‘I follow the science’ is a meaningless phrase. A virtue posed too frequently becomes hollow and cheap. It argues against you.

The brazen and widespread extent to which authorities and institutions were willing to blatantly lie, even and especially under the guise of science, during the Covid pandemic has unveiled a troubling underbelly of deception that reigns over our purported epistemological disciplines.

Fortunately, the public has become wise to these practices over the last decades, beginning with the suffering of our encephalitic children, through the abject misery of skyrocketing autoimmune diseases, and finally to the unmitigated disasters which were the Covid-19 response and mRNA vaccine.

Each item in the list follows the established pattern of starting with the letter ‘C’ and pertains to a critique of certain practices in science communication or research, especially those that may be perceived as lacking in integrity or objectivity.

A consequence of this reality is that the statement ‘I follow the science’ has become meaningless inside the public discourse. This has been long overdue, and was one of the core objections which became the philosophical basis for the formulation of The Ethical Skeptic.

A virtue posed too frequently becomes hollow and cheap. It argues against you.

The Seven C’s of Narrative Science:

1. Corporate/Conflict of interest: Research or science funded or merely backed by entities that may have a vested interest in specific scientific outcomes, potentially biasing the results.
2. Circular in reasoning (petitio principii): The logical fallacy of assuming the broader conclusion or virtuous context of the study within its premise, as an ad hoc or catch-all explanatory artifice, or in advance of the locus of actual research.
3. Conclusions are inductive: Conclusions are promoted through appeals to ignorance and incrementally inductive research. While induction is a valid form of logical reasoning, it is also merely suggestive, and can even be unsound, if not carefully substantiated and/or challenged by deductive or heteroductive analysis.
4. Censorship/Coercion/Credentialism enforced: Dissenting views or contradictory evidence may be suppressed or professionals may sense potential negative career impacts.
5. Cult skeptic defended: Defense by self-identifying skeptic clubs, the fallacy of claiming skepticism as a method used in lieu of actual science, or of a certain type of skepticism that may be dogmatic or unyielding in its essence.
6. Churnalism pushed: A form of journalism that lacks in-depth analysis and relies heavily on repurposing existing content or propaganda, often press releases or agency news, which can perpetuate one-sided narratives.
7. Consensussing (false consensus): Sussing consent, by claiming a conclusion’s supposed popularity. The fabrication and portrayal of a false consensus, potentially indicating that a general agreement is claimed where there may only exist pluralistic ignorance or indeed no real agreement at all.

LLL

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Seven C’s of Narrative Science”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 11 Jan 2024; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/?p=79596