scientific method ( n ) : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. (Merriam-Webster)
There are six key steps to the scientific method and they are as follows
Form a Hypothesis
Accept or Reject Hypothesis based on findings.
(Steps of the Scientific Method, Thought Co.)
The first and most important step is asking questions. Science, in practice, is never settled; questions should continue to be asked, variables must always be addressed, and the research must be repeated and found with a consensus within the scientific community that the hypothesis is supported many times. There are unlimited variables that can occur in an ever changing world, especially in which biology is in a constant state of flux due to a continual state of evolution, adaptation and mutation within all living organisms.
So to put it incredibly simply, biology is adaptive and changing and will continue to do so, so therefore, those in the scientific community must continue to ask questions in order to attempt to keep up with these changes.
“The Science is Settled”
We hear these words echo throughout our nation today, in regards to the coronavirus pandemic. Many talking heads in our political offices and main stream media may as well be shouting these words from the mountaintops. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself regularly speaks with such confidence regardless of the countless time's he's flip flopped and changed his mind on how “settled” the science is, and that his guidance and direction must be taken as if it were scripture.
By design, science is intended to be questioned, why then, do those whom are simply asking questions falling subject to the character slander of a “science denier,” an “anti vaxxer,” a “conspiracy theorist” or even worse, a Q Anon Trump supporter?
Science has, due to authoritarian rhetoric, become an opiate of the masses, in which studies and data are cherry picked to confirm biases and regurgitated over social media quicker than a Snopes fact check can load from a Google search (because let's face it, they're not using Duck Duck Go). Sounds a lot like a religious cult to me.
“Trust the Science.”
In America, over the last 100 years we have been known to become one of the most unhealthy countries in the world, where gluttony, GMOs, and the medical industrial complex reign superior to health and wellness.
Now listen, I'm not an anti-vaxxer, but I am in full support of voluntary informed consent for one to make a decision for themselves, between themselves and their doctor, on whether taking a vaccine is the right choice for them or not.
If people want to take their chances with the virus, they should be free to do so. If they prefer to support their body's immune system by incorporating healthy habits, they should be free to do so.
The mainstream community, will easily slander and label someone as a science denier, simply for making a personal choice of pursuing herbalism and immune support in lieu of synthetic pharmaceuticals. How is it a denial of science, that our bodies are capable of doing what they're designed to, when facing any given antigen, if properly supported?
If you have 2 identical vehicles, same make and model, same annual mileage, no accidents, but one vehicle keeps to the manufacturer's suggested maintenance, and the other is subject to more neglect, which car is going to perform better if sent on an identical road trip throughout the country, experiencing varying weather conditions along the way, varying terrain, and high stress on the mechanics of the vehicle?
People need to be free to choose. They can be free to run their car into the ground, but then must assume the potential consequences, repairs and devaluation. Why then, is this same approach not allowed to be taken with our health?
“Believe in Science.”
I've seen these actions first hand, many are the first to “preach the science” are also the first to deny the existence of the science supporting alternative routes to handling a viral outbreak. Can you support science, but deny Darwinism and the harsh reality that we may be facing a case of survival of the fittest?
Are we attempting to live in an unsustainable version of altruism?
It's not that naturalists and herbalists don't care about the rest of the population, it's that they want to empower and inspire others into taking an active role in their immunity, and have a different life experience and perspective on how to make it through a viral outbreak. How has it been helping, with lockdowns to tell people to stay indoors, away from sunlight and becoming deficient in Vitamin D, which is incredibly important for immune support? How has closing gyms been useful in keeping people healthy? How has binging Netflix, putting people into states of depression lead to substance abuse, overdose, and a decline in overall health, equipped the masses against a novel virus?
Many I've spoken to, and yes this is clearly anecdotal and I'm not claiming that THIS is “science”, have said that they have increased bad habits over the last year, putting them into a worsened state to defend themselves if they become infected with Covid-19, and sadly these same folks are the first ones waiting for authority to tell them how to survive, whilst simultaneously trading wellness for a chemically altered lifestyle that lacks accountability and consequence.
One of my biggest gripes with humanity has always been about how we fuck with nature to the point where she bites us back even harder over and over again. Are we then, possibly the creating force for these super bugs to continue to emerge, whilst weakening our natural defenses further and further by becoming reliant on synthetic immunity? Sure, medicine has created miracles for us over the years and allowed the most people to live the best lives they possibly can while dealing with critical issues, as a chronically ill person I'm not denying the relevance of modern medicine, yet the pendulum always swings back just as hard the other way once it reverses direction, and that, is settled science.
As free people in the free world, we can choose how we want to handle our survival during this time. We can choose whether we prefer natural vs synthetic. I'm not judging anyone either way! It's wholly up to you and I will respect that decision and die on this hill for your right to choose whichever is right for you! But no one has any authority whatsoever to make that decision on anyone else's behalf, and if a government is taking it upon themselves to “decide the science” we have a very rude Huxleyan awakening about to unfold. (I highly suggest reading Brave New World if you haven't, by the way.)
“A gramme is better than a damn...”
-Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
As libertarians, we just want to be left alone and many of us want to live and let live, as nature intended. So, how exactly are these alternative voices within our community the science deniers?