Which scientific studies is your analysis based on? If this question is part of constructive criticism, then it will serve to advance understanding. However, there are important occasions when such question is unjustified. Lack of critique and facts may lead to fact resistance, pseudoscience and fake news. Excessive criticism and demands on evidence may obstruct knowledge.
Russel's famous quote capsules one side of the spectrum:
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
-Bertrand Russell
The hazard at the other side is to be found in Asimov’s Foundation trilogy, where reliance on pure facts and old studies, instead of reason, is a technique that the masters employ to control the universe.
True, but we have trained them. Their knowledge of their tools is purely empirical; and they have a firm belief in the mummery that surrounds them … And if one pierces through the mummery, and has the genius to brush aside empiricism, what is to prevent him from learning actual techniques …?
-Isaac Asimov
The masters of the universe aspire to keep their subjects tied to old knowledge and technology, i.e. the past, while they will use reason to act in real time. If subjects are required to present an empirical study to motivate every action, then they will be hopelessly behind and become vulnerable to manipulations. Their present conditioned by those who rely on reason or deceit, even with the prowess of contemporary data-mining tools in mind. For each study, a sufficiently complex counter-study could be presented to stall. Political issues can for example be buried with investigations.
The public discourse is tainted by both of these extremes in times of crisis. Critique is marginalised with reference to science, to the extent that insistence on scientific studies has become a hazard.
Russell’s famous quote can be abused to brand those who call for action as fools, in support of passivity. It is therefore important to doubt the doubters. I think one should add:
And the greatest fanatical fools think that they are wiser, certain about that they are meaningfully doubting themselves. Doubt does not guarantee wisdom, especially when immediate action is required.
The following variations are also instructive:
- Russel perhaps doubted himself when he considered the foundations of pure mathematics, and perturbed the course of the intellectual history of humankind. You may just be an idiot.
- If you doubt your previous doubts, you may avoid falsehood and choose to be correct.
- To begin with, it is highly unlikely that you are as wise as Russel. With or without doubts...
- One way to put it, is that if you are wise, then you sometimes doubt. But if you doubt, you may just be too drunk to find your keys. And you are not a fool just because you are certain.
- You should doubt Russel’s statement about doubt.
There is an easy way out. Those who ask for scientific studies etc. should be required to answer the following questions. Which part of the argument do you think needs additional studies? What kind of study? Why?
There are two important reasons to doubt the doubters in the pursuit of knowledge:
Firstly, because demands on scientific studies is a demand for exactness. Such requirement only makes sense if those who ask can point out which part of the argument is in need of such addition. Otherwise it is not a valid critique, the doubt does not reach beyond a simple rhetorical remark, and it is irrational to discard an argument on such grounds.
Secondly, motives other than the pursuit of truth, e.g. a hidden agenda. The objections may also be associated with intellectual sloppiness. A sign that the individual is unable to reason properly – why think when you can Google. It makes little sense to make demands without being able to answer the simple aforementioned questions. Such individual would most likely be unable to understand scientific papers anyway, and perhaps even be unable to distinguish science from pseudoscience in the first place.
Both of these categories are compatible with fact resistance, e.g. fake news. An artificial dichotomy between reason and facts to serve political ends is a hazard, and so is insistence on equivalence.
My article about the weaknesses of Herd Immunity* has symptomatically been questioned along aforementioned lines, with demands on scientific studies. I am glad that it provokes such questions. Truth be told, the argument was formulated at the outset of current events, with even less facts in mind. The arguments are nevertheless valid.