On how things are *now* I'd recommend the whole debate referenced below, between scientists and the chair of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control working group. (When asked about N95 for healthcare workers, he said "acne" as his top objection. Really.)https://twitter.com/jljcolorado/status/1380641336316067841 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zeynep
This can't be real. Either way, huge problem is when science becomes passionate vs. dispassionate, and when someone links their identity to their belief. Creates very little room to change belief. Becomes a fight for their identity, and those are tough fights to give in on.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @BStulberg
Do watch it. He dismisses an enormous amount of evidence, cites his own (non-peer reviewed non-public) study in an area he's not an expert, dismisses the expert IN THAT VERY AREA in the zoom and the published work, and then says "acne" when epi doc says what about N95s for HCW?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @BStulberg
He essentially runs the whole WHO infection guidelines in this area from what I can tell, and has been on the record strongly dismissing aerosol transmission from month one. (Lifelong hand-washing expert. Good on that, but... Yep, exactly what it sounds like).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I'm speechless. At this point he is practicing religion not science.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BStulberg
I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't witnessed this over the past year. He has an enormous, if not determining influence over WHO policies, along with people there who seem to agree with him, and it's now a year of enormous evidence. They barely budged, and only when pushed.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
Yeah. I can believe it. This is something I studied for a few years for The Passion Paradox. As I said, when your identity gets linked to a belief, it becomes almost impossible to change that belief. Takes enormous cognitive dissonance, and even then, smart people...
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @BStulberg @zeynep
...have an easier time tricking themselves into their original belief (precisely because they are smart). The copious number of people who go along become true believers, or just do it for political reasons, I guess. Sadly, this happens to many good scientists (See Tim Noakes).
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BStulberg @zeynep
Especially when you get outside your area of expertise. Part of the reason I follow you so closely (and tell everyone else to do the same) is because it seems (at least from afar) that you are constantly asking yourself "How might I be wrong?" in a genuine way...
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BStulberg @zeynep
...and that your identity is built around your system/process for thinking, not any one belief it leads to. Keep at it. (And use this as a reminder that me, you, all of us can get blinded if we aren't careful.)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Thank you! Yeah, very aware of that problem, and after last year, it is--no kidding--on top of my mind. I always knew it, I taught about it, I know the topic/examples so well from history. But I have a new appreciation of how strong those forces are. Mind-blowing.
-
-
Replying to @zeynep
I wonder how much worse it's gotten because of Twitter? You can see the kind of echo-chamber in science as you can in politics, diet, whatever. Seems like a good book idea for you.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BStulberg @zeynep
same kind* It's like the pressure is to prove yourself instead of disprove your self, which is so contrary to science.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.