The great advantage of the internet is that it allows anyone to publish anything (shout out to Medium!). The old gatekeepers are gone, so previously marginalized views can proliferate. This is wonderful.

The great disadvantage of the internet is that it allows anyone to publish anything. The old gatekeepers are gone, so previously marginalized views can proliferate. This is terrible.

The truth is that the internet is wonderful because of the low barrier to entry, it allows people who are previously un-heard-from to share their stories. This is wonderful. It also allows nuts, trolls, or bots to spread misinformation at lightning speed (shout out to Twitter and Facebook). That means it is up to us, the readers to be able to separate wheat from chaff, fact from fiction.

Nowhere is that more difficult, seemingly, than in the realms of science, because scientific literature can be dense, jargon-filled, and poorly written. As a result, pseudoscience spreads more widely real science.

I want to explore science and pseudoscience through the lense of a particular article that a friend shared on Facebook: Face masks make you stupid from the Critic.

Headline on the front page of thecritic.co.uk Monday, August 24th, 2020

I have not heard of The Critic before, so I assume it is not satire, despite this headline on their front page today.

Whether or not the article is serious or satire is irrelevant in this case. We will treat it as serious since it was shared as a serious exploration of face masks making people stupid. Hopefully it will be a useful exercise in spotting pseudoscience and perhaps pseudo intellectualism more broadly.

The first thing we need to understand about pseudoscience is what is actual science. There are multiple definitions of science, but I like the one from the science council:

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

What is important here is that science is not a thing it is a process. Science is the process by which we investigate the world around us and draw conclusions about how the world works. Perhaps you learned about the scientific method in 5th grade. It probably looked like this:

The scientific method, as we learn it in school. From https://newmr.org/blog/what-is-the-scientific-method-and-how-does-it-relate-to-insights-and-market-research/

Unfortunately, this is a bit too simplistic. In reality science is a bit messier. I couldn’t find a diagram that I thought did the process justice, so I made my own.

A slightly more realistic model of the scientific method.

The scientific method revolves around a theory. A theory is a model of how the universe works. It can be broad or it can be specific. It can have to do with human behavior, evolution of species, the way planets move in space, or anything, really. A theory is framework, a way of explaining something. A hypothesis is an if/then statement based on a theory. Because of XYZ theory, if we do A, we expect B result.

As an example, let’s take the theory that the Sun revolves around the Earth. This explains the observation that the Sun rises and sets each day. However, we also observe the motions of other planets relative to the Earth and the Sun that are not explained by this theory. So we develop a new theory, that the Earth spins around the Sun. This fits the observable data better. In this case, we don’t need a true experiment, we can use existing data and choose which model best explains the observed data. We can form a hypothesis: if the heliocentric model is correct, then predictions of the movements of heavenly bodies will be more accurate than those made by a geocentric model. Lo-and-behold our predictions are correct, the heliocentric model is more accurate!

In other cases we need a true experiment. Let’s say we have a theory that light has a fixed speed. To test this theory, we can measure the speed of light in air, in the water, and in space. To do this we set up a light emitter, a detector, a really precise stopwatch, and a really precise tape measure on the surface of the Earth, in the ocean, and on the Moon. We have operationalized our variables. We can form a hypothesis: If the speed of light is constant, we will measure the same amount of time for a beam of light to travel from our emitter to our receiver in all three locations using our very precise stopwatch to measure the time to travel across the distance measured by our very precise tape measure. We have a hypothesis that is “falsifiable” which is to say it can be proven wrong. It is measurable, and we have “operationalized” it, which means we have defined how we will measure the variables of interest (in this case time and distance). In case you want to actually measure the speed of light, you may need some other tools, but that’s another story for another day.

Now that we have our methods we can go run our test. The data that come back will either validate (support) our hypothesis, or they will invalidate it. Often, our data will be inconclusive, so time to run another experiment. I’ll leave it to you, dear reader to figure out if experiments actually support our hypothesis that light travels at a constant speed, no matter the medium.

