Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
SBMT-1_4befba13443c636a0d6aae403e16acaf |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S0037-86822020000100207 |
network_acronym_str |
SBMT-1 |
network_name_str |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 scienceCoronavirus diseaseEpidemiologyKnowledgePhilosophyAbstract 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - SBMT2020-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical v.53 2020reponame:Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropicalinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)instacron:SBMT10.1590/0037-8682-0475-2020info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Brancoeng2020-09-18T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0037-86822020000100207Revistahttps://www.sbmt.org.br/portal/revista/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||dalmo@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br|| rsbmt@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br1678-98490037-8682opendoar:2020-09-18T00:00Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
title |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
spellingShingle |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco Coronavirus disease Epidemiology Knowledge Philosophy |
title_short |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
title_full |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
title_fullStr |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
title_sort |
Evidence, rationality, and ignorance: Agnotological issues in COVID-19 science |
author |
Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco |
author_facet |
Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Fortaleza,Carlos Magno Castelo Branco |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Coronavirus disease Epidemiology Knowledge Philosophy |
topic |
Coronavirus disease Epidemiology Knowledge Philosophy |
description |
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. |
publishDate |
2020 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0037-86822020000100207 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/0037-8682-0475-2020 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - SBMT |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - SBMT |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical v.53 2020 reponame:Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT) instacron:SBMT |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT) |
instacron_str |
SBMT |
institution |
SBMT |
reponame_str |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical |
collection |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical - Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical (SBMT) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||dalmo@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br|| rsbmt@rsbmt.uftm.edu.br |
_version_ |
1752122162008817664 |