Papa Loves Mumbo
Poor old Papa Franny. He doesn’t look too happy in this picture. He’s been pontificating again. Technically speaking he’s probably the only person in the world who can, but why on earth should anyone listen to him when he talks of science, or facts? He’s probably got a decent take on superstition, though, being the head of a religion. I mean, someone who thinks you can mumble a few words and magically transform a bit of bread probably shouldn’t be trying to lecture us about superstition.
And as for science?
Well I have only two words for you Franny, me old chum : Galileo Galilei
Galileo is the Great Stain in the Papal Underpants of Scientific Credibility that just won’t go away - even on a hot wash.
As mistakes go, it was a biggie. People talk about dredging up old tweets to find some dirt on someone, but they have nothing on the Vatican. Imagine a 4 centuries old tweet being dug up? Yet with this single example of Papal prattishness the reputation of the Catholic Church has been forever, and irreparably, tarnished when it comes to matters scientific.
It’s not the only reputation they’ve managed to tarnish. If I did a kind of word Rorschach test and asked you to think of the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the words “parish priest, altar boy” I can pretty much predict what association a very sizeable majority would draw. But I have no sympathy for the Catholic Church in this regard - they brought it on themselves.
Papal infallibility? The only thing they’ve managed on that score is to infallibly tarnish their own reputation.
There are some interesting parallels between religion and science - and perhaps even more interesting ones between religion and The Science™. Science has always had its priests and cardinals - the experts who can interpret things better than mere ordinary mortals. Newton, Gauss, Einstein, Noether, Dirac, Feynman - and a fair few others - can rightly be viewed as ‘cardinals’ with access to knowledge and ways of thinking unimaginable to the vast majority of us.
Science is not a democracy, and never has been. Even though I am a scientist (mostly retired now) I do not have as much right to a scientific opinion as a Witten or a Mermin. I just don’t. Doesn’t mean they’re always going to be right - but if I disagree with something they say about science the sensible bet would be to put your money on them.
One thing I’ve noticed about these extraordinary men and women, these scientific ‘cardinals’, is that they can be wrong - but they are very rarely trivially wrong.
This observation of mine, correct or incorrect, is perhaps the single thing that has given me pause over this whole covid debacle. I have asked myself, so many times, why so many gifted and brilliant scientists appeared to have got things wrong about covid. And, in my view, not just wrong but trivially wrong. What was I not seeing? Why did my conclusions differ so greatly from theirs?
Take masks, for example. It seems bloody obvious to me that they’re going to be about as much use as a one-legged man at an arse-kicking contest in preventing the spread of covid. But so many very capable scientists just fell into line when the ‘science’ changed in 2020. There still isn’t any good evidence to suggest they are effective - even minimally.
The one ‘pro-mask’ study that you’ll see splashed about is the Bangladesh mask study. But that was a complete farce. How do you trust any study that has a difference in effectiveness between red/purple cloth masks that is about the same size as the claimed difference in effectiveness for mask/no-mask? There are many problems with the Bangladesh study, but this single fact, alone, would make me go “Oops” if I’d been involved in the study. I’d know at that point there was something very deeply flawed in the methodology employed.
Actually my response would be more on the lines of “oh crap, we’ve really screwed this up. If you’re going to publish this shit - take my name off it”
But even there I would still have a sliver of doubt. Could it be possible that colour makes a difference? It’s not entirely bonkers. After all, perceived colour is about the spectrum of light that is emitted. This means that there’s a difference in things like the electron transitions at an atomic and molecular level - and perhaps the virus is sensitive to these? Somewhat unlikely that this will be in any way significant, if it exists at all, because by far and way the biggest factor is the fluid mechanics of breath and breathing - the air has to get in and out - and it’s not really through the mask, but around it.
When you’re breathing through a mask, like a properly fitted N95 for example, then analogies like mosquitos and chain-link fences become apposite - and there’s no good evidence that N95 masks work either.
But I digress. The point is that beliefs, with very little evidence to back them up, became widespread. Look at just some of the things we were asked to believe
we were invited to believe that asymptomatic transmission was a significant factor in disease spread
we were invited to believe that surface transmission was a significant factor in disease spread
we were invited to believe that plastic screens made a difference to disease spread
we were invited to believe that masks made a useful difference to disease spread. In some places we were asked to believe in masks even outside!!
we were asked to believe this was a very deadly virus and that we faced an unprecedented situation
we were asked to believe that lockdowns were a useful tool to significantly affect the spread of the disease
we were asked to believe that school closures were a necessary thing to limit the spread of the disease
were were asked to believe that you posed a risk when sitting by yourself, all alone, on a deserted beach
Not a single one of these things had any good evidence to back them up. Not one. That evidence is still non-existent. We were asked to believe a shopping list of measures and things about the virus - all of which were not supported by evidence.
Papa Franny must be salivating at how it is possible, in this day and age, to get so many people to believe absurd crap with no supporting evidence. It’s almost a Pontiff’s wet dream (are they allowed to have those?) - getting that many people to have faith.
And this is before we get to the extraordinary faith people placed in the vaccines. The mRNA Messiah was, understandably, proclaimed loudly. After all, many people were desperate to get out of the shit-hole their governments had put them in. But, alas, it turned out it wasn’t the Messiah, but a very naughty prick.
So, in one sense, Papa Franny was bang on the money. These last two years have been characterised by collective superstitions and pseudo-scientific truths - just not quite in the way he thinks, though.
Well, at the very least, we must credit Pope Francis for his courage in speaking out. What a controversial position he is taking! How brave. I am glad when religious leaders use their position of authority to parrot government propaganda and talking points. (Part of the reason I was relieved to see the Dalai Lama and Sadhguru pushing Covid vaccination. It would be devastating if a spiritual leader were to demonstrate profound wisdom and prescience.)
Why are you assuming that literally any of the actual scientists asserting these measures actually believe in their efficacy and have not simply been acting to seize power or save their jobs from the beginning?
Here's an explanation that I think is at least as parsimonious as "brilliant scientists suddenly forget fundamental principles they've known and acted under for years": Oh, shit, this thing is happening. Politicians want to do SOMEthing. What's a good, demonstrative thing we can say they should do that probably won't do a distinguishable amount of harm against a pandemic that's happening anyway, that will get us spotlight and also keep us on the good side of the people using the situation to seize power?