You’ll notice I didn’t use the word “prove” when referring to our hypothesis. In science we never prove anything. We only “add support” to a hypothesis or theory. That’s because it only takes one observation to disprove something. In the 1700s the theory was that “all swans are white”, but one observation of a black swan in Australia and that theory was disproved. The new theory is that “all [adult] swans are black or white” and so far that theory has withstood repeated observations, but maybe we’ll find some cave-dwelling purple swans one day, and we’ll have to update our theory.

Why is all that important? Because science isn’t about certainty. Science never proves anything. Never. Not ever. Proof is for bakers. Science is about making observations, testing hypothesis, and using those results to update our model of the universe (the theory).

Now that we have a basis for what science is and what it is not, let’s talk about pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is something that sounds scientific, cloaks itself in the language of science, but it does not leverage the scientific method. It has not drawn conclusions from rigorous observations, controlled experiments, or hypothesis testing.

One example of pseudoscience is Phrenology. Phrenology claims to tell us something about people’s behavior or personalities using the shape of the skull.

A phrenology chart and definition. Via Wikipedia

Phrenology is widely debunked and seen as anachronistic. Mostly we laugh at how people could believe that a bump on someone’s skull would make them talkative or mean or sullen. However, not all pseudoscience is as harmless or quaint as Phrenology. Eugenics, for instance is the debunked idea that we can breed “better” humans. The idea being that “mental defectives” should not be allowed to reproduce. This has led to the forced sterilization of many people, and was very influential to the Nazis in the 1930s. Eugenics robbed people of their rights to reproduce and in many cases, their lives as the Nazis murdered people they thought of as inferior in the name of “racial purity”.

Which brings us to one of the most prevalent, pugnacious, and persistent forms of pseudoscience that still reaches its tendrils into our society today: Racism. Racism (in the strictest definition) is the belief that people of different races possess different innate characteristics. Much like a bump or valley on the skull might indicate talkativeness, a skin tone might predict attributes such as work ethic or intelligence. This is, of course, ridiculous, but it was based on “scientific” racism to justify the treatment of certain racial or ethnic groups. Perhaps even you, dear reader, think that “Asians are good at math” or “Hispanic people are hard workers” or “Black people are naturally gifted athletes”. These are common beliefs founded in racism.

There is no scientific basis for different traits based on race. Race, in and of itself, is a tenuous construct, with no real scientific basis. In other words, skin color and ancestry do not predict behavior, personality, intellect, or anything else. The fact that many people believe that race can predict anything is a demonstration of the power of pseudoscience and why we must be vigilant against it. These stereotypes are powerful and lead to discrimination that robs people of their ability to live up to their potential.

Which brings me to the main point of this post: how to spot pseudoscience and react to it when you see it.

To illustrate an example of pseudoscience, I’m going to take an article from The Critic and we’ll walk through some of the pseudoscience contained within.

First, we should talk about the subject of the article: face masks as a prevention for the spread of respiratory disease, notably SARS-CoV-2 (aka COVID-19, aka Coronavirus, aka “the ‘Rona”). The science of wearing facemasks is not new, we have known for a long time that wearing a mask can prevent spread of respiratory infections. What is new with COVID is whether or not mask wearing will prevent this disease, and whether or not fabric or other kinds of masks are useful in preventing the spread of COVID. It doesn’t help that early messaging from public health officials was mixed, conflicting, or downright contradictory on the issue of masks. This happened largely because the science was unclear on the issue of masks with the novel Coronavirus, because it was novel. Scientists, being cautious did not want to recommend the use of masks if it did not help, and public health officials didn’t want to deplete the supply of masks that are needed by healthcare workers.

To understand why mask guidelines have been so varied, NPR reached out to specialists in academia and in government. What we learned is that face mask guidelines are about science — but go beyond. The reasons for a policy may have to do with practical considerations like the national supply of masks but may also reflect cultural values and history. — NPR

However, the current (and rapidly evolving) science is that facemasks are a significant force in reducing the spread of the disease. Studies in hamsters show masks are effective in blocking this virus (though that research didn’t have the hamsters wearing tiny surgical masks — can you imagine?! ). Studies with people breathing through masks show that even fabric masks significantly reduce the amount of droplets projected into the environment.

Even cotton masks reduce droplet transmission, the main mode of transmission for the Rona.

That’s a quick overview on the science of mask-wearing and the reduction of disease transmission.

