Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on sars-cov-2/Covid-19 and how the public should understand it
I'm a philosopher of science and work, among other things, on the public understanding of science, and how the public can evaluate what experts say. A recent paper here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2020.1739778 1/
I'm a philosopher of science and work, among other things, on the public understanding of science, and how the public can evaluate what experts say. A recent paper here:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2020.1739778 1/
Let's look at the so-called novice/expert problem (see paper by Alvin Goldman).
The problem is this: how can a novice judge the quality of scientific work (which she is, by definition, not an expert in). Is she just at the mercy of experts? 2/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x?casa_token=_-sx48M4P68AAAAA:mmmu36yFrcqv2WaJnVildwuoDeZntB9ATLv4aNlZqj26pOgBaA6jApXurnILo90BIlUoy4M8ALrj
The problem is this: how can a novice judge the quality of scientific work (which she is, by definition, not an expert in). Is she just at the mercy of experts? 2/ https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x?casa_token=_-sx48M4P68AAAAA:mmmu36yFrcqv2WaJnVildwuoDeZntB9ATLv4aNlZqj26pOgBaA6jApXurnILo90BIlUoy4M8ALrj
Linda Zagzebksi argued that yes, you should probably just trust the experts. After all, they know better than you. If you're going to second-guess them, you'll do worse in forming beliefs because, after all, they're experts and you're not. 3/
The problem with this is when experts disagree. Philosophers of science have a very good handle on what to do when experts *agree* and they've argued, persuasively, it's dangerous to discount expert consensus. 4/
So for example, Finnur Dellsén argues that disagreement among experts on a given issue should make us extra confident about the stuff they agree on, bc disagreement shows that scientific consensus is not just some echo-chamber 5/ https://aap.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048402.2017.1298636?journalCode=rajp20
The problem is that this still doesn't give us a clear recipe of what to do if experts *disagree*.
It seems that on sars-cov-2 they disagree on even the most basic facts. To my knowledge, no scientific consensus has been reached about the following issues 6/
It seems that on sars-cov-2 they disagree on even the most basic facts. To my knowledge, no scientific consensus has been reached about the following issues 6/
Known unknowns about sars-cov-2 invlude:
the rate of infection of people in a given area
mortality rate
how long, if at all, immunity lasts
how soon, if at all, there'll be a vaccine
why ppl without known health issues can die of it
effectiveness of DIY masks worn by public 7/
the rate of infection of people in a given area
mortality rate
how long, if at all, immunity lasts
how soon, if at all, there'll be a vaccine
why ppl without known health issues can die of it
effectiveness of DIY masks worn by public 7/
With unknowns I mean: high level of uncertainty and substantial disagreement among scientists.
There's a lot of cool real-time peer review--in blogs, on twitter, in journals, and lots of science communication going around right now and that's good (and may it continue) 8/
There's a lot of cool real-time peer review--in blogs, on twitter, in journals, and lots of science communication going around right now and that's good (and may it continue) 8/
Still, the public understanding of sars-cov-2 and of something well established like climate science is glaring. As @nescio13 and @ewinsberg argue, climate science is a mature field, well established, facts are highly certain. With corona, who knows? 9/ https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2020/03/climate-coronavirus-science-experts-data-sceptics
In the face of this uncertainty, what should we do? We might consider is what Hempel called "inductive risk". Heather Douglas argued it's inevitable that values should play a role in science, because you cannot be certain your results reflect reality 10/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/188707?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
https://www.jstor.org/stable/188707?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Douglas argues that inductive risk plays a role in scientists deciding to accept or reject a hypothesis. E.g., if you're saying: this new drug is safe, you'd better be really sure or the results are disastrous 11/
Inductive risk *also* plays a role in adopting policy. For example, Sweden has a relaxed herd immunity/mitigation approach of keeping schools open and protecting the most vulnerable, which is based on an optimistic .1% fatality rate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/coronavirus-pandemic-for-many-in-sweden-life-goes-on-as-usual/2020/04/06/7402f68e-75bb-11ea-ad9b-254ec99993bc_story.html
If Sweden is wrong, that would turn out to be quite bad for them. But you might also think the other way around: suppose that there are indeed lots of asymptomatic people, then prolonged lockdowns would need to be gauged against the wider effects of unemployment, etc. 13/
So, either approach is risky. Given how uncertain and how complicated the science is, would it be better that experts help us decide what to do? The experts will, in their wisdom, steer the best course. This idea is attractive, but there's a problem 14/
If there is disagreement and uncertainty, the problem of inductive risk (of drawing wrong conclusions, with disastrous policy results) increases. Thus, I think it's important that the public, who will need to live with these decisions, should be as well-informed as possible 15/
Walter Lippmann (1922) proposed that the public just can't understand anything that's scientifically specialized (e.g., pandemics) so we need rule by elites and technocrats. By contrast, Dewey (1927) thought we need a democratic say also in policy informed by science 16/
Dewey didn't trust experts to make decisions that are in our best interests. We can see it happen now. For example, early on scientists advising Boris johnson thought that the UK public would never be on board with prolonged lockdowns (see here)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-path-speci/special-report-johnson-listened-to-his-scientists-about-coronavirus-but-they-were-slow-to-sound-the-alarm-idUSKBN21P1VF 17/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-britain-path-speci/special-report-johnson-listened-to-his-scientists-about-coronavirus-but-they-were-slow-to-sound-the-alarm-idUSKBN21P1VF 17/
They just assumed! "the British scientists assumed that such drastic actions would never be acceptable in a democracy like the UK" - so they didn't implement the lockdown that later would still be implemented (with little grumbling from the public), costing 10,000 of lives 18/
The potential inductive risk (i.e., the consequences of too stringent measures if the virus turns out to be milder, or too relax measures if it turns out to be worse) for any decision implemented on the basis of current rapidly evolving science is very high. 19/
So we need a well-informed public. We don't need those decisions solely in the hands of politicians who are being in denial, narcissistic, lazy (e.g., Johnson's slow response is according to insiders driven in part by his love of weekend retreats)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh 20/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/coronavirus-38-days-when-britain-sleepwalked-into-disaster-hq3b9tlgh 20/
Problem is: we don't have good science communication. Science communication has been increasingly politicized, esp. among right-wing media, to serve party political interests.
E.g.,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547018760334
Overviews here
https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300234015/misinformation-age 21/
E.g.,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547018760334
Overviews here
https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300234015/misinformation-age 21/
There is unfortunately no rational debate with the public that is honest about what the science says, what the uncertainties are, what the limitations are, and what the inductive risks are.
The public has been infantilized and instrumentalized for political gain 22/
The public has been infantilized and instrumentalized for political gain 22/
And now it's clear that this lack of being level with the public is backfiring. Science communication and education is important to empower the public to make democratic decisions about their welfare. No-one, no expert, can do this in their stead. It is up to them/you /end
