MIT study finds anti-maskers ‘trust science’ more than others

[WorthyBot]

It turns out that the “skeptics” and “anti-maskers” who often are mocked by media and government for challenging the conventional narrative regarding the COVID-19 pandemic are the ones who “trust the science,” according to a study by MIT researchers.

The study, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” analyzed the viewpoint of skeptics toward the pandemic from March to September 2020, largely by studying Facebook groups and Twitter posts, the National File reported.

“For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less,” the researchers concluded.   …read more (Source)

View the full article

[Sparks]

According to MIT, I guess I trust the science. 

[Ozarkbound]

I live in the South and have been to several states for trips and vacations. I have worn a mask very little since this plandemic began. I have not even had a cold.

[Guest kingdombrat]

If you got to MIT's site, this same article makes it appear that those who were against wearing masks took scientific data and twisted it.   Odd how portions of this article here makes the mask refusals look genius, but on MIT's site, like scammers.

[teddyv]

I think people really need to read the study (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf).

This bit from the introduction is interesting:

Quote

Put differently, there is no such thing as dispassionate or objective data analysis. Instead, there are stories: stories shaped by cultural logics,animated by personal experience, and entrenched by collective action. This story is about how a public health crisis—refracted through seemingly objective numbers and data visualizations—is part of a broader battleground about scientific epistemology and democracy in modern American life.

The study indicates that anti-maskers are  sophisticated in using the native data in such a way to generate their own counter-story or counter-narrative to the mainstream. 

There is some mention about non-neutral data I find to be particularly profound statement, as there is a common understanding that things like scientific advances and technology is usually neutral but can be used for good or evil purposes. 

Also read the last section "Implications and Conclusions".

[teddyv]

1 minute ago, kingdombrat said:

If you got to MIT's site, this same article makes it appear that those who were against wearing masks took scientific data and twisted it.   Odd how portions of this article here makes the mask refusals look genius, but on MIT's site, like scammers.

Read the actual article. Don't rely on either National File (or God forbid, World Net Daily) or MIT to make that call.

[Sparks]

23 hours ago, teddyv said:

The study indicates that anti-maskers are  sophisticated in using the native data in such a way to generate their own counter-story or counter-narrative to the mainstream. 

For me, it was the realization of how freakishly small a virus really is compared to how large the pores are in a mask, in particular those wearing old rags rather than an n95.   It was in knowing that a mask itself, worn all day would trap bacteria like Legionella that can make you sick.  It was in watching the virtue signalers wearing their masks while all alone in a sunny park, or driving alone in their car that made me lose faith in people knowing 'the science.'  I could only guess that they were trying to 'protect' themselves, from themselves.

Now if you needed protection while working with fiberglass insulation, an n95 is great.  An n95 might also even block some bacteria, since bacteria is relatively large, but you can forget about being protected from a virus that is literally smaller than the length of blue light.  Yeah, you read that right.  The wave length of blue light is much larger than a virus, 20 times larger.  Even very nice water filters that block virtually every kind of bacteria and metal, pollutant cannot stop a virus from passing straight through them.  Consider that you could not breath through the tight packing in a water filter, and but if you could, it still would not do the the job.

[PeterR]

As far as I know, the germ theory of disease is still NOT a proven FACT, i.e. has no basis in real science. Then if I am not afraid of something that has never been proven to cause harm, does it mean I trust science? No, but if I faithfully lick the handrails of shopping carts in front of the supermarket, I will certainly be considered a "heretic" by many.

[missmuffet]

On 5/17/2021 at 7:18 PM, WorthyBot said:

It turns out that the “skeptics” and “anti-maskers” who often are mocked by media and government for challenging the conventional narrative regarding the COVID-19 pandemic are the ones who “trust the science,” according to a study by MIT researchers.

The study, “Viral Visualizations: How Coronavirus Skeptics Use Orthodox Data Practices to Promote Unorthodox Science Online,” analyzed the viewpoint of skeptics toward the pandemic from March to September 2020, largely by studying Facebook groups and Twitter posts, the National File reported.

“For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less,” the researchers concluded.   …read more (Source)

View the full article

They trust science and not God? That tells me a lot right there. 

[Sparks]

20 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

They trust science and not God? That tells me a lot right there. 

I am not too sure what you mean here, and who says that you cannot trust the science, and God?   It's not a mutually exclusive problem.  You can do both.

Science, by the way, is a tool of observation and testing within the limits of the natural world.  Science, the tool, cannot work within the supernatural realm.