Why This and Not That?

It's poetry in motion
She turned her tender eyes to me
As deep as any ocean
As sweet as any harmony
--Thomas Dolby

In an age where work is increasingly specialized and societies are increasingly politicized, people have been conned into thinking that they must leave scientific thinking to so-called experts. Of course, those heavily credentialed 'scientists' are subject to political influence--and are often retained by political factions who benefit from a particular 'scientific' viewpoint.

The simple truth is that anyone can think scientifically. At its core, scientific thought is reasoned thought. Reasoning requires considering alternative explanations of a phenomenon (sometimes referred to in scientific circles as 'propositions' or 'hypotheses'), and then selecting the one that makes the most sense. Selecting the most sensible alternative is done by using a combination of logic, previous theory, and empirical evidence.

Consider, for example, the well-publicized proposition that face masks help 'stop the spread' of viruses COVID-19. Proponents of this proposition claim that it is grounded in 'science.' However, instead of presenting the various arguments in favor of and against masks, and why their arguments are superior, mask proponents merely defer to the recommendations of the so-called 'scientific community' in this regard. 

This blind deferral makes any reasoning mind suspicious. 

A truly scientific explanation considers the various theories of masking and outcomes. The prevailing theory in favor of masks is some variation of: face masks filter out virus particles in inbound and outbound airflow, thus reducing viral transmission. Let's call this hypothesis H0.

But what are some plausible rival theories? Let's list a few, primarily grounded in filtration theory when applied to masking:

H1: CV19-laden particles are too small to be effectively filtered by face mask substrates.

H2: Inbound and outbound air escapes between the mask and the face allowing virus-laden particulates to circumvent the filtration process.

H3: Covering the nose and mouth with a filter obstructs normal respiration (e.g., reduced oxygen intake, increased CO2 in local air mixtures, and breathing contaminants lodged in dirty masks), which can lead to health risks more significant than the risk of the virus itself.

The duty of true 'science' is to evaluate all plausible rival hypotheses in search of truth. If H0 is to be true, then the scientific mind not only has to explain the validity of H0, but also why H1, H2, and H3 are not valid.

It should be noted that plucking one published research study out of the literature that supports H0 does not necessarily suffice--particularly if there are other studies available that favor H1, H2, or H3. 

To the reasoning mind, science is rarely if ever settled. True science is obligated to consider what else could it be? Why this and not that?