Posted on 01/04/2021 8:08:02 AM PST by Kaslin
We'll be able to have more productive and honest conversations with one another the sooner we realize that while morality takes sides, science does not.
Even as coronavirus vaccines slowly make their way into the population, debates rage around the world on whether lockdowns should continue or be implemented anew. Often in these debates, one hears the term “science” tossed about irresponsibly, sometimes by participants on both sides of the argument.
Most of the time, however, when people say that we should “follow the science,” they mean we should listen to the expert advice of medical professionals who argue in favor of lockdowns. Often, we hear science called upon when governors and mayors order school closings or when heads of state demand their constituents abstain from merry-making during holidays or weekends.
To understand the soundness, or lack thereof, of the scientific foundation of this advice, one ought to take a step back to understand what we’re dealing with here. Indeed, the injunction to “follow the science” is more philosophically involved than many realize.
A whole branch of philosophy exists that is referred to as the philosophy of science, seeking to understand what science is, how it works, and what implications science has for society and our understanding of truth. The Greeks were among the earliest to begin philosophizing about science, and their lively debates sparked contributions in the modern era from Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and — my personal favorite — Paul Feyerabend.
So, what is science? The answer to this question is essentially the same as to the question “What is reason?” It’s a tool, a way of performing an action.
If an ancient mariner were considering setting out on an unusually perilous journey, for example, he had different ways of going about it. He could consult the Apollonian oracle in Delphi how best to undertake it, or, since his trireme would do well to stay close to the coast for as long as possible, he could study the shorelines, while also considering the position of the stars before embarking out on the open sea.
Whereas the Oracle could tell him anything it pleased — usually in the form of a cryptic phrase that left any possibility open — the latter method would be the scientific way. But this scientific way could never tell him whether to set out on the journey at all, a decision that would be entirely up to him. If indeed he decided to set sail, science would only offer him a particular way of going about it.
The problem with a statement like “Follow the science” is that it bestows upon science its own ontological identity — it assumes that science is a thing, an entity, and one that will lead us in some way to a particular decision. Science, thereby, takes on an almost god-like character. But science does not have a separate, independent existence, and therefore, it can’t play such a role.
It is worth emphasizing here the role that the positivism of the French Enlightenment has played in bringing about the attitude hiding behind “Follow the science.” To a considerable extent, much of the French Enlightenment was akin to a religion — based on faith, not science or reason.
Because, for instance, science cannot establish that we are all equal, it cannot establish that we are all unequal. Rather, the very notions such as the concept of “human rights,” are drawn from an arbitrary Enlightenment interpretation of science and reason, with Christianity and some strands of Hellenistic philosophy as a foundation.
The claims of actual science — that is, of experiments performed scientifically — are far more modest. Actual science will only state, for instance, that humans share about 96 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees, and between 99.0 percent and 99.9 percent with each other. Whether this means we are not very different from apes or not, or that we are all equal to each other or not, science has absolutely nothing to say.
Again, science is not an entity that decrees things to us. Science is simply a way for us to perform an action or experiment to derive certain morally neutral data — an empirical and deductive process through which we can draw certain inductive conclusions. This, however, is lost on many of our politicians, and especially those who hector us about the “dictates” of “science.”
The danger with the prevailing attitude we inherited from the Enlightenment is that it leads us to believe that we are stating objective truth when we are only expressing our prejudices. Since the complete erasure of prejudice is impossible for any person, the final result of this misunderstanding about the nature of science is that we believe we have erased our prejudices, without truly having erased them. Our prejudices thereby become even more dangerous than they previously were, because they will now operate under the illusion of being their opposite: science or pure reason.
So, instead of simply stating what they think is right, prejudices begin to take on the veneer of pure truth, becoming even more deceptive than they previously were. People thereby end up not merely claiming their opponents are incorrect, but that they’re being anti-scientific, gaining a useful cudgel with which to harass those who think differently. Thus, whenever a political leader orders society shut down in the name of science for the sake of preserving lives — often with an arbitrary view of what counts as “essential” — he or she becomes the Apollonian Oracle, decreeing whim and opinion, referring to god as “science” to quash any protest.
So those who exclaim that we should “follow the science,” whether they are on the left or the right, are attempting to dress up their prejudice in the slim robe of science and reason. Like many French Enlightenment thinkers, a Voltaire or Diderot, they arbitrarily appropriate the thin varnish of objectivity.
This posture eventually becomes a great motor for vanity. If one can claim to be on the side of science — even though science never takes sides —one can assume a self-appointed position above those who simply state without pretense what they believe. Harsh and even violent action against those with different opinions then becomes easier to justify.
Proclaiming to be on the side of science carries a certain air of social legitimacy and loftiness that others would be foolish not to respect — quite simply, one declares oneself better, enlightened. One’s putative alignment with science eventually grows so common and taken for granted that the “scientific” and “theoretic” attitude ultimately becomes the less reflective and thoughtful one, the least scientific.
While the dictum “dare to know,” is more plainly laudable, its seeming opposite, “dare not to know,” can be just as valuable if harnessed properly — daring to admit ignorance, to be open to doubt, and to take oneself somewhat less seriously. Indeed Rousseau, whom I usually do not quote approvingly but will do so here, writes in “Emile”:
Remember, remember without fail that ignorance never caused any harm, that error alone is fatal, and that we do not go astray by what we do not know, but by what we believe we know.