What about the contention that “masks make us stupid”? Let’s get into it…

In Joost Meerloo’s analysis of false confessions and totalitarian regimes, The Rape of the Mind, he coins a phrase for the ‘dumbing down’ of critical resistance — menticide. “In the totalitarian regime,” he wrote, “the doubting, inquisitive, and imaginative mind has to be suppressed. The totalitarian slave is only allowed to memorise, to salivate when the bell rings.”

Well, the article is starting big, calling to mind totalitarian regimes’ brainwashing of their POWs. Bringing up totalitarian states is not necessarily a hallmark of pseudoscience, but it’s not something most scientists would do if they were discussing using masks to prevent disease. It’s a non sequitur designed to introduce the topic in the worst-possible framing. We should be suspicious.

Neolithic man had a similar problem dealing with his livestock. Homo sapiens’ success has relied not insignificantly on cattle — their dairy, meat, leather and manure. Yet the cow’s ancestor, the auroch, was quite a different beast. It was fast, aggressive and dangerous — hardly conducive to be corralled into predictable channels of behaviour. So, about 10,500 years ago, man started to deliberately breed the most docile aurochs for domestication.

Here is a hallmark of pseudoscience, introducing some scientifically sound discussion (we are pretty sure about the modern cow having been bred from aurochs), but the context is odd. I thought we were talking about masks and people. Pseudoscience often uses real science to introduce fallacious arguments. For example some flat-earthers believe that the earth is accelerating upwards, simulating gravity — sciencey-sounding balderdash.

The key word here is docile, which comes from the Latin docere, meaning “to teach” (as does, say, ‘doctorate’ and ‘document’). Being docile means being compliant and following commands, which means submitting to a system of thought.

Another favorite of the pseudoscience-peddler: using latin words or etymology. “See how smart I am, I know latin”. Latin just sounds scientific, it cloaks my shenanigans in words that sound like they might mean something. In this case, docile comes from the latin “to teach”… And “sinister” comes from the latin for “left-handed”. It doesn’t mean anything and it doesn’t make the author any more right.

One key trait of pseudoscience that distinguishes it from other pseudointellectual endeavors is the use of citations. If there aren’t citations, you should automatically distrust that piece of writing. Even if there are citations, it might still be pseudoscience as people use bad citations or base their work on other pseudoscience.

This particular article has many citations. However, the citations are in the form “Gudjonsson, 1991”. However the complete citation, which would look something like this — Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The effects of intelligence and memory on group differences in suggestibility and compliance. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(5), 503–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90070-R — is nowhere to be found. It would seem that the author wants to look scientific without allowing us to check his sources. At the very least, we should expect hyperlinks to the articles referenced.

But if we do check his sources, we often find that they do not say what he thinks they say.

This is to say nothing of pornography, which is now consumed by 98% of men but known to inhibit the part of the brain dealing with conscience and consciousness, the prefrontal cortex (Kuhn & Gallinat, 2014).

Actually Kuhn & Gallinat (notice link to an actual article) say

The negative association of self-reported pornography consumption with the right striatum (caudate) volume, left striatum (putamen) activation during cue reactivity, and lower functional connectivity of the right caudate to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex could reflect change in neural plasticity as a consequence of an intense stimulation of the reward system, together with a lower top-down modulation of prefrontal cortical areas. Alternatively, it could be a precondition that makes pornography consumption more rewarding.

Which is the long-winded way of saying “we don’t know if these differences in brain structures are caused by watching porn or if the differences in brains cause people to watch more porn”.

Here’s another example

Many more studies have found that fluoridated water lowers the population’s intelligence (e.g., Borman & Fyfe, 2013; Green et al., 2019; Lu et al., 2000; Rocha-Amador et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2008).

Actually the Borman & Fyfe article is a critique of an earlier article “A number of validity issues about the study have been overlooked, disregarded, ignored, or misunderstood.” And “At best, the paper by Choi et al provides nothing more than the merest suggestion of a possible or ‘potential’ relationship at the population level between children’s IQ and fluoride in drinking water at levels much higher than ever likely to occur in New Zealand.”

Essentially saying that there is not good evidence in this article that any relationship exists between flouride and intelligence. Directly contradicting the statement made by the author of Masks.

Inigo Montoya says you didn’t do a good job reading your cited research

Which brings us to face masks.

Face masks can now be added to the list of mandates that make you stupid. As if Piers Morgan feverishly promoting them weren’t evidence enough, here are the facts on why you absolutely, categorically should not wear a face mask. They make you suggestible; they make you more likely to follow someone else’s direction and do things you wouldn’t otherwise do. In short, they switch off your executive function — your conscience.

Okay, here we go …

A great example comes from a study by Mathes and Guest (1976), who asked participants how willing they would be, and how much they would have to be paid, to carry a sign around the university cafeteria reading “masturbation is fun” (this being 1976, doing such a thing would be considered embarrassing; these days it will probably earn you a course credit!). The results showed that when people wore a mask, they were more likely to carry the sign and required less money to do so ($30 compared to $48, on average).

Here, we actually have a good citation. Mathes and Guest is a classic of the de-individuation genre. However, it has been undermined by some more studious meta-analysis (Postmes and Spears, 1998). The author of Masks goes on to cite several other sources indicating that masks make you more likely to act out, act antisocially, or otherwise be disinhibited.

The disinhibiting effects of wearing a mask are described by psychologists in terms of a suspension of the superego’s control mechanisms, allowing subconscious impulses to take over. Saigre (1989) wrote that masks ‘short-cut’ conscious defence systems and encourage “massive regression” to a more primitive state; Castle (1986) wrote that eighteenth century masquerades allowed mask-wearers to release their repressed hedonistic and sexual impulses; and Caillois (1962) similarly wrote about European masked carnivals involving libidinal activities including “indecencies, jostling, provocative laughter, exposed breasts, mimicking buffoonery, a permanent incitement to riot, feasting and excessive talk, noise and movement”. In the 12th Century, Pope Innocent III banned masks as part of his fight against immorality; and in 1845, New York State made it illegal for more than two people to wear masks in public, after farmers wore masks to attack their landlords.

Here’s the problem. None of that is making you “dumb,” “stupid,” or “docile”.

In fact, quite the opposite. All of the author’s citations indicate that wearing a mask makes a person less easily controlled not more. Even if the citations are good, they do not mean what the author is trying to say that they mean.

It is little wonder that covering our mouths would ‘shut us up’ psychologically. Studies have shown that clothing has a powerful effect on how we think (or not), via a principal known as enclothed cognition: wearing a lab coat enhances cognitive function (Adam & Galinsky, 2012)

This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. One we could possibly test with an experiment! Also that Adam and Galinsky paper suggests wearing a “doctors coat” increases sustained attention, not improves cognitive function.

While no studies have looked at the effect of masks on verbal reasoning, it is fairly safe to assume that priming a ‘shutting up’ would have a cognitive effect.

Here’s another pseudoscience trick: “no studies have been done, but the results are self-evident!” No, they are not. Even the most intuitive of explanations still have to withstand experimental inquiry, or else they aren’t explanations. After all, it makes perfect sense that the Sun revolves around the Earth, until you examine the data more closely and find that it’s impossible.

There is also a more basic reason masks might make you stupid: decreasing oxygen flow to the brain. Face veils reduce ventilatory function in the long-term (Alghadir, Aly & Zafar, 2012), and surgical masks may reduce blood oxygenation among surgeons (Beder et al., 2008): believe it or not, covering your mouth makes it harder to breathe. Reviewing the N95 face mask, a 2010 study (Roberge et al.) concluded that “carbon dioxide and oxygen levels were significantly above and below, respectively, the ambient workplace standards” inside the mask. A post-COVID study found that 81% of 128 previously-fit healthcare workers developed headaches as a result of wearing personal protective equipment (Ong et al., 2020).

Now we have arrived at the crux of the matter. Do masks reduce blood oxygenation. Let’s go citation by citation:

Alghadir, Aly & Zafar, 2012 is a small study looking at Niqab wearers in Saudi Arabia. Women who wore the niqab more hours per day had decreased lung function relative to those who wore it fewer hours per day. Cut-and-dried result then? Not so fast! It could be that women who wore the niqab for longer were older and therefore had decreased lung capacity due to age, or they were poorer and worked outside the house more hours per day, which could lead to other causes of decreased respiratory capacity. To my knowledge, this study has not been replicated and has very few citations.

