Pollyanna’s Laws of Science

Virtue-based decisions and actions never feature unintended consequences.

To the Pollyanna, actions involving dissent and standing in the gap on human rights, in defense of the vulnerable – is ‘negativity’. Negativity, in truth is expressed through an abuse of those closest to you, their lack of care and being loved, or their absence made necessary by such abuse. Negativity has nothing to do with how one opposes oppression – especially oppression in the name of science.

The actual presiding wisdom of today’s science applied in the public interest is outlined below. More people in power follow this set of Laws than we realize. This is a form of passive-aggressive but extreme candy-coated negativity.

Pollyanna’s Laws of Science

  1. There are the good people, and there are the bad people. Everyone knows who the bad people are.
  2. Correct scientists study correct things. Peer review confirms how correct they are.
  3. If it’s published in a journal, then everything it even hints at is automatically correct.
  4. Credential comprises sitting in class for 3 extra years and being the most correct among your peers.
  5. Science-based decisions and actions never feature unintended consequences.
  6. All bad outcomes are the result of the actions, thinking, or existence of the bad conspiracy theorists.
  7. Buzzwords, catch-phrases, virtue-signaling – these demonstrate critical thinking and science.
  8. Disinformation regarding The Science must be addressed through social patrols and denial of conditionally-granted life privileges to those who dissent.

The Ethical Skeptic, “Pollyanna’s Laws of Science”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 30 Mar 2022; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=64742

Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott Manzel

I… collectively we… used to ignore the idiots on the left… and soldier on. Making a life, and paying our share…

Sometimes having personal debates with friends or coworkers was ok.

But… no longer.

Their collective power stifles debate and locks them is a vacuum.

I still try to ignore them. But in a new way.

Brown Rice

I’m finding that all of this goes back generations. If not for vigilant sceptics like you, we would be in worse shape. This crisis in science had to happen because reproducibility has been a problem for a long time. ‘The Economist’ published an article covering the problem in 2012-2013 and I was shocked to the core of how deep it was. Less than 40% of the published research stood the test of reproducibility. “Correct scientists study correct things. Science is there to empirically confirm how correct they are.” It’s the only certain way of expanding knowledge and passing it on… Read more »


If you think the reproducibility crisis reflected terribly in scientific publications in general, you’d be shocked how much lower that 40% is when it comes to published medical and pharma research specifically.

S Woodruff

This is in regard to the chart on the cerebrovascular death rates. My question is why would these appear to be seasonal, or cyclic. Is the flu shot or something related to the flu season impacting this death rate in past years? Same question about malignant neoplasm, why wouldn’t this be more linear, like the chart on non natural case of death. My area is computer science, so maybe there is a physiological explanation beyond my knowledge base. I love all of your well researched and sourced charts that explain what is going on, and confirms what you predicted almost… Read more »