Article Junk science presented as public health research + Science under seige

[C C]

It’s JAMA time, baby! Junk science presented as public health research
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2...h-research

EXCERPTS: 7% of adults have been present at the scene of a mass shooting? Believe it or not, there’s a lesson in probability theory here. Matt Lerner points with skepticism to this new paper from JAMA [...] The published paper is terrible, the kind of junk science that gets published because it enhances a political agenda. [...] It’s well known that people overstate the frequencies of rare events. Whether this is misremembering, misclassification, or something else, I don’t know–but even a very small false-positive rate will destroy your estimate, if the true underlying frequency is low... (MORE - details)

---

The current war on science, and who’s behind it
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/09/...on-science

EXCERPTS: It is against this backdrop that a climate scientist and a vaccine developer teamed up to write Science Under Siege. It is about as grim as you’d expect. [...] Neither of them anticipated becoming crusaders for their respective fields—and neither probably anticipated that their respective fields would ever actually need crusaders. But they each have taken on the challenge, and they’ve been rewarded for their trouble with condemnation and harassment from Congress and death threats from the public they are trying to serve. In this book, they hope to take what they’ve learned as scientists and science communicators in our current world and parlay that into a call to arms... (MORE - details)

[Magical Realist]

The authors trace the antiscience messaging on COVID, which followed precisely the same arc as that on climate change except condensed into a matter of months instead of decades. The trajectory started by maintaining that the threat was not real. When that was no longer tenable, it quickly morphed into "OK, this is happening, and it may actually get pretty bad for some subset of people, but we should definitely not take collective action to address it because that would be bad for the economy."

It finally culminated in preying upon people’s understandable fears in these very scary times by claiming that this is all the fault of scientists who are trying to take away your freedom, be that bodily autonomy and the ability to hang out with your loved ones (COVID) or your plastic straws, hamburgers, and SUVs (climate change).

I can't understand how anyone can buy into these canards about "scientists who are trying to take away your freedom". What motivates such a global and secretive cartel of whitecoats to do that? Is there something inherently profitable to scientists about everyone having less freedom? Or is it just some sort of sadistic delight, like the archetype of the mad scientist who wants to take over the world? You'd think that scientists doing their research all the time would occupy much of the time required for orchestrating such sinister projects as "having to wear masks" or "recycling plastics." In truth, there's just a huge segment of our society who resent being told what to do in their personal time. As if the mere prospect of contributing to the solution of a global problem is simply unheard of and not worth their time and effort. Fortunately for us most of these intransigents die of cirrhosis at the age of 60.

[confused2]

Or is it just some sort of sadistic delight, like the archetype of the mad scientist who wants to take over the world?

I'm thinking there are maybe more than one thing going on here.
1/ All wisdom is contained in the Bible. The Bible makes no mention of global warming or Covid which proves they are invented by the devil.
2/ Scientists at the Wuhan lab were working on a plan to control the world by releasing plagues .. that's enough to prove madness .. when THE SAME PEOPLE start talking about everyone having to wear masks .. you see the totality of the evil plan.
3/ Global warming was invented to offend the Koch brothers, bring an end to whole industries that have served the nation well, the end of The American Way of Life .. it must be resisted.

[Syne]

Yeah, straw men are often nonsensical. Conflating the politicians in control and the scientists who politicize their own work doesn't mean "scientists... are trying to take away your freedom." It more likely means that scientists are trying to cozy up to politicians to curry favor and funding, shared politics, etc..

[Magical Realist]

Ooo...it's even more nefarious than we thought. Scientists in league with sinister politicians trying to take away people's freedom to spread disease and not recycle. Alas, we are all doomed! lol

[Yazata]

The current war on science, and who’s behind it

Which raises the question: Is there really a "current war on science"?

I don't think so. What we are seeing is a growing skepticism about some of the things said in the name of science. There's a growing reluctance to perceive everything said in the name of science to be objective, unbiased and authoritative.

It isn't a "war on science", it's simply a failure to be credulous, to fall on our knees, to have faith and believe whatever we are told by the priests in white coats.

I see that as a good thing.

We are often told that we must practice 'critical thinking'. But it seems that critical thinking isn't welcome when its directed at the sacred cows in which unquestioning faith is demanded.

And it isn't really skepticism about science in general, science in the abstract or science as an epistemological ideal. Public skepticism is largely directed at science when it's perceived to be driven by extra-scientific motives. That's when doubts arise about the objectivity of the purported 'science', when suspicions are raised that conclusions might have come first (because those conclusions support the motives) and then research is concocted so as to produce whatever results are desired.

It's nothing new. Remember scientists employed by the tobacco companies producing research that supposedly showed that smoking wasn't harmful. Legitimate doubts arose about the objectivity of the research funded by the tobacco companies, as it should. Those doubts didn't constitute a "war on science" at all. They were attempts to keep science honest.

Bottom line: When science appears corrupted by monetary motives or political agendas, then public perception of its objectivity and authority is likely to suffer.

[Syne]

Ooo...it's even more nefarious than we thought. Scientists in league with sinister politicians trying to take away people's freedom to spread disease and not recycle. Alas, we are all doomed! lol

As I've said many times, there's zero reason to posit a conspiracy when individual self-interests suffice to explain things.
Here, there is no "in league with" in any especially sinister or conspiring way. Politicians want power, for their own self-interest, and scientists want funding, recognition, and their own independent political agenda, for their own self-interest.

In both cases, there is a lack of balancing between the self-interests of these parties and the self-interests of the public. Whenever there ceases to be a dialog between these, it threatens both public faith in politicians, scientists, etc. and the foundations of a free, democratic society. IOW, when those in power, whether in politics or academia, no long respond to concerns of the people, there is at least the perception of elitist and aristocratic isolation.

In the US, it's overblown to call this an attack on freedom, unless you're a freedom-loving person who doesn't live in a freedom-loving state. Vote with your feet people.

[Magical Realist]

I see. So they're all taking away your freedom but totally by accident. Got it.

[Syne]

Like I said above, it's a straw man.