Scientific paper debunking mask mandate skeptics debunks itself

A scholarly paper written by five people, four of them from MIT, one from Wellesley College, takes a skeptical look at skeptics of the mask mandates and has a hard time condemning them as much as the authors clearly want to.  Nevertheless, in their conclusion, they write of "horrifying ends" achieved by people using scientific inquiry by the book.

Pixy Misa at Ace of Spades HQ sums it up:

Researchers at MIT are horrified to find that mask mandate skeptics are doing rigorous research and not blaming everything on white supremacy.

I am not making this up.

A Twitter poster called commie lee jones read through the dreadful academic prose.  MIT researchers "infiltrated" a COVID skeptics community a few months ago and found that skeptics place a high premium on data analysis and empiricism.

Isn't that a good thing?  Institutions are subject to corruption as they seek to perpetuate and enrich themselves.  Science is based on the scientific method — a process that incorporates skepticism at every stage.

That almost sounds like an endorsement!

Yes, skepticism!  That's how science progresses!

Replicability of studies is essential to proving them to be valid science.

I can't disagree.  Can these authors?

Transparency in data collection is another key to sound science.

Isn't scientific rigor a good thing?

Again, rock-solid scientific methodologies.

The data shall set you free.  And yet, after all of this work showing that the skeptics are practicing science properly, the authors slam them in the conclusion:

Maybe one or two of these authors might start to show a little skepticism toward the orthodoxy-enforcers they deal with as budding scientists.  That would make this effort slightly worthwhile.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.