Read on Twitter
It's important that any governmental spending on Covid-19 relief should carve out funds to pay psychology and philosophy consultants who work on science communication. Those experts could devise strategies that help to convey crucial health information to the public. Thread 1/
Okay, this is going to be a reflection on the 2 cultures, and that to neglect the humanities and social sciences at the expense of a narrow focus on STEM, especially in times of global health crisis, is something governments do at their own peril.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures 2/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures 2/
I just cannot fathom why communications of crucial health information by governments across the world are so abominably bad. If people distrust the info or are confused, that info is essentially useless. It's sometimes worse than giving no info at all. Consider ... 3/
The mask debacle.
I don't know what else to call it because this is a gigantic failure in science communication that will be studied by philosophers of science in decades to come. In the early stages of the pandemic CDC said only healthy folks need not wear masks 4/
I don't know what else to call it because this is a gigantic failure in science communication that will be studied by philosophers of science in decades to come. In the early stages of the pandemic CDC said only healthy folks need not wear masks 4/
Now it's changed. Why did the CDC change its mind? Well, they were afraid that recommending everyone wear masks would lead to a run on N95 and surgical masks, leaving healthcare workers without them https://khn.org/morning-breakout/cdc-considers-shifting-guidance-on-masks-but-are-wary-of-creating-a-run-on-n95s-that-protect-health-workers/ See here from April ... 5/
Well-intentioned though it was, concerted efforts to mislead people backfire because they destroy trust. And if the CDC and other official agencies had only listened to philosophers, they would've known. In face, WEB Du Bois already said this over a century ago. 6/
WEB Du Bois argued that it's vital scientists are committed to discovering the truth, because such a commitment is important to retain trust. If one falsely claims masks are useless in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary to prevent PPE shortages, it dismantles trust 7/
See here an article by @lastpositivist on Du Bois' arguments on how science fits within democracy. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-017-1333-z
Nevertheless, STEM-folks have during the pandemic frequently overstepped this role. One dramatic example is the pursuit of "herd immunity" in the UK 8/
Nevertheless, STEM-folks have during the pandemic frequently overstepped this role. One dramatic example is the pursuit of "herd immunity" in the UK 8/
Why did the UK initially pursue a "herd immunity" (let the virus rip through the population) strategy? Well, "the British scientists [who advised the UK government] assumed that such drastic actions would never be acceptable in a democracy like the UK". 9/ 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
Those scientists, whose expertise lies in epidemiology, virology, just assumed, using stereotypic reasoning about "Asian" compliance vs "European" free-spiritedness that the UK population would never comply to lockdowns. They were wrong. The UK population did comply, largely 10
The recommendations of those scientists who thought "lockdowns will never work in the UK" were not just wrong, but had disastrous consequences. Half the number of covid-19 related deaths could have been avoided. /11 https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-britain-epidemiologis/uk-lockdown-a-week-earlier-could-have-halved-covid-19-death-toll-scientist-says-idUSL8N2DN58X
The disdain for humanities and social sciences is now resulting in pointless deaths. Now those advisors to the UK gov't might say: Who could have known? The answer is: we actually do have a wealth of resources, from history, sociology, philosophy, psychology /12
For instance, historians have of studied public health interventions and public perception of health in the face of pandemics (smallpox, bubonic plague etc.) for a long time. They know anti-vaxxers aren't a novel phenomenon, and lockdown resistance isn't either. /13
For example, this is a paper on public health interventions in the 17th century following bubonic plague outbreaks in England (I could cite many others) https://academic.oup.com/jsh/article/45/3/809/1746067
Particularly, this excerpt: /14
Particularly, this excerpt: /14
Historical studies show:
(1) governments have for centuries implemented such measures as quarantining and social distancing when epidemics hit
(2) there have been public trust issues surrounding such measures.
We should consider (2) as a factor that might hamper (1) /15
(1) governments have for centuries implemented such measures as quarantining and social distancing when epidemics hit
(2) there have been public trust issues surrounding such measures.
We should consider (2) as a factor that might hamper (1) /15
This is just a given. It's useless to spend billions and billions in operations like Warp Speed on developing a vaccine and developing infrastructure to make massive numbers of doses without addressing the potential trust issues that might hamper the uptake of a vaccine /16
The name "Operation Warp Speed" fails the basics of PR & marketing communications.
What people might be hearing instead: "Operation it's a rush job and it might not be safe".
This is really basic due diligence. *Making* the vaccine is only half the job /17
What people might be hearing instead: "Operation it's a rush job and it might not be safe".
This is really basic due diligence. *Making* the vaccine is only half the job /17
Listen here to a fascinating podcast on how the speed of the vaccine could backfire.
"Americans were afraid of the very speed at which this vaccine is being developed".
Many people who are not anti-vaxx under other circumstances express reservations /18 https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYXJ0MTkuY29tL3RoZS1kYWlseQ/episode/Z2lkOi8vYXJ0MTktZXBpc29kZS1sb2NhdG9yL1YwL3VtLXZvRW9EM3RrcDRsWHNrdjBYak1SeDFTV0NydDZ1Qk5xS1VVa1kzSkk?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwiH6qP7o-vqAhUOHc0KHYyZApAQieUEegQICRAE&ep=6
"Americans were afraid of the very speed at which this vaccine is being developed".
Many people who are not anti-vaxx under other circumstances express reservations /18 https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYXJ0MTkuY29tL3RoZS1kYWlseQ/episode/Z2lkOi8vYXJ0MTktZXBpc29kZS1sb2NhdG9yL1YwL3VtLXZvRW9EM3RrcDRsWHNrdjBYak1SeDFTV0NydDZ1Qk5xS1VVa1kzSkk?hl=en&ved=2ahUKEwiH6qP7o-vqAhUOHc0KHYyZApAQieUEegQICRAE&ep=6
So we need to think of interventions to help regain trