Why "Your mask protects me" is not "Science"

NatureHacker's Organic and Free Tooth Powders

We have been hearing a lot of "you don't believe science!"/"science denier" lately in the media.  Firstly "science" isn't something that can be believed.  Science is not a dogma, it is a method.  Science by definition can never be "believed", it can only be proven false.  If someone doesn't prove a hypothesis false over a long period of time, then it is a theory, still unproven.  If you believe science, then you cease to be a scientist yourself  - as science is based on skepticism not belief.

That said "your mask protects me" is not even a scientific hypothesis (let alone proven "science") and thus falls into "conspiracy theory" or "pseudoscience".  Why?  Because it is not falsifiable.  It cannot be proven.  Why can't it be proven?  Because it isn't possible to design a experiment to test that will reach statistical significance.

Say you want to prove "my mask protects me".  Simple.  You make an experiment where you follow people who wear masks and those that don't wear masks and see if those that wore masks got sick less.  Science.

But if you want to prove "your mask protects me" then you can't design an epidemiological study or rather any viable experiment at all to test that.  It is an unprovable (and therefore unable to be disproven as well) assertion.  To test it you would need 2 islands, each with a hepa filtered bubble on it where all food and drink and air was sterilized before bringing in.  Then you have half of the people without a mask on one island (with the other half masked) and on the other island you have everyone with a mask.  Then you infect one person on each island (WARNING THIS IS ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL) Then you look if the island with the half masked population had a higher rate of spread than the island with all masks.  Problem with this experiment is that for all it's complexity and difficulty (probably would cost 1 trillion dollars to do and would be a war crime), it only provides you with 2 data points.  Many, Many of these experiments would need to be done to reach statistical significance.  Not to mention that the results would only apply to the studied population density and cultural patterns, so even more of these studies would be needed to apply to different places and cultures on earth.  This proposition is literally impossible.  Therefore the theory "your mask protects me" is not a scientific hypothesis let alone a "science fact" (which cannot exist anyway).  It is a bunk assertion based on conspiracy.

So why don't the "experts" simply say that "your mask protects you" which would be a scientific hypothesis?  Because they know that it will quickly and easily be proven false, or that the effect will be found to be minimal.  So they make a pseudoscience claim knowing it can't be disproven (nor proven) and will just be parroted by the media and other "science believers".

In conclusion we are currently living in a dictatorship.  This dictatorship by governors and mayors (and elsewhere presidents) isn't even a technocratic dictatorship (where the decrees are based on sound science), it is a conspiratorial dictatorship where we are being forced against our will to do something based on fears of those in power.  God help us.


  1. nice thoughts...but in reality...doesn't hold water.

    (pure) evolution is false...yet, many/most "educated scientists or non" still accept it as fact...despite much evidence to the contrary.

    (Organized) religion is false as well...yet many "educated people" believe various flavors of that. It's right in the word re-LIGION. Re-lying.

    now, there are shades of truth in both...but few ask enough questions
    to filter through the centuries of lies/deceit.

    Analysis is only as good as your knowledge base. And the KB of most is
    severely lacking..because their minds have already shut down.

    1. millenia of lies/deceit. takes very determined individuals...

    2. Good thoughts. If a scientist takes even a theory as fact, he ceases to be a scientist. The scientific method is based on distrust, not trust.

  2. Wow what a hot take there mate. Ya know, I'm in a similar field, and I'm sick of beauracrats breathing down my neck in the name of "science." (As an aside, I work with animals,) and I'm just gonna use this to tell them, "Leopard cages make me safe," is not "science." There's no way to design an experiment to prove that!

    Sure, we could do what you said and have two isolated islands, one where the leopards are caged, and the other where there are leopards roaming free. And then we could count how many people get their faces eaten in both islands. But like you said, this is ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL. It's completely untestable. That's why "this leopard cage protects me" is complete bunk!

    That's why they can't say "the cage protects leopards," because if they said that, it could quickly be tested and falsified. I'm sick of living in a dictatorship where I can't even roam the supermarket with my pet leopard without these "science believers" irrationally fearing for their lives!

    1. It would be more like saying a cage with 6 feet gap between bars keeps me safe from leopards. Regardless it is much easier to test in any case, you would only need to remove one cage to see that you get eaten, removing one mask from society wouldn't make a significant difference.


Thank you for your feedback! Sharing your experience and thoughts not only helps fellow readers but also helps me to improve what I do!