In a recent study, Duke scientists tested the effectiveness of 15 different types of face coverings in stopping the droplets of water we naturally release while speaking. This study quickly went viral as it found that gaiters — a thin polyester fabric worn around the neck which can be pulled up to cover the mouth and nose — were less effective than wearing no mask at all.
Understandably, many companies that make this garment complained about the study and corresponding negative press coverage. One worker for such a company argued that not all gaiters are created equal, and that the researchers used a thin, promotional mask rather than higher-quality, thicker ones which are sold commercially.
Both the researchers and companies make sensible points, and indeed, the researchers note that they only tested one sample of each type of mask. So how can you know who’s telling the truth? This is the fundamental problem that science itself seeks to resolve: how to evaluate two competing claims about reality. Something necessary for coming to a scientific answer to the question at hand is a strong sense of skepticism. Either this group of researchers or the companies could be wrong, or both.
Skepticism is an important tool, but one which can be used extremely poorly when it isn’t well understood. Many people during this pandemic claim to be “skeptical” of the virus’ severity, the need for masks or the safety of future vaccines for the virus. By and large, these people are misunderstanding what it means to be skeptical in the first place.
To take one example, a recent poll found that 35% of Americans would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available. While the poll did not ask why they felt this way, it’s reasonable to assume that some feared the vaccine would be unsafe for some reason.
It’s perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of the safety of any particular medicine, but in order to be truly practicing skepticism, you must also be skeptical of a supposed lack of safety. Announcing that you are skeptical is announcing that you do not know the answer and disbelieve all answers equally, until enough evidence is given to persuade you. A truly skeptical person would not rule out getting a vaccine until they have heard significant and persuasive evidence.
Fortunately, obtaining significant and persuasive evidence is the point of the clinical trials all vaccine candidates are currently undergoing. The Food and Drug Administration will not approve a drug for sale unless it has been proven safe and effective after at least three controlled, scientific experiments, the third of which often includes thousands of participants.
To someone who is truly claiming to be an uninterested observer (i.e. a skeptic), testing a product on thousands of people is likely to provide more evidence than any other source possibly could. By contrast, someone who treats something as unsafe, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is no longer practicing rational, constructive skepticism. Such a person has already picked a side and, therefore, lost the ability to claim they are merely skeptical.
If you are, in fact, attempting to be skeptical, for instance with the viral headline about gaiters being worse than no mask at all, the solution is to look for more evidence until the answer is clear. The researchers were quite open about the simplicity of their design. They use a laser, a cell phone camera, a box, a mask sample and a person speaking. These materials are fairly easy for someone to obtain and put their masks to the test.
The beauty of that science is, if you are skeptical and have the resources, you can do an experiment yourself to help find the truth. In this case, you can follow the design of these researchers, or you can find a different experiment. One doctor interviewed by The New York Times encouraged people to hold mask materials up to a strong light to test their relative effectiveness at stopping particles — the less light you see, the better the material.
In its truest expression, skepticism helps lead you to a better view of the truth, rather than shielding you from evidence. In this case, it may save you a lot of money and protect you from getting sick. In this way, skepticism is at its most useful right now, when science could literally save your life.
