"Follow the Science"

Dr. Beckeld discusses why the claim to "follow the science" is not scientific.
Link to full article: thefederalist.com/2021/01/04/...
Facebook: / benedictbeckeld
Twitter: / benedictbeckeld
My website: www.benedictbeckeld.com
Image credits:
NIAID, CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Andrew Cuomo by Diana Robinson.jpg: Diana Robinsonderivative work: 12anonymoususer34, CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
The White House from Washington, DC, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
EU2017EE Estonian Presidency, CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/..., via Wikimedia Commons
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Cuomo, A. [@NYGovCuomo]. (2020, May 5). Twitter. nygovcuomo/status...

[@BenedictBeckeld]

This has quickly become one of my more controversial videos. Rational and civilized critique is always welcome, but if you're going to criticize, and certainly if you're going to hurl personal insults and profanities, please first read the article (linked in the description) to fully understand what my arguments are.

[@ShabazzTBL]

I feel like you’re taking the phrase literally as if they’re claiming that this is what the science is telling us to do. The truth is that these are decisions based off of what is discovered about the virus through science. We learned how it spread so we devised ways to prevent its transmission. And other decisions that are based directly off of what researchers were able to determine through observation or experimentation. That’s not new. And the phrase is a tag line. Also a big part of your argument hinges on claims like “most people who say this are..” or “most people who do that are...”. That’s always going to weaken your argument simply because it’s not a falsifiable statement, which I’m sure you know is a no no.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thanks for commenting. I'm not taking it too literally, because the main point of the phrase is that it is used as a cudgel (yes, as a tag line, precisely), with the goal of quashing debate. That the unstated premise is to save lives is obvious, but that doesn't change the aforementioned state of affairs. I'm not sure what your your last statement refers to: My argument does not hinge on "most people..."; my argument is a claim about the problems of masquerading philosophy as science. (Besides, "most people" could still be falsifiable if one found a large number of counterexamples; as for falsifiability itself, it's useful but can also be criticized, and I recommend Feyerabend's "Against Method" in that regard.)

[@ShabazzTBL]

@@BenedictBeckeld Ok but I can really go out polling to determine if you’re “most people” claim holds up. Pointing to the fact that your position is backed by and based on the information we learned from science is quash debate. It’s part of it. When asked why I support a certain measure I can say “I’m following the science.” If they follow that up with a challenge to explain what science it is that I’m following then I explain the reasons I’m basing my decision off of. I assume you’re not saying this but it feels like you’re saying that in order to debate this we’re not allowed to use the science because it’s a philosophical debate. What are you saying there? Because philosophy requires us to draw from the knowledge we have to be about to make reasoned arguments. And also even in cases they may fit your description of using it as a cudgel, look at the state of discourse. One you know most people will not change their minds because you explained it to them and showed them the figures. But two these people have had this explained to them over and over again in many different ways and there’s a refusal to accept it. And in fact there’s a tendency to come up with contradictory lies. From saying it’s just like the flu, ignoring evidence that it was wrong, pushing HCQ despite evidence showing it didn’t work, denying that masks works, denying the vaccine works, why denying that lockdowns work, etc. Just on and on at every step the science was present and the decisions that stem from it were explained. At a certain point people get tired of watching someone just reject the form evidence that it is being proposed makes sense, especially when it means more people death or acquiring permanent damage.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

I'm sorry, but I don't actually know what you're talking about. What is my "most people"-claim? As I said, I don't know what you're referring to. But that (whatever that is) is not the point.

