doesn&#x27;t have its own research or data on mask efficacy, which they&#x27;d have to publish if they did – they ran no trials. They only cite outside research, have been stunningly lazy, incurious, and misleading.) Certainly, journalists should do this.<p>It&#x27;s critically important to not outsource our cognitive activity or our connection with reality. We&#x27;re dealing with a mass stupidity situation here, where there&#x27;s very little sign of cognition, much less intellect, on these topics. We&#x27;ve got people unaware that an arbitrary reduction in pathogen population doesn&#x27;t necessarily reduce infection risk (masks), that we don&#x27;t know the long-term or even short-term effects of brand new pharma, that finding traces of raccoon dog material mixed with COVID virus on a surface doesn&#x27;t mean anything at all, that men are much stronger and faster than women even of the same weight, etc. This is not a scientific civilization.<p>We&#x27;re seeing too many at-a-distance arguments about experts and science and &quot;who to trust&quot; on issues that can be navigated efficiently with a few key background facts, good alertness, and a 110 IQ. We&#x27;ve got to get people to read, because it&#x27;s clear even journalists aren&#x27;t. Just read the damn papers first, and then we can talk about whether we need experts to tell us or explain something.<p>It&#x27;s also troubling that we&#x27;ve got a political ideology that explicitly demonizes asking questions. Leftists have a trope of &quot;just asking questions&quot; that they use to marginalize anyone who, well, asks questions that deviate from mandatory narratives and beliefs or is willing to think independently. It&#x27;s a very bad sign for an ideology to have that kind of dogma, and if you were going to have that trope in your ideology, you&#x27;d need to fortify it against its obvious propensity toward bias and motivated reasoning by building a robust framework that differentiates between villainous and sincere questioners, creating lots of room for rigor and curiosity. Leftists haven&#x27;t done that, with predictable results. (Trying to build the framework would likely illustrate that you need to just get rid of the trope and not marginalize questions at all.)