How the Italian press is demolishing science.

I am following the story of Crisanti (we have less fun here with the story of Koch) and I must say that the Italian press is doing very well the task of demolishing science. Not because science in Italy is demolished as a method: research is always done the same way. But what's happening is that scientific knowledge is being reduced to the opinion of the bar.

There is a very simple way to destroy a concept like "the scientific method", and that is to convince the population that it is something different than it is. For example, in Italy the idea is passing that "science" is the opinion of those "who have studied", if not of those "who have academic authority".

A masterpiece of this sabotage of science is, to give an illustrious example, this: for the Italian press, when it comes to Global Warming, the opinion of 99.7% of scientists is that it is a truth. But this is not the case: the truth is that 99.7% of the data published by researchers is in favor. It's not a statistic among scientists, but one about their work.

Which is obvious, because there is no "scientists' parliament" where theories can be voted on: it is not even clear how the data on the opinion of scientists should be measured, while to measure scientific references, citations and of the published data a decent bibliographic archiving system is "enough".

BUT anyway, the point is that the value of scientific work does not lie in the scientist, but in what he has produced. Einstein, for example, brutally broke the basics of quantum mechanics by saying "God doesn't play dice". But today we still have quantum mechanics, we have quantum computers (even if they work very badly) and quantum communication systems (these work better, including satellites). How come despite the "rejection" of the most authoritative physicist of the time, the theory went on? He went ahead because, in fact, in the scientific world the opinions of scientists, however authoritative, count for little: what they published is valid, if supported by the data and by the possibility of repeating the experiment and (eventually) discovering that it was mistaken.

If even 99.7% of the scientists of the period had "agreed" with Einstein (without publishing experiments and data to disprove the theory), but the remaining 0.3% had published some experiment (with the results), 0.3% would have won. Because that's how it works.

And it is precisely the fact that there is an objective and verifiable fact capable of deciding which opinion is closest to the reality that the world of Italian journalism is trying to destroy.

The destruction of the concept of science is happening like this:

• to say that science is the opinion of scientists. False, science is a method that has the precise purpose of regardless of the opinion of scientists.
• to say that the most specialized scientist prevails over others. Other nonsense: if specialization were an advantage, we wouldn't have had Nash.
• to say that the scientist more advanced in his career prevails over those further back. If this were true, we would not have had Von Neumann in the chair at 27 and today's computers would be VERY different. (1)

This process is absolutely desired, precisely because of what we could define the idea of ​​"health dictatorship": at the beginning of the pandemic it almost seemed that any scientist could say "shut up, incompetent" to a politician. Now, if it is true that reality is a form of dictatorship (your opinion does not count for a chip in the face of factual reality), this idea scares politicians, and especially all those (journalists and politicians). who are afraid of being told "shut up, incompetent".

It is said that if a guest on a show says it is raining outside, and one says it is not raining outside, the reporter's aim is to open the window and look at the weather. This does not seem to be the behavior of journalists, but it is certainly what is expected of a scientist, that is, the experimental test. The scientist, therefore, must be objective and objective.

The problem lies in the fact that the leccaculo said journalist, in Italy, has cleverly and opportunistically replaced "objective" with "neutral": consequently, if one says that it is raining outside and the other says that it does not rain, the journalist leaves it to the reader your job, so you can lick both guests' asses. In such a context, whoever does the work of opening the window to see what the weather is like is viewed with hatred and contempt .

This clash intensified during the pandemic, because at some point the virus is part of reality and whoever works closest to reality is the one who must be listened to. But for science the reality is the data obtained from a repeatable experiment, for the purpose of criticism.

And here we go to Crisanti. Which is absolutely right.

We said that science is NOT based on the opinion of scientists as if they were oracles, that science is not based on their reputation as if they were shamans, and that it is not based on their specialization as if they were wizards.

We said that it is based on data, which combined with the method used to calculate them, allow other scientists both to evaluate them objectively and to verify / falsify them.

Good.

How much data has Pfizer published? So far, Zero. Nada. Nix. They announced in the newspapers that it is 95%, 90% effective, depending on the google page, but so far we have NOT seen the data or the methodology used to collect them.

Consequently, the effectiveness of their vaccine IS A CONGECT. This is, in scientific taxonomy, a proposition with no supporting data .

And therefore it is good for Crisanti to say that he will not be vaccinated: the safety of the vaccine IS A CONJECTURE, its effectiveness is A CONJECTURE, and it will remain so until the data are published .

Obviously this statement has political value. Thus a whole series of procedures that are typical of religion are opposed to Crisanti, to contest the simple fact that on the scientific level the vaccine is a conjecture .

• Other scholars of higher rank are brought up. But without data and methods, anyone's opinion is as good as mine and yours.
• More specialized scholars are involved. But without published data and methods, anyone's opinion is as good as mine and yours.
• Reputations and educational intentions are brought up. But if Crisanti says it is not science when there is no data , he is giving a HEALTHY and educational message.

So yes: for now, Pfizer's vaccine is ' a scientific conjecture' . Its effectiveness is, and its safety is. And the same goes for ALL coronavirus vaccines, since NO ONE has yet published the data and methodologies.

Then you will say: but how is such a cialtroneria possible? It is possible, and that is why national drug agencies exist. They are used to REQUIRE these data, and to evaluate them, so as to avoid that tomorrow the Mago do Nascimiento if he comes out with his cittaammuert-21 vaccine, and says that it has 103% effectiveness and is so sure that it also acts as a airbag.

The problem is neither transparency nor trust: this is the political side.

The problem is that without the data, the efficacy and safety of the vaccine are to be considered CONGECTIONS.

Unless someone makes you forget how science works.

Which is what you are doing.

And if the fact that I have illustrated provides alibis for anti-vaxes, it is not with me that you should blame, but with Pfizer & co, which do not publish methods and data.

(1) Without the Von Neumann model, the "RAM" would be the CPU registers and the storage would be used by the CPU only to save temporary data produced during processing. The data should be part of the program, so you wouldn't load the files from disk, but you would use one word for each document, with all the content hard-coded in the word processor. Best wishes.