Here is a quick list of good science versus bad science. The disturbing dichotomy is easily spotted in the worldwide virus response of the 2020s.
While there is an awful lot of idiocy in the world, the virus-response debacle takes the cake for my entire lifetime thus far, and is hopefully not repeated or superseded.
Proud to have been on the right side of ethics, science, morality, integrity, sincerity, modesty, intellect, logic, rationality; the right side of history the entire time!
BAD (i.e. NOT) SCIENCE
Start with desperate biases and conclusions, then try to fit claims to conclusions in any tenuous way.
Put the onus on those who disagree, challenge assertions, or even ask questions to negate claims.
Never be willing to admit initial conclusions could be even slightly wrong. Never admit hypothesis failure.
Be unwilling to even consider alternative hypotheses or solutions.
Feel free to conflate hypothesis with theory, result, proof, law, fact.
Never follow where data leads if doesn’t match preconclusions.
Never revise beliefs as more is learned, and obstinately cling to original assertions even as they become more and more clearly wrong. Hypocritically double-down on falsehoods while calling it “the science”.
Censor, chastise, deride any and all critique or review of claims and assertions.
Frighten, ostracize, threaten, demean, silence, coerce all critics, non-conformists, or those who try to replicate or counter results, or simply ask for proper methodology, or suggest alternative solutions.
Use classic, what will be easily-identified logical fallacies in all claims, assertions and demands.
Rely upon and make concrete claims based on cherry-picked evidence, no matter how tenuous or preliminary, and use, promote, and fixate on preliminary, manipulated, excluded and hidden data.
Be inconsistent and flip-flopping in some claims after having been previously adamant.
Change definitions, terms and wording to match biases, assertions, assumptions.
Use fantastical and certain claims of universal safety and efficacy and results that in no way match any evidence, or could possibly match all human age/health/lifestyle/environment profiles.
Make assertions based on groupthink and narrative, not highly-regarded, replicable consensus.
Ignore flawed methodologies with no possibility of replication if they match an assumption or narrative.
Allow or wait no time in claiming success.
Ignore long-valued, well-tested scientific and medical principles.
Ignore and evade any obvious failures of hypotheses, any contrarian evidence of hypothesis failure, even if blatant and obvious. Never retract or admit error.
Be adamant, dismissive, and unscientific with the ironic use of the likes of “the science is settled” and “anything else is misinformation”. Never consider that theories are always subject to change.
Rely on, draw conclusions, and make incredible assertions based on poor-quality evidence, singular studies, poorly-designed studies, inadequate studies, unscrutinized studies, unreplicated studies, irrelevant studies, no studies.
Never continue to test a theory once it has been asserted, nor let anyone test the theory or any competing theory.
Ignore it if hypothesis predictions don't hold up to laboratory or real-life scrutiny, and claim success anyway.
Just keep repeating unproven, implausible, untested, and even illogical assertions over and over and over, using media, politicians, bureaucrats, employers, laymen and other stooges to reinforce the mantra of all those unproven assertions.
Promote and recommend illegal, unethical, unscientific actions, while incessantly
using trite, sanctimonious catchphrases like "for the greater good”.
Ignore the morality-based Precautionary Principle, and employ terribly anti-scientific, immoral, proven-dangerous injection-mask-and-lockdown zealotry.
GOOD SCIENCE
Properly use the logical, pinnacle of objectivity and morality - scientific method.
Invite, request and even demand others confirm or deny hypotheses before making claims.
Invite debate, challenge, revision, confirmation of all hypotheses, theories and assertions.
Accept, consider and test competing hypotheses, theories.
Never conflate hypothesis with theory, result, proof, law, fact.
Know the onus is on them, the claimants, to prove beyond doubt the veracity of claims. Readily accept that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence, analysis and proof must be.
Never, ever be adamant and dismissive with the likes of the nonsensical phrases “the science is settled” or “any other claim is misinformation”. It goes without saying that theories are always subject to change.
Always be willing to revise or completely throw out hypotheses; accept when hypotheses are not confirmed. Readily and publicly retract and admit error; readily admit hypothesis failure.