[@ShabazzTBL]

@@BenedictBeckeld I confused when the instance of that phrase pops up but the issue I’m pointing to your claim that people pointing toward the science are hiding behind it to mask their prejudices. You go on to eventually conclude that this means that because science is neutral that calling for lockdowns while pointing to science as the reason is problematic. I don’t understand how you get there. Science is essentially a tool that we use. We have a question, or several questions that need answers. We find the answers or essential evidence to help come to the answers using experiments and observations. If we cannot then take the information we gained and use it to accomplish a goal then it’s useless. If we cannot take the knowledge gain in a debate then it’s useless. In the medical field there’s something we call evidence based practice meaning we take evidence found in studies to propose a possible treatment, then we take that treatment and test it in experiments, and we take the results of the experiment and make recommendations for how and when this treatment should be used. So when the treatment is presented to a hospital board as something we need to bring in and someone challenges the proposal and says it’s not the right thing to do, it makes sense to say “Look, we’ve done all the experiments, we’ve gather the data and it all shows that this treatment helps this disease and so I believe it’s what we should do.” That’s fair and correct. If the stated goal of a hospital is to treat disease and anyone rejects the use of a treatment show to be safe and effective then I’d be questioning THEIR prejudices. What is causing them to disregard the science behind the decision? So if one of our stated goals is to limit the spread of the spread of this disease and the experiments show and observations show that people being near each other is how it spreads then it logically follows that the way to stop spreading the disease is to not be near each other. Anyone who disagrees with that is either rejecting the science, or rejecting the goal of not spreading the disease. I’ve seen both but for the second one it’s often because people reject another portion of the science. Usually the rate that it kills or the rate and severity of permanent damage. So I’m really struggle what exactly you’re saying should be done in regards to what the science says and how it is that you come to the conclusion that we can resist lockdowns because of this. Even if what you’re saying about people attitudes when referring back to science in their decisions is true that doesn’t mean the conclusion is wrong. Are you saying it’s a moral decision to decide to take action against the spread and therefore science can’t help you with that? If so I disagree with that and if that’s what you’re saying I’ll explain my reasoning. Finally once again even if it’s true that people have another motivation behind using science to support their position, where is the connection to your conclusion? This is how I see your argument as it appears. Premise 1: People who support lockdowns are using the idea of science being their side to bolster their position. Premise 2: How respond to the pandemic is a moral question.(I don’t fully agree with that and believe that it can be a solely pragmatic decision with the moral decision being whether or not we want to do something about the virus but this isn’t the most important part and the premise can stay as it is for the sake of this argument.) Premise 2: Science is neutral by nature. Premise 3: Since science is neutral it cannot take sides. Premise 4: Given the first three premises are true people using this idea are really serving self by inappropriately affirming their biases(I don’t believe you sufficiently supported the idea and I can think of counters to this premise but once again we can grant it for now in the interest of getting to the conclusion). Conclusion: Therefore we do not have to follow the lockdowns. And there’s my issue. There’s significant support lacking here. Whether I missed it or it’s just not in the paper I’ll let you inform me or correct any of the wording in my premises or conclusion. But as it stands this conclusion does not necessarily follow from those premises. Mainly because you haven’t addressed whether or not the scientific basis was accurate. I can believe something before an experiment and actually that’s part of the scientific process and if the science shows that I was correct that doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to use it to support my prior thought or that people can disregard it because I thought that was the answer before. I just don’t understand your reasoning. Thank you for responding be the way.

[@keepcalmcarryon3358]

Politicians win popularity contests. Politicians have proven during this pandemic, they are no better at making decisions than the man on the street

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Completely agreed, yes.

[@ordinarybear7037]

Watch doc : Absolute Proof .. all should see this !!

[@ordinarybear7037]

@@BenedictBeckeld please research .. Cyrus A Parsa !! 3 books that will explain much !!

[@777lucifero]

