> The current climate we're in means that consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice around the world is being questioned. (A) In some a

> The current climate we're in means that consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice around the world is being questioned. (A) In some aspects, 50+ years of accepted medical science was wrong. "Droplet dogma" [1,2] was wrong. Now we know that respiratory viruses spread by airborne aerosols [3]. The epistemological tradition of modern medical science seems to be almost solely based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). They think everything should be studied and verified the same way that new drugs are studied. We use a lot of physical safety measures, like seat belts and airbags in cars, hard hats in construction sites, etc. because they make physical sense, and their protective properties have been measured in engineering laboratory studies. Like using crash test dummies when crash testing cars. Engineering and physical sciences have methods to achieve and test knowledge, that are not an RCT with real people. Now the topical topic is face masks. Engineers know respirator masks can filter over 95% of fine particles, but a sizeable part of the medical science still doesn't believe in face masks, due to lack of decisive studies using an RCT-based setup. (B) But then we also have a surprisingly strong anti-vaccine movement. In this case, the consensus of medical science is correct, and vaccines work. So we have A, where medical science was wrong and a bit stubborn to correct itself. Science as whole was not wrong: Engineers and physicists worked out the details of aerosol spread of the virus and the filtering properties of face masks. And then we have B, a genuine anti-science movement. But what to do? If we didn't question the established dogma as used by the authorities, then we would still believe in the droplet dogma, and we would still think face masks are useless. But if we allow the questioning of the established dogma when the dogma is indeed wrong, the how can the general public know when the old dogmas are questioned for good scientific reasons (A), and when not (B)? [1] https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0049 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2021.004... [2] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3904176 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3904176 [3] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9149 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9149