The presence of people who are against wearing masks, against regulations informed by the latest medical data, is just the most recent manifestation of the politicization of a "belief in science."

I don't want to say "I told you so," but this is exactly why I had reservations about getting scientists more involved with politics, and why I disagreed with the idea of a "Science March." See this thread for my thoughts at the time: https://twitter.com/M_Methuselah/status/925184115686723584

Are you confused about why there's such a strong distrust among the populace about safety edicts that are informed by scientific evidence?

There's no part of the mechanism...

from the academy that regulates the research, the media that reports on it, the platforms and tech giants that distribute it, the government systems that respond to it, and the activists that drive change and react to it...

that isn't broken.

"Belief in science" has become nothing more than a campaign slogan. It does nothing but signal a belief in the current paradigm, and trust for the institutions that deliver the edicts.

An actual "belief" in science involves belief in the process rather than the conclusions. And that process involves ceaseless questioning and skepticism at every step of the way.

The problem that we're now facing is that the people who "believe" have been and are using it as a political cudgel whenever convenient, which does nothing more than discredit their edicts by association among the populace, despite how accurate any individual edict may be.

For instance, I certainly think that the guidelines we've been given regarding the pandemic are up to date, accurate, and designed to reduce the spread of the virus. I also trust our academic and medical institutions to be accurate regarding the data on such matters.

What if I had been led to distrust such institutions based on repeated and blatant instances of bias and selective reporting, and my idea of what "science" happens to be is based on the politicized "belief" version that features in polarized marches and browbeating editorials?

The academy's internal embrace of ideological activism has done as much harm to the integrity of the scientific enterprise (both in terms of epistemic accuracy and a more utilitarian public/common good sense) as traditional ideological/religious resistance to science ever did.

There's no distinction between how the academy treats, and how the media reports on, the "scientific consensus" surrounding every single issue.

The consequences?

1. Debate and discussion of issues that are unsettled or have politically inconvenient results are silenced or mischaracterized.

2. Issues that actually have depth and consensus of data are are constantly questioned and discussed as unsettled.

So this is how we end up with a situation where we have a politically motivated academy and an even worse media establishment that does nothing to clear up their nonsense surrounding GMOs, nuclear power, biological sex differences, intelligence research, etc.

And simultaneously, we have a big problem with people not listening to those institutions as they correctly report on the reality of climate change, the evidence behind evolutionary theory, an earth that isn't flat and the best practices regarding wearing masks during a pandemic.

When the output from the academy is reliably filtered among polarized political lines, especially regarding polarized political issues, why the hell are you confused when people choose to tap out and rely on their own "lived experiences?"

Your ability to convincingly complain about a lack of "belief in science" (in an individual or a political tribe) is entirely predicated on the lack of political/ideological bias of the science that you tout.

If your MO is to increase that bias, to rely on and revel in it, then your complaints amount to nothing more than indignation that your ideological opponents have employed an equal and opposite bias.

"Equal and opposite bias."

That should be the subtitle of the history book that covers this century.

So where does this leave us?

The efficacy of the academy (in terms of public good) is based on public trust. Trust affects investment/funding, credential valuation, and whether people will listen to experts.

Public trust of the academy is based on epistemic accuracy. This accuracy is dependant upon transparency, openness, skepticism, and a commitment to reducing bias through active measures and passive systemic structure.

The academy and its adjacent classes have been puzzling over an apparent lack of "belief in science" among the populace, and have been rightly pointing out that it is a problem and a threat to the public good.

Yet there is no introspection. The academy has not upheld its end of the bargain.

Their solution to the problem? Complain about the uneducated masses and double down on ideological commitments, oblivious to why anyone would express distrust.

And anyone who tries to clean house and fix the problems from the inside is lumped in with the distrusting populace, deemed ignorant and reactionary.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that this is an emergent feature of the present academy structure, with activism being rewarded and amplified in spite of most scientists remaining committed to the accurate research of their respective fields.

My conclusion is that this is now a public health issue, and problems with people refusing to wear masks and refusing to trust the academy regarding things like climate change are only starting to compound on themselves. Forgive the cliche, but people are quite literally dying.

Browbeating the "ignorant and uneducated masses" is not the solution. The academy and adjacent classes need to fix themselves and do what they can to actually earn the trust of the people that they're supposed to be helping.

Instead, all they've done is cultivate ire, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.

When you tout "believe in our conclusions" as "belief in science," and then change your conclusions based on evidence like you're supposed to, you're going to end up with people doubting ALL of your conclusions.

(Of course, you're already screwed if you don't follow the evidence. Let's assume that you are following the evidence, at least on this issue.)

This only goes double for if the media giants choose to censor and eliminate any voices that question the currently accepted narrative.