A scholarly paper written by five people, four of them from MIT, one from Wellesley College, takes a skeptical look at skeptics of the mask mandates and has a hard time condemning them as much as the authors clearly want to.  Nevertheless, in their conclusion, they write of "horrifying ends" achieved by people using scientific inquiry by the book.

Pixy Misa at Ace of Spades HQ sums it up:

Researchers at MIT are horrified to find that mask mandate skeptics are doing rigorous research and not blaming everything on white supremacy.

I am not making this up.

A Twitter poster called commie lee jones read through the dreadful academic prose.  MIT researchers "infiltrated" a COVID skeptics community a few months ago and found that skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism.

MIT researchers 'infiltrated' a Covid skeptics community a few months ago and found that skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism.

"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that science is a process, and not an institution."https://t.co/jsoAG8G2VT pic.twitter.com/CpEvCKz2HK

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Isn't that a good thing?  Institutions are subject to corruption as they seek to perpetuate and enrich themselves.  Science is based on the scientific method — a process that incorporates skepticism at every stage.

"Indeed, anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the “objective” truth of public health data."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

That almost sounds like an endorsement!

"In other words, anti-maskers value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over “expert” interpretations."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Yes, skepticism!  That's how science progresses!

"Its members value individual initiative and ingenuity, trusting scientific analysis only insofar as they can replicate it themselves by accessing and manipulating the data firsthand."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Replicability of studies is essential to proving them to be valid science.

"They are highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"Many of the users believe that the most important metrics are missing from government-released data."

"One user wrote: 'Coding data is a big deal—and those definitions should be offered transparently by every state. Without a national guideline—we are left with this mess'."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

I can't disagree.  Can these authors?

"The lack of transparency within these data collection systems—which many of these users infer as a lack of honesty—erodes these users’ trust within both government institutions and the datasets they release."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"These groups argue that the conflation of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases therefore makes it difficult for anyone to actually determine the severity of the pandemic."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Transparency in data collection is another key to sound science.

"For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Isn't scientific rigor a good thing?

"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies...

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"While these groups highly value scientific expertise, they also see collective analysis of data as a way to bring communities together within a time of crisis, and being able to transparently and dispassionately analyze the data is crucial for democratic governance."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"In fact, the explicit motivation for many of these followers is to find information so that they can make the best decisions for their families—and by extension, for the communities around them."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Again, rock-solid scientific methodologies.

"The message that runs through these threads is unequivocal: that data is the only way to set fear-bound politicians straight, and using better data is a surefire way towards creating a safer community."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"Data literacy is a quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have created."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

The data shall set you free.  And yet, after all of this work showing that the skeptics are practicing science properly, the authors slam them in the conclusion:

"Arguing anti-maskers need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed & inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are deeply invested in forms of critique & knowledge production they recognize as markers of scientific expertise"

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

"We argue that anti-maskers’ deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the public."

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

And yet in the conclusion they lament "the skeptical impulse that the 'science simply isn’t settled,' prompting people to simply 'think for themselves” to horrifying ends."

They then compare it to the January 6 Capitol riot.

Bizarre and fascinating document.

— commie lee jones (@commieleejones) May 10, 2021

Maybe one or two of these authors might start to show a little skepticism toward the orthodoxy-enforcers they deal with as budding scientists.  That would make this effort slightly worthwhile.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.