This paper is very irresponsible in implying that this virus skeptic community was "doing science". This is the very definition of Cargo Cult science and that should be made explicit. The paper should explicitly state how what they are doing is not science but simply using some science tools. In particular the virus skeptics could not put things in context, could not think critically, did not try to disprove their hypothesis, indulged in confirmation bias. All these need to be pointed out. I don't think the paper passed any sort of peer review?
The strangest part of that study to me was them equivocating anti-masking with being pro-school reopenings. That plus the Merriam-Webster definition of anti-vaxxer now including people who oppose mandatory vaccination has me feeling all sorts of label-confusion.
This paper is very irresponsible in implying that this virus skeptic community was "doing science". This is the very definition of Cargo Cult science and that should be made explicit. The paper should explicitly state how what they are doing is not science but simply using some science tools. In particular the virus skeptics could not put things in context, could not think critically, did not try to disprove their hypothesis, indulged in confirmation bias. All these need to be pointed out. I don't think the paper passed any sort of peer review?
The strangest part of that study to me was them equivocating anti-masking with being pro-school reopenings. That plus the Merriam-Webster definition of anti-vaxxer now including people who oppose mandatory vaccination has me feeling all sorts of label-confusion.