Revise advice and recommendations as more is learned.
Seek and use all evidence and data, even if contrarian or hypothesis-defeating.
Always follow where data leads, whether it matches expectations or not.
Use long-approved scientific and medical principles at all times; use repeatable methods.
Use clear, precise, and unchanged definitions.
Be very careful about making claims of universal safety and efficacy and results until thoroughly tested and corroborated, often on the order of a decade and more.
Allow the tests of time and scientific experimental replication before making grandiose claims.
Avoid all logical fallacies.
Carefully avoid making unproven, implausible, untested, proven-invalid, and illogical assertions - ever - reminding media, politicians, bureaucrats, employers, laymen and others to do the same.
Rely only upon, and draw conclusions only from, and make cautious assertions based only on good-quality evidence, myriad studies, well-designed studies, adequate studies, heavily-scrutinized studies, replicated studies, relevant studies.
Always continue to test a theory once it has been asserted, and proudly recommend anyone else test the theory or any competing theory.
Revise or discard it if hypothesis predictions don't hold up to laboratory or real-life scrutiny.
At all times consider the morality-based Precautionary Principle, and never promote illegal or unethical, or unscientific actions. Never making holier-than-thou statements about something being “for a greater good” unless and until all good science practices have been followed.
---------------------------- BONUS ----------------------------
Good / civil people:
Do not like or value authoritarianism.
Have no interest in telling other people what to do and how to live.
Will not ever demand that someone put something in his/her body, never mind something novel, experimental, of unknown short- and long-term effect.
Rail against the destruction of peoples' lives, the economy, civil society.
Ask for evidence for claims about novel interventions in the way of safety and efficacy.
Don't lie or use hyperbole or sophistry or sanctimony.
Evil people / a**holes:
Revel in authoritarianism.
Love telling other people what to do and how to live.
Will without hesitation demand that someone put something in his/her body even if something novel, experimental, of unknown short- and long-term effect.
Have no problem with the destruction of peoples' lives, the economy, civil society.
Provide no evidence, nor even seek any, for claims about novel interventions in the way of safety and efficacy.
Lie and use hyperbole and sophistry and sanctimony.
While there is an awful lot of idiocy in the world, the virus-response debacle takes the cake for my entire lifetime thus far, and is hopefully not repeated or superseded.
Proud to have been on the right side of ethics, science, morality, integrity, sincerity, modesty, intellect, logic, rationality; the right side of history the entire time!
BAD (i.e. NOT) SCIENCE
Start with desperate biases and conclusions, then try to fit claims to conclusions in any tenuous way.
Put the onus on those who disagree, challenge assertions, or even ask questions to negate claims.
Never be willing to admit initial conclusions could be even slightly wrong. Never admit hypothesis failure.
Be unwilling to even consider alternative hypotheses or solutions.
Feel free to conflate hypothesis with theory, result, proof, law, fact.
Never follow where data leads if doesn’t match preconclusions.
Never revise beliefs as more is learned, and obstinately cling to original assertions even as they become more and more clearly wrong. Hypocritically double-down on falsehoods while calling it “the science”.
Censor, chastise, deride any and all critique or review of claims and assertions.
Frighten, ostracize, threaten, demean, silence, coerce all critics, non-conformists, or those who try to replicate or counter results, or simply ask for proper methodology, or suggest alternative solutions.
Use classic, what will be easily-identified logical fallacies in all claims, assertions and demands.
Rely upon and make concrete claims based on cherry-picked evidence, no matter how tenuous or preliminary, and use, promote, and fixate on preliminary, manipulated, excluded and hidden data.
Be inconsistent and flip-flopping in some claims after having been previously adamant.
Change definitions, terms and wording to match biases, assertions, assumptions.
Use fantastical and certain claims of universal safety and efficacy and results that in no way match any evidence, or could possibly match all human age/health/lifestyle/environment profiles.
Make assertions based on groupthink and narrative, not highly-regarded, replicable consensus.
Ignore flawed methodologies with no possibility of replication if they match an assumption or narrative.
Allow or wait no time in claiming success.
Ignore long-valued, well-tested scientific and medical principles.
