How Science-Based Conclusions are Made

1.      Fact – It is Important to Understand How Science-Based Conclusions are Made – and how they differ from conclusions based on NotScience beliefs (morals, religion, philosophy, laws, arts and politics):  Scientific understanding of the natural world is constantly evolving.  The continual possibility of change in any scientific consensus based on legitimate scientific research is one of the most unique, important and often misunderstood characteristics of science. (My detailed explanation of What Is Science)
However, without a reliable process that allows for a change in consensus based on a fair and accurate evaluation of evolving evidence, science would either be an unchanging, authoritarian belief system, and all of the characteristics of modern society which are based on an evolving understanding of the natural world would not exist –– or scientific understanding resemble a pinball game. continually changing and bouncing around from new idea - to new idea - to new idea, and nothing would be accomplished.
It is critical to understand the difference between:

  • scientists who dispute an established scientific consensus and use legitimate, relevant, accurately presented, reproducible scientific evidence to convince relevant experts the consensus needs changing, and

  •  those who don’t have the evidence to change the scientific consensus, abandon the scientific communities and try to change public opinion instead.

** Science, in any area of study – including fluoridation – can only progress by serious challenges to an accepted scientific consensus by legitimate scientists who acquire and present newly acquired legitimate evidence and who work within the scientific communities to convince other legitimate scientists their evidence is good quality, is fairly represented, is reproducible by others (who will probably be skeptical), and is actually a fair and legitimate challenge to the current consensus.  When those criteria are met the consensus can begin to change – and scientific knowledge (which impacts all of society) progresses. 

  • Mother Nature does not care one whit about politics or any strongly-held personal beliefs.  If you jump off a cliff without taking proper science-based precautions, it does not matter how strongly-held your dismissal of gravity and belief in personal levitation might be, you will pay the natural consequences.

  • Virtually any scientific issue is complex – even for scientists.  There may be thousands of studies conducted over many decades on any given sub-specialty – like fluoridation, vaccination, evolution, climate issues – and the quality and reliability of those studies will range from excellent to poor.  Some studies will be reproducible and some won’t.  Some studies will be designed, conducted and evaluated reasonably and impartially – some will be designed, conducted and evaluated with strong desires for a pre-defined outcome and conclusions.

  • For any given science-based issue, the available body of evidence is evaluated by relevant experts who determine the quality, relevance and reproducibility of each study, and they formulate the best conclusion possible from all the evidence (a scientific consensus).  Obviously, this is a complex process and there is often disagreement among the experts.  Therefore the consensus represents a majority viewpoint at any given time, and it is subject to constant review and modification as new legitimate, reproducible evidence is produced.  Despite potential complications and disputes, a scientific consensus is the best explanation of the data at any given time and is adopted by the majority of relevant experts.  (Wikipedia, Rationalwiki, Bloomberg).

  • In order to change the scientific consensus, legitimate, compelling, reproducible scientific evidence must be presented. For over 70 years, FOs have been completely unable to provide a single high-quality, convincing, legitimate, reproducible, scientific study to support their claims that drinking optimally fluoridated water is ineffective or harmful to health. The scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective has not changed.  Those who dismiss acceptance of the scientific consensus as the most reliable conclusion to trust regarding complex scientific issues, have never provided a workable alternative – except to just ignore the consensus and blindly adopt their conclusions.

  •  Consequently, there is a critical difference between legitimate scientists and health care providers who challenge an accepted scientific consensus and follow the established protocols of working within the scientific community to effect change, and anti-science activists who demand change based only on their strong, inflexible, unsupported beliefs – examples include anti-vaccination activists, anti-fluoridation activists, young-earth/Noah’s-flood activists, anti-water-disinfection activists, activists who believe there is no relationship between climate change and human activities, and the new wave of hydroxychloroquine-‘cure’/anti-mask/anti-distancing fanatics.

  •  As described above, legitimate scientists &/or health care providers do not morph into anti-science activists just because they disagree with a scientific consensus.  Scientists or health care providers morph into Anti-Science Activists when:

    • The morphing anti-science activists (MA-SAs) have extremely strong, inflexible philosophical, political, ethical &/or spiritual beliefs (or business goals) which conflict with a specific scientific consensus. 

    • The evidence MA-SAs claim to have in support of their beliefs is not of convincing quality, has been misrepresented &/or is not reproducible.  Consequently, they are unable to convince relevant expert scientists to consider changing the consensus. 

    • MA-SAs then choose to abandon working within the scientific community to produce more substantial, high-quality supporting evidence.

    • The MA-SAs choose not to work with other scientists to better explain their evidence and perhaps convince the scientific community their evidence and interpretations are valid.

    • MA-SAs choose not to assist others to successfully reproduce and confirm their experimental or observational results.

    • MA-SAs then choose to take their beliefs and their interpretation of the evidence directly to the public in a deliberate effort to bypass the processes of science and hijack the democratic process.

    • MA-SAs adjust and present their ‘evidence’ in a manner (often employing disingenuous, false fear-mongering tactics) that is most likely to sway public opinion and cause well-meaning individuals who don't have relevant scientific training or experience to join their cause.

    • MA-SAs don't correct members of the public who further distort the available ‘evidence’ as they originally presented it – or those who even completely fabricate claims.

    • MA-SAs argue to the public that their interpretation of their ‘evidence’ is more legitimate than the interpretation of the vast majority of evidence by the overwhelming majority of scientists they disagree with.

    • MA-SAs often promote the idea that mainstream scientists and health care professionals who support the scientific consensus should not be trusted because they are part of some vaguely defined (and completely unproven) conspiracy – or they have not bothered to adequately understand and evaluate the evidence and just blindly accept the position of others.

    • At that point the scientists &/or health care providers have abandoned the legitimate practices of science and have become anti-science activists.  Unfortunately, since many members of the public hold similar, very strong beliefs about the same science-based issues (even though they don't have the training or experience to personally evaluate decades of complex scientific evidence), the anti-science activists can frequently find uncritical public support for their opinions.  Other converts can be recruited by employing some of the tactics described below.

  • The consequences of ignoring science-based conclusions and resulting anti-science actions by individuals with strongly-held, inflexible beliefs in their rights and personal freedoms has probably never been demonstrated more obviously than by the current pandemic.  Similarities of anti-science beliefs:

    • Ignoring the scientific consensus that face mask use, social distancing and responsible isolation limits the spread of viruses has led (and will continue to lead) to the spread of the covid-19 virus.

    •  Ignoring and discounting the scientific consensus that vaccinations limit the spread of viruses has led (and will continue to lead) to the spread of communicable diseases.

    • Ignoring and dismissing the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and reduces the risk of tooth decay has led (and will continue to lead) to an increase in dental decay and related health and social issues, particularly for the disadvantaged.