None of this means, of course, that we wish to disrespect science, or reason for that matter. On the contrary, we respect science far more than do those who abuse it for their predilections. It is because of our love of science that we ought to resist calls for society-wide lockdowns that claim to be in the name of science.
One may have one’s own particular views of this, but let no one pretend that he has science on his side. Morality takes sides, science does not. We will all be better off and will be able to have more productive and honest conversations with one another the sooner we realize this.
Question: if masks work (science) then why aren’t fans allowed at sporting events if they’re wearing masks?
Tl;dr - science is a TOOL (in the actual sense, not as an insult!)
It’s a methodology for determining OBJECTIVE fact - that is, that things exist outside of ourselves and can be tested and observable by anyone.
That’s it.
It’s not a religion. It’s not a belief system. (Although academia will try to tell you it’s such with their “acolytes” and “priests”). When someone says “I follow the science” they’re nothing more than religious zealots.
It’s why climate change is a religious myth. First it was the planet was cooling because of CO2 then it was the planet was warming because of CO2 then they had to change the terminology because it confused people to “climate change” (aka weather) - that’s not “science” - that’s religion.
What Al Gore preaches today about melting ice caps - what 57 genders myth preaches today is NOT science.
The biggest red flag in the “follow the science” argument is when proponents of a cause claim that “The science is settled”.
Because the stadiums don’t want to be held liable.
The actual “science” on masks is still inconclusive but the general gist still seems to be that wearing it won’t protect you per se but will block you from transmitting it if you have it.
The more interesting study I’ve seen recently was a local nursing home tested the surfaces of rooms with infected patients and found no live virus on the surfaces - leading them to conclude that getting the COVID by surface contact was highly unlikely and it’s only an airborne problem.
‘then why aren’t fans allowed at sporting events if they’re wearing masks?’
better question;why,if distancing works to retard communicable disease (a seemingly unassailabe truth) are zero fans permitted in a 75,000 seat arena, when 40,000 could easily put several yards of distance between them...?
If you Trust science, Believe in Science, and have Faith in science then you are IGNORANT of science!!!
If you hear that the hair should instantly stand up on the back your neck because you’re being scammed. Science is never settled, if it is then it isn’t science.
Twelve Forgotten Principles of Public Health
By Martin Kulldorff
Professor Harvard Medical School.
#1 Public health is about all health outcomes, not just a single disease like COVID19. It is important to also consider harms from public health measures.
#2 Public health is about the long term rather than the short term. Spring COVID19 lockdowns simply delayed and postponed the pandemic to the fall.
#3 Public health is about everyone. It should not be used to shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent, as the COVID19 lockdowns have done.
#4 Pubic health is global. Public health scientists need to consider the global impact of their recommendations.
#5 Risks and harms cannot be completely eliminated, but they can be reduced. Elimination and zero-COVID strategies backfire, making things worse.
#6 Public health should focus on high-risk populations. For COVID19, many standard public health measures were never used to protect high-risk older people, leading to unnecessary deaths.
#7 While contact tracing and isolation is critically important for some infectious diseases, it is futile and counterproductive for common infections such as influenza and COVID19.
#8 A case is only a case if a person is sick. Mass testing asymptomatic individuals is harmful to public health.
#9 Public health is about trust. To gain the trust of the public, public health officials and the media must be honest and trust the public. Shaming and fear should never be used in a pandemic.
#10 Public health scientists and officials must be honest with what is not known. For example, epidemic models should be run with the whole range of plausible input parameters.
#11 In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly critical. Censoring, silencing and smearing leads to fear of speaking, herd thinking and distrust.
#12 It is important for public health scientists and officials to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences. This pandemic has proved that many non-epidemiologists understand public health better than some epidemiologists.
“We’ll be able to have more productive and honest conversations with one another the sooner we realize that while morality takes sides, science does not.”
We will never—never, never, never—be able to have “productive and honest conversations” with the leftwads.
They are living in a pseudo-reality, and will fight to the death in the futile effort to make it real.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3920426/posts
... “The science is settled” ...
It isn’t science if it’s settled, it’s dogma. To be science is to be open to new data that may conflict with accepted data.
Of course, that was my point.
“The trouble with liberals is not that they don’t know;
It’s that they know so much that just isn’t so.”
RR
Skepticism is central to the scientific process.
Someone claims an interesting experimental result, others try to replicate it.
Without skepticism, “science” is just “ipse dixit.”And the simple fact is that leftists are hostile to skepticism.
Note well, I did not say that they are hostile to cynicism.
But cynicism is not “extreme skepticism,” rather cynicism is more like
naiveté about the opposite of whatever one is cynical about.Cynicism is the opposite of open-mindedness.
Richard Feynman
Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it, then we compute the consequences of the guess to see if the law we guessed is right.
We see what it would imply and then we compare those computations results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compared directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with an experiment it's wrong, in that simple statement is the key to science.
It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are or who made the guess or what his name is, if it disagrees with the experiment it’s wrong.
That’s all there is to it.
Exactly. Science is like iron; you challenge it, burn it, test it, hammer it, and PROVE it.
The truth of science does not require faith or belief. It simply is what it is.
Because science without reason is the new PC fascist way
Indeed, science is imperfect. Even true atheists like Ayn Rand know that objectivism and pure reason is above science because pure reason is of it’s own essence and not empirical
However, SCIENTISTS do!
If the lockdown worked since March why are more people catching covid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.