Abstract
Two decades ago, Robert Proctor coined the term agnotology to refer to the study of ignorance that stems from scientific research. Amid the coronavirus disease pandemic, the world is witnessing the greatest natural experiment ever, and countries have adopted different response strategies. An evaluation of the effectiveness of different policies will play a valuable role in preparing for future public health emergencies. However, controversial issues such as the timing and pathways of viral emergence, the effectiveness of social distancing and lockdown strategies, and the use of antimalarial drugs as therapy have still not been fully resolved. This serves as a fertile breeding ground for agnotological strategies, whereby scientific studies are deliberately or unintentionally designed to create distractions or draw conclusions that are not supported by research findings. Researchers, public health authorities, and healthcare workers should be equipped to identify such agnotological strategies, distinguish them from scientific fraud, and avoid drawing misleading inferences based on an irrational adherence to hypotheses and a lack of criticism of implausible results.
Highlights
In his famous essay titled, On the Sources of Knowledge and Ignorance[1], the Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper (1902–1994) has discussed a series of fundamental issues that address the objectivity of scientific knowledge
It may surprise an orthodox practitioner of evidence-based medicine (EBM) to learn that, in accordance with a tradition that dates back to David Hume (1711–1776), Popper rejected induction, which refers to the notion that a series of observations and experiments allows one to draw inferences about general scientific laws or generate “recommendations.” Popper’s views can be summarized as follows: “there are several sources of knowledge, but science progresses blindly toward the truth rather by eliminating errors than from gathering cumulative evidences.”
How do epistemological disputes concern scientific responses to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic? At this juncture, we must recall Robert Proctor’s concept of agnotology, which refers to the study of the production of ignorance[7]
Summary
How do epistemological disputes concern scientific responses to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic? At this juncture, we must recall Robert Proctor’s (born 1954) concept of agnotology, which refers to the study of the production of ignorance (especially through scientific research)[7]. Proctor was interested in ignorance as an active construct, which refers to the deliberate use of scientific research to distract or distort public attention. This is much more sophisticated than scientific fraud. The catastrophic impact of the pandemic on both health and economics has fueled politically charged discussions on social restriction and lockdown policies[13] This issue requires much research, but it is very unlikely that any evidence (as used by the Cochrane Collaboration) will emerge in the near future[11]. I assume that no fraud was involved in data collection or analysis in these studies
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
