The Danger of Consensus: Neil deGrasse Tyson Reveals How the Left Weaponized Science During the Covid Pandemic

"We must guard against the politicization of science and ensure that it remains a tool for uncovering objective reality, not perpetuating dogma."

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s debate with Del Bigtree on the “lessons learned” from the Covid pandemic reveals a dangerous abuse of the role of scientific consensus.

The host of the rebooted ‘Cosmos’ series — appointed by the Establishment as a leading voice of popular science — rejected the argument that the medical community should have listened more to dissidents during the Covid pandemic.

"I'm not interested in medical pedigree. I'm interested in medical consensus and scientific consensus... The individual scientist does not matter," he said.

Tyson’s assertion that “the individual scientist does not matter” and his deference to consensus highlight a misunderstanding of the scientific method’s core principles.

While consensus can offer a snapshot of prevailing thought, it should never be mistaken for infallible truth. The pandemic starkly demonstrated how a blind allegiance to consensus can suppress dissenting voices, obscure objective reality, and hinder progress.

At the heart of Tyson’s argument is an appeal to consensus, a position that aligns with the Kuhnian paradigm of “normal science,” where dominant frameworks shape inquiry. However, as Thomas Kuhn himself acknowledged, these paradigms often resist change, dismissing challenges as heretical until overwhelming evidence forces a shift.

The COVID pandemic provided a real-world example of this rigidity. Public health authorities, media outlets, and institutions often touted the consensus on topics such as the effectiveness of masks and the ability of vaccines to halt transmission. These narratives, treated as scientific gospel, were later called into question as data emerged that contradicted them.

For instance, the claim that “masks work” to halt COVID’s spread was overly simplistic. Real-world data showed that cloth masks provided minimal protection against aerosolized particles, yet dissenting scientists who highlighted these findings were often labeled as misinformers.

Similarly, the initial assertion that vaccines would stop the spread of the virus was contradicted by breakthrough infections. While vaccines undeniably reduced severe illness and death, their inability to effectively prevent transmission was apparent as early as mid-2021.

Nonetheless, scientists touted the novel mRNA vaccine’s purported ability to stop transmission without testing it themselves. Here is a sample of the overblown claims:

• Fauci says studies suggest vaccines slow virus spread (NBC News)

• Yes, vaccines block most transmission of Covid-19 (National Geographic)

• Covid vaccine ‘can’t fail’ to slow spread of virus (The Sunday Times)

In this way “scientists” were functioning more like marketing executives for the pharmaceutical industry rather than trusted communicators of scientific findings. The persistence of these flawed narratives revealed a deeper issue: the suppression of dissent in favor of maintaining a unified message.

The scientific method relies on falsification, testing, and replicability. It is not enough for claims to align with consensus; they must withstand rigorous scrutiny and adapt when new evidence emerges. Figures like Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya exemplified this approach during the pandemic. They warned early on about the economic, social, and health costs of prolonged lockdowns and advocated for targeted protection of the most vulnerable.

Dr. Makary, critically, highlighted the effectiveness of natural immunity. Dr. Bhattacharya was a leading advocate of patient rights and insisted that Covid vaccination was a matter of personal choice.

Their positions, grounded in data, challenged the prevailing narrative but were met with censorship and professional ostracization. This suppression of alternative viewpoints represents not science, but groupthink masquerading as scientific authority.

Tyson’s stance also reflects a broader issue: the politicization of science. Consensus was wielded as a rhetorical tool, not to foster debate, but to stifle it. Media outlets and public figures often equated dissent with misinformation, a tactic that conflated healthy skepticism with dangerous denialism. By promoting consensus as an end rather than a starting point, institutions risked undermining public trust in science itself.

The pandemic should remind us that science is not a static body of knowledge but a dynamic process of inquiry. Objective reality exists, and it is our responsibility to test assumptions against it. Claims that fail to align with evidence must be reexamined, regardless of how widely they are accepted.

Tyson’s defense of consensus, while superficially appealing, ignores the critical role of individual scientists and contrarian voices in advancing our understanding of the world. After all, many of history’s greatest scientific breakthroughs—whether it was Semmelweis’s insistence on handwashing or Marshall and Warren’s discovery of H. pylori as the cause of ulcers—arose from challenging the consensus.

The lesson from COVID is clear: consensus must not become a substitute for truth. Falsification, replicability, and open debate are the cornerstones of science, not conformity. When dissenting voices are silenced, not only does science suffer, but society loses its ability to make informed decisions.

We must guard against the politicization of science and ensure that it remains a tool for uncovering objective reality, not perpetuating dogma. Only then can it fulfill its promise of serving humanity in times of crisis.