<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" article-type="Research Article" dtd-version="1.0"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="pmc">iarjhss</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="pubmed">IARJHSS</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">IARJHSS</journal-id><issn>2708-6267</issn></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.47310/iarjhss.2021.v02i02.027</article-id><title-group><article-title>Covid-19: Statistics, Science and Scientific Temper</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><given-names>Pramod</given-names><surname>Ranjan</surname></name></contrib></contrib-group><aff-id id="aff-a" /><abstract>The global response to Covid-19 revealed how fear, uncertainty, and an unquestioning reliance on scientific projections can disrupt the trajectory of human civilization. Early alarmist models predicting massive casualties reshaped public policy worldwide, prompting strict lockdowns that, in many cases, yielded outcomes no better—and sometimes worse—than countries that adopted lenient measures. This situation raises critical questions about the distinction between science and scientific temper. While science offers methods, data, and hypotheses, scientific temper demands critical thinking, skepticism, and the courage to question scientific claims and intentions. The Covid crisis exposed the dangers of treating scientific models as unquestionable truths rather than tools subject to scrutiny. As humanity reflects on its direction post-pandemic, fostering a balanced scientific temper is essential to ensure that science serves society without driving it into unnecessary fear or harm.</abstract></article-meta></front><body /><back /></article>