It is fitting that it takes the similar linguistic form. If for charity, we consider that only something past 1950 qualifies (taking away e.g. the most obvious scientific rhetoric for racism), then let us remember:
- The reproducibility crisis.
- The abject failure of food science to identify the diabetic potential of the high carbohydrate diet, leading to at least millions of quality years of life lost.
- The in some ways inevitable scientific approval of thalidomide, Vioxx, and other recalled substances, even after long rounds of testing.
- The early 2000s near-pause in global warming, despite climate scientists’ projections, and despite the predicted consequences that carbon dioxide accumulation (vs. emission) is a key driver in global warming (so why would higher parts per million result in such a long decline in increase?).
- Indeed, any long-term statement about weather (vs. climate), for which no one has any ability to predict the future.
- The embarrassing about-face by (some) scientists who claimed that ordinary (non-medical-grade) face masks are not useful for ordinary citizens in preventing viral transmission (I don’t take a position on this point here; I mean only to point out that this change in authorities’ messaging occurred).
- The history of toxic substances (lead, asbestos) being replaced by other substances (MTBE) that also cause harm. Worse, the long backlog of currently produced chemicals, for which no clear understanding of safe exposure exists. (so you cannot appeal to current scientists for an understanding)
- The ongoing history of attempting to cure cancer – a valiant, but difficult story of surprises, failed attempts, and in general the exposure of our gross human ignorance to the complexity of our own bodies.
These are not authorities you wish to, or in some cases even theoretically can, accept on authority. Instruction, education, leads, advice, yes of course we should work together: but not belief in credentials, or the infallibility of a conclusion.