What ‘science’ needs is less hubris and more humility.

The push to impose rule by “scientific consensus” continues apace — even as the American people clearly rejected that view in the last election (thanks in no small part to how the public health consensus blew the Covid response). But the science powers that be refuse to learn. In fact, they appear to be doubling down. Now, Ethan Siegel, an astrophysicist and award-winning science writer, advocates for criminally and civilly punishing violators of the “scientific consensus.”

First, Siegel defines what he means by “scientific consensus.” From, “4 Key Steps to Transform the USA Back into a Scientific Nation:”

Only in the presence of decisive evidence can consensus be achieved. Consensus is not “the end goal” of science, but rather a starting point for future advances: the foundation of what is not just known, but is widely accepted for good reason, at present. Consensus is, to be blunt, what the overwhelming majority of professionals have concluded is already strongly established by the existing evidence so far.

But conformity of belief does not make right. The supposed scientific consensus can be more ideology than science. Take eugenics. For decades in the early 20th century, the scientific consensus supported dividing human beings into the “fit” and “unfit.” That consensus became so motivating that many states passed laws requiring involuntary sterilizations, a pernicious policy supported by an 8–1 decision in the Supreme Court, with Buck v Bell (1927) becoming one of history’s great injustices.

Siegel really goes off the rail when he argues that actions taken contrary to the scientific consensuses should subject the violator to criminal or civil punishment for “reckless endangerment.” He writes:

Make “reckless endangerment” illegal. If you drive while intoxicated and kill a pedestrian or crash your vehicle into a piece of property, you’re liable for the damage your reckless actions cause: criminally and civilly. If you poison someone’s drink, you’re liable for the consequences that befall them. . . . These criminal acts endanger the lives of others, and — as a result s [sic] — we have laws and regulations that make these behaviors illegal, with significant punitive consequences for those who dare to endanger or harm the lives of others.

Siegel would similarly punish those who violate the scientific consensus:

People constantly recklessly endanger others by opting out of vaccines against preventable diseases for no justifiable medical reason, leading to deaths among those who are unable to protect themselves: the immunocompromised and those too young to vaccinate. And, as we saw during the most recent global pandemic, people willfully chose to defy public health recommendations without suffering any punitive consequences, leading to the unnecessary illness of tens of millions and deaths of over a million in the United States alone.

It should not be legal to knowingly endanger the health and safety of others, particularly when the science is overwhelmingly decisive. Just because the harm isn’t visible or immediate doesn’t make it any less of an act of recklessness…

If we let science, rather than ideology, be our guide, we will have a safer, healthier, and more sustainable society for generations to come.

No! Not following the scientific consensus, say, by refusing a flu or Covid shot should not be a crime or subject one to civil liability. Such a system would amount to an authoritarian technocracy. The better and more free approach is for trusted agencies and institutions to publish guidelines on these matters, as experts seek to persuade and doctors counsel patients.

And here is where Siegel really gets things backwards:

We can imagine a society where legitimate expertise was valued, and where all claims were subject to the scrutiny of the scientific consensus. We can envision a society where charlatans and snake-oil salespersons were exposed as frauds rather than lauded as celebrity gurus and appointed to the President’s cabinet.

Good grief. Claims should not be subject to the scrutiny of the scientific consensus; rather, the scientific consensus should always be subject to challenge by heterodox theories and hypothesis! Otherwise, it isn’t actual science.

And Siegel makes the classic mistake of conflating security for freedom.

And we can create an environment where it’s safe to go about our daily lives without a legitimate fear that those we come into contact with will infect us, or our loved ones who may be at an elevated risk, with a routinely preventable disease. We can trade an illusory and fallacious idea of what “freedom” is for actual freedom: the freedom to go about our lives knowing that the simple act of doing so won’t put our lives at unnecessary risk.

Deciding what to put in our bodies is not a “fallacious” freedom. The vaccine mandates during Covid were an exploding cigar that led to serious side effects among some and led to good people being fired unnecessarily from the military, hospitals, schools, etc., causing great institutional harm and loss of trust. The lockdown of schools followed the consensus too, and it was a catastrophe.

Attitudes like those expressed by Siegel have cost the scientific sector much of the public’s trust and goodwill. Hopefully, that will be reversed. But a properly balanced relationship with expertise won’t be restored by imposing autocratic consensus rules upon society. What “science” really needs is less hubris and more humility.