Ignore and evade any obvious failures of hypotheses, any contrarian evidence of hypothesis failure, even if blatant and obvious. Never retract or admit error.
Be adamant, dismissive, and unscientific with the ironic use of the likes of “the science is settled” and “anything else is misinformation”. Never consider that theories are always subject to change.
Rely on, draw conclusions, and make incredible assertions based on poor-quality evidence, singular studies, poorly-designed studies, inadequate studies, unscrutinized studies, unreplicated studies, irrelevant studies, no studies.
Never continue to test a theory once it has been asserted, nor let anyone test the theory or any competing theory.
Ignore it if hypothesis predictions don't hold up to laboratory or real-life scrutiny, and claim success anyway.
Just keep repeating unproven, implausible, untested, and even illogical assertions over and over and over, using media, politicians, bureaucrats, employers, laymen and other stooges to reinforce the mantra of all those unproven assertions.
Promote and recommend illegal, unethical, unscientific actions, while incessantly
using trite, sanctimonious catchphrases like "for the greater good”.
Ignore the morality-based Precautionary Principle, and employ terribly anti-scientific, immoral, proven-dangerous injection-mask-and-lockdown zealotry.
GOOD SCIENCE
Properly use the logical, pinnacle of objectivity and morality - scientific method.
Invite, request and even demand others confirm or deny hypotheses before making claims.
Invite debate, challenge, revision, confirmation of all hypotheses, theories and assertions.
Accept, consider and test competing hypotheses, theories.
Never conflate hypothesis with theory, result, proof, law, fact.
Know the onus is on them, the claimants, to prove beyond doubt the veracity of claims. Readily accept that the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence, analysis and proof must be.
Never, ever be adamant and dismissive with the likes of the nonsensical phrases “the science is settled” or “any other claim is misinformation”. It goes without saying that theories are always subject to change.
Always be willing to revise or completely throw out hypotheses; accept when hypotheses are not confirmed. Readily and publicly retract and admit error; readily admit hypothesis failure.
Revise advice and recommendations as more is learned.
Seek and use all evidence and data, even if contrarian or hypothesis-defeating.
Always follow where data leads, whether it matches expectations or not.
Use long-approved scientific and medical principles at all times; use repeatable methods.
Use clear, precise, and unchanged definitions.
Be very careful about making claims of universal safety and efficacy and results until thoroughly tested and corroborated, often on the order of a decade and more.
Allow the tests of time and scientific experimental replication before making grandiose claims.
Avoid all logical fallacies.
Carefully avoid making unproven, implausible, untested, proven-invalid, and illogical assertions - ever - reminding media, politicians, bureaucrats, employers, laymen and others to do the same.
Rely only upon, and draw conclusions only from, and make cautious assertions based only on good-quality evidence, myriad studies, well-designed studies, adequate studies, heavily-scrutinized studies, replicated studies, relevant studies.
Always continue to test a theory once it has been asserted, and proudly recommend anyone else test the theory or any competing theory.
Revise or discard it if hypothesis predictions don't hold up to laboratory or real-life scrutiny.
At all times consider the morality-based Precautionary Principle, and never promote illegal or unethical, or unscientific actions. Never making holier-than-thou statements about something being “for a greater good” unless and until all good science practices have been followed.
---------------------------- BONUS ----------------------------
Good / civil people:
Do not like or value authoritarianism.
Have no interest in telling other people what to do and how to live.
Will not ever demand that someone put something in his/her body, never mind something novel, experimental, of unknown short- and long-term effect.
Rail against the destruction of peoples' lives, the economy, civil society.
Ask for evidence for claims about novel interventions in the way of safety and efficacy.
Don't lie or use hyperbole or sophistry or sanctimony.
Evil people / a**holes:
Revel in authoritarianism.
Love telling other people what to do and how to live.
Will without hesitation demand that someone put something in his/her body even if something novel, experimental, of unknown short- and long-term effect.
Have no problem with the destruction of peoples' lives, the economy, civil society.
Provide no evidence, nor even seek any, for claims about novel interventions in the way of safety and efficacy.
Lie and use hyperbole and sophistry and sanctimony.