Has Science Changed With the Introduction of Electronic Media?

Knowledge progresses by scientists looking at phenomena (like the appearance of a 'new' virus); coming up with hypotheses (explanatory ideas) and making predictions, tested in experiments. If the prediction is supported, the hypothesis is strengthened, with other tests following. If the prediction is not supported, the hypothesis has to be rejected or modified. Eventually, one hypothesis becomes acceptable to the expert community and might then be reclassified as a theory. Devi Sridhar (University of Edinburgh) points out that our understanding of the Covid19 virus has changed dramatically over the last 2 years. She asks why then do some scientists 'doggedly cling to theories' (actually erroneous hypotheses) they proposed 2 years ago, at the start of the pandemic? (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/24/scientists-wrong-covid-virus-experts). This is a very interesting question. Back in former times, most scientific argument was conducted slowly in specialist journals and at conferences. People, who devised 'dodgy' hypotheses, often (but not always!) found it difficult to publish their 'findings'. They also tended not to be invited to specialist conferences. This, of course, mean't they generally had no wide circle of supporters. Funding, for continued research, could also become very problematic. Perhaps, the advent of electronic media has altered the behaviour of some scientists? It has never been easier for some scientists to quickly get their ideas 'out there' on podcasts and in electronic 'forums'. Early, speculative ideas about Covid19 attracted the attention of 'like-minded' (often non-specialist?) individuals. Confirmation bias (the tendency to accept ideas that fit our preconceptions) is likely to have had a powerful influence. Science, like politics, may have divided on social media, into the pros and the antis? Perhaps Sridhar's oddly behaving scientists, are simply reluctant to defect from 'their' support group. Some may even benefit financially by continuing to operate in an 'echo-chamber'. Scientists are also people. Some will have flaws (greed, a desire for 'fame' etc) just like anyone else. This is not how science is supposed to function but this modus operandi may be becoming a fact of life.