Been saying it since I was a kid. Science is just a collection of what we have found out about how things around us works, it's not that IT teaches us something. For example, we find out how a seed grows in the soil. That becomes part of scientific knowledge. It's not the scientific knowledge that teaches US something, it's just someone found out how the seed behaves in the soil. Further analysis and more advanced tools will allow even further detail into how the seed develops inside the soil, and that will be added to the ''scientific knowledge''. I've always been annoyed at teachers posing it as ''science teaches us that...'' As for politicians, well... that's what happens when everyone's vote is equal. They have to say whatever pleases most of the population, or else they don't get voted. There is no way to win votes by making a pragmatic/realistic plan. You have to praise god and say tons of other things that are crowd pleasers, even if they should really have no place in a political discourse. Democracy actually gives even more power to those that control the economy, because now we don't even have anyone to blame but ourselves. You can't blame the aristocracy or the king. You're voting for google and facebook, you decide to use them. You willingly vote for the democratic party that has monopolized the media. You actively engage into enslaving yourself, so who's head are you going to chop off? You choose to keep believing and buying NYT propaganda, even after blatant examples such as when they defended Stalin. That majority of people keep giving credit, money, votes to sources that are blatantly ''yellow''. The problem is complex because at heart, the majority of people are just the same as the ones that control us: greedy, slimy, dishonest. With the added feature that they are mostly cowardly and dumber. Many just choose to parrot the most socially acceptable narratives, just because they get easy likes (both online and not). Then in turn, politicians use installed victimhoods and bait such cowards. For example? They push the ''racist'' narrative to oblivion, they know that most cowards will bow down and parrot the narrative. Hordes of people who don't actually believe it, but they know that they will be more accepted if they join the ''support blm'' crowd. Then the democratic party uses this to bring votes to their sides. Who can you really blame the most? I'm not sure really. .

[@erikkroll2154]

Infact politicians are worse.

[@EthanisWhite]

All of this is common sense. Science is merely a tool when used correctly.

[@doccarter5283]

A hammer is also a tool, but when it comes to driving a nail one doesn't use their hand. Which, funnily enough is common sense.

[@ShabazzTBL]

And when you use a tool, such as measuring tape, to tell you something you listen to the measurement it gives you. You don’t decide that you thing it’s wrong because you got a different answer by eyeballing it.

[@ShabazzTBL]

@BVale Okay. Not sure why you’re telling me this. Adding numbers isn’t the same as complex science regarding viruses. You can’t check the results of experiments in your head.

[@benmm8244]

Ideology in science's clothing.

[@ordinarybear7037]

eugenics hiding behind ideology, corrupted by scientism, Rupert Sheldrake pointed out 10 dogmatic laws to science . . all should learn how it is controlled by corperate money !?

[@slobodanreka1088]

R.I.P. your channel when the overlords find out.

[@menthelius]

Excellent article. Thank you for your presentation.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

My pleasure, thank you!

[@ctrl677]

The frustrating part is that this is taught to everyone when they learn about the scientific method in grade school. It seems most people either forget it or are unable to make the distinction between the science that supports a conclusion and the conclusion itself.

[@solomontruthlover5308]

The article is fantastic!

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thanks!

[@B_-_-_7526]

Thanks for sending this to me very interesting

[@Anony_mutt]

Yes, thanks for sharing💞🙌🏻💞

[@Mindhumble]

As i have gone into this topic in depth i understand what you are getting at and i think you summed it up very well considerinng the limits put upon you. I hope people think deeply enough imto this as it is very important to understand the place of science in our perception of reality.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thanks! And I hope so, too.

[@mr.austinlucksted783]

I agree with you. Real science is observant evidence.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Agreed, and thank you.

[@LoadingGames.]

Follow the science Follow the science Follow the science There are over 10 genders 🙄

[@AldousHuxley7]

Find Dolores Cahill

[@oakleydavid7619]

Science is constantly changing on many levels due to technology , wisdom , tools and ect ,etc !!! Time as well. As in evolution. Evolution can happen very quickly. Anyone that doesn't beleive in evolution I geuss just hadn't been around very long or they live in a bubble !

[@sylvarogre5469]

Just as we get to the meat and potatoes... I hope you are more circumspect with the copyright of your intellectual labors from here on. Now I will need to read that article before commenting further.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Yes, I have learned my lesson.

[@vercingetorix3414]

The problem is with the journal. Most respected journals permit their authors to present their findings to outside groups. They respect their authors and the author's work product. Not so, apparently, with that particular journal.