Beder et al., 2008 is another smaller study, though this time it does deal with surgeons wearing surgical masks. The conclusion of the authors “This early change in SpO2 may be either due to the facial mask or the operational stress.” Again it’s important to consider the context of the research. Similarly to the Alghadir study, there are few citations of the paper, which is usually a good indication that it was not impactful. And where there were citations, the citing work contradicts the Beder findings.

Roberge et al., 2010 actually concludes there is no significant difference between wearing an N95 respirator and wearing an N95 respirator with a surgical mask over the top. It doesn’t test N95 vs nothing. Again, some pseudoscientific trickery. Roberge actually says in their discussion “The limited data available on the physiological impact of [surgical masks] indicates that, at 60 min of continuous use (comparable to the present study), HR and SpO2 are not significantly changed compared with baseline values”

Ong et al., 2020. The only Ong, et al 2020 article that I could find had nothing to do with mask impacts to healthcare workers, it’s about the contamination of spaces by SARS-Cov-2 virus from infected patients. More bamboozelment.

Finally, the contention is made “Not only do face masks make it hard to breathe, but the evidence that they even work to stop the spread of coronavirus is limited at best.” Well, it is difficult to have a great deal of evidence that transmission of a disease is reduced when that disease has only been around for 9–10 months. Science takes time. Tests with analogs or other diseases may not be representative of real world experience with this particular virus.

The truth is that there is plenty of evidence (from Nature, which is one of the most prestigious articles in science) that mask-wearing slows the spread of the disease. From the lab, but most importantly, from epidemiological data. Where people wear masks, there is less ‘Rona. The thing to remember is that masks may not be great at keeping you from getting COVID, they are very good at stopping you from spreading it to others, which is the major key. Much of the previous research is on virus intake, but viral shedding is the real reason behind wearing a mask for public health.

So, where does that leave us with our review of pseudoscience? Here’s a few helpful pointers:

1. Is there an agenda? Good research goes where the data leads, pseudoscience has an agenda.
2. Does the author take on subjects outside their domain? Not necessarily a bad thing, but expertise in a particular subject is what you are looking for. Scientists tend to specialize, so an article outside of their speciality might be an appeal to false authority (I am an authority in X subject, so believe me when I talk about Y subject is a fallacy called “appeal to false authority”)
3. Is the research cited? You should be able to see the citation, and easily find the source via a proper citation format and works cited section, or via hyperlink. Read the cited works, and see if the author is correctly characterising the original research.
4. Is the cited research good quality, from reputable sources? Look at the publication, look at the number of citations, look at the authors — are they experts?
5. Does the author try to use language in a confusing way? Throw a few spicy latin phrases in, and id est!
6. Is there an experiment? Is there a hypothesis? Is there a theory? Science is based on theory, hypothesis, and experimental evidence. If the author doesn’t perform an experiment, do they cite experiment(s)? Do they do so correctly? Is the position stated from a well-supported theory? Do they present a testable hypothesis?
7. Does the author seem certain? It may seem counterintuitive, but generally the more expert someone is in a field, the less certain they will seem. Science is about probability, not certainty.

Hopefully this has been a useful exercise. Take care, stay safe, and wear your damn mask!

Appendix on the science of masks and disease transmission

Lots of good links from experts in the field here:

A pretty darn thorough literature review on the efficacy of wearing masks to prevent coronavirus spread https://files.fast.ai/papers/masks_lit_review.pdf

These two were cited in the original Critic article and just go to show that data can be misinterpreted/misused
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00307.x Shows that influenza infections rates for those with and without masks were difficult to measure effectively across multiple studies. However, that was looking at the rates of the mask-wearer getting infected. Similarly, https://academic.oup.com/annweh/article/54/7/789/202744 shows that some forms of fabric are much better than others at preventing aerosol droplet ingress. However, as mentioned above, it’s the egress or shedding of virus through exhaled droplets that we should concern ourselves with in the the public health scenario.

A nice FAQ on mask-wearing from University of Maryland.https://www.umms.org/coronavirus/what-to-know/masks/wearing-mask