Science based on experiments that are not repeatable by anyone cannot have the legitimacy that have been traditionally assigned to Science. Because where does the credibility of science come from? It comes from the fact that anyone can do an experiment, and the results will agree.
If you do an experiment that very few people in the world is able to replicate, because it is hard or due to lack of resources, then the rest of the world have to trust you.
Then it is no longer science or credible as science. If we go by the logic that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, then the chain that started from science, and ended with a trust in the entity doing science cannot be as strong as science, and it can only be strong as the trust in the entity, since it is the weakest link.
So the public has been a victim to bait and switch, I think. The authorities buy the credibility and trust of the people by touting science.
So ultimately the decision of an individual if they want to trust you (the entity that did the experiment) or not, is really up to them. And if you do mandates based on such science, then you are really imposing your trust/belief on to others.
This is exactly like imposing your religion over others of a different faith.
And that should be pushed back and resisted with everything we have got.
You can argue that we will lose a lot of things if we go by this idea. But it does not have to be. No one is asking to give up such things. But the trust in them should not, and cannot be mandated.
Just like one have the freedom to believe in or not believe in a religion.
So if a scientist want people to believe in their research, they should do so by publishing research and explaining it in an accessible way, so that more people will have a chance to be convinced, voluntarily. And similarly when an authority makes a suggestion based on that research, more people will go along voluntarily.
This is not unlike the idea that public health authorities should re-gain the trust of the people by becoming more transparent. But with a crucial difference.
The trust of people should be won, research by research, not authority by authority, and the non-requirement of mandates goes along automatically with that idea.
That's what the French did, everything was explained and accessible. It isn't good enough and people aren't vaccinating fast enough, hence limitations to push people to vaccinate ( but it isn't mandatory, just very highly encouraged ).
I'm a bit torn on the subject, but i think it's better to limit those making a personal choice not to vaccinate themselves and protect themselves and everyone than limit them and everyone else.
Edit to say: yep it's true, Macron announced it last night. It's subject to debate and approval of the proposed law, so it isn't a fact yet.
Science based on experiments that are not repeatable by anyone cannot have the legitimacy that have been traditionally assigned to Science. Because where does the credibility of science come from? It comes from the fact that anyone can do an experiment, and the results will agree.
If you do an experiment that very few people in the world is able to replicate, because it is hard or due to lack of resources, then the rest of the world have to trust you.
Then it is no longer science or credible as science. If we go by the logic that a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, then the chain that started from science, and ended with a trust in the entity doing science cannot be as strong as science, and it can only be strong as the trust in the entity, since it is the weakest link.
So the public has been a victim to bait and switch, I think. The authorities buy the credibility and trust of the people by touting science.
So ultimately the decision of an individual if they want to trust you (the entity that did the experiment) or not, is really up to them. And if you do mandates based on such science, then you are really imposing your trust/belief on to others.
This is exactly like imposing your religion over others of a different faith.
And that should be pushed back and resisted with everything we have got.
You can argue that we will lose a lot of things if we go by this idea. But it does not have to be. No one is asking to give up such things. But the trust in them should not, and cannot be mandated.
Just like one have the freedom to believe in or not believe in a religion.
So if a scientist want people to believe in their research, they should do so by publishing research and explaining it in an accessible way, so that more people will have a chance to be convinced, voluntarily. And similarly when an authority makes a suggestion based on that research, more people will go along voluntarily.
This is not unlike the idea that public health authorities should re-gain the trust of the people by becoming more transparent. But with a crucial difference.
The trust of people should be won, research by research, not authority by authority, and the non-requirement of mandates goes along automatically with that idea.