[@vercingetorix3414]

@@BenedictBeckeld See my comment re journals.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

@@vercingetorix3414 Yes, that has been my previous experience. Another problem was that they interfered very heavily in my writing and didn't ask me to approve the edits, even though they had re-written whole sentences and even paragraphs. I won't be writing for them again.

[@abrahkadabra9501]

1st...which is a first for me! 😊 Things I've noticed since the COVID -19 pandemic began: - The WHO was playing defense for the CCP on multiple levels. - A very expensive vaccine was the answer from the beginning. News of other therapies (like massive doses of Vitamin D) were blacked out by the MSM. - America's top doctor on the COVID -19 case was more than a little annoyed by the Feds insistance on ignoring Ivermectin as a vaccine candidate. Ivermectin is far cheaper. - I changed my opinion that COVID -19 is a serious threat. I now believe that immune systems globally are weak because of low nutrient content in our foods due to current agricultural practices (and other factors like stress). Something very similar happened during and after WW1 that caused the spread of Spanish flu. Great video as always. I look forward to reading your article.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you! And I think it's a first for me that someone points out that he's first on the video! And yes, it's pretty striking how completely the mainstream media have colluded with one another on this issue (and others). I always took Covid seriously, but yes, I certainly didn't think it was a cause for the type of mass hysteria that we have seen. One can only imagine how people would react if a far more dangerous virus were to hit us.

[@jackcr2477]

Of course the findings of science should be questioned, but they should be questioned using science. Not with blind skepticism. Basically every mistake made using the scientific method (geocentrism, age of the universe etc) was proven wrong /by/ science. Also, telling people to blanket disregard anybody who says "Follow the Science" instead of say "Follow the Findings of Science" is such a huge generalisation that it's practically meaningless

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Certainly scientific findings should be questioned using science, but the point is that lockdowns and such are not scientific findings but moral injunctions, which is why they cannot be either supported or rejected by science.

[@JohnDoe-in3ep]

@@BenedictBeckeld You're straw manning politicians

[@jackcr2477]

@@BenedictBeckeld In what way are lockdowns moral injunctions and not a epidemiological matter? And thus part of science

[@BenedictBeckeld]

I try to explain that in the article to which I link in the video description (the video itself is just a brief introduction to that).

[@pbohearn]

Applied sciences- apply scientific findings to current public health problems. “Follow the Science” = easily digestible public health campaign slogan to assist with population behavioral change given epidemiological results. Targeted towards sixth grade reading level and not terribly complex thinking. I think it’s somewhat picky to criticize the motto because it was not precise. We all get the message. And yes they want to use science to influence people. People like to believe people in white coats know what they’re talking about. It’s propaganda, but he really is a scientist so I think it’s OK

[@lm3729]

Science is like Tarot, it’s malleable.

[@chudchadanstud]

The best way to describe it, is that science is a tool. Just like maths.

[@dreamingrightnow1174]

I guess a phd in Greek philosophy makes him an epidemiologist, lol. Guppies are born every minute.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Respectfully, the point is precisely that it has nothing to do with science, but with philosophy.

[@dreamingrightnow1174]

@@BenedictBeckeld That's not what you're saying though. You're saying the science is bad based on scientific principals, not philosophical ones: "Dr. Beckeld discusses why the claim to "follow the science" is not scientific."

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Precisely: "Not scientific". So I'm not saying "the science is bad based on..." but rather that it's not science at all; i.e. science has nothing to do with it one way or the other. To determine what is scientific is the job of philosophy, not of science. If you wish to understand the full argument, do read the article I link to in the description. Thanks and all the best.

[@beestorm7609]

A PhD is is not a medical degree. You put in the effort to get a doctorate, not faulting you there. But your doctorate isn't in medicine. I think you know the misinformation you are peddling. Shame on you.

[@BenedictBeckeld]

Thank you so much for not faulting me for getting a doctorate, that's extremely kind of you. You clearly haven't understood the point at all, which is that this is NOT medicine we're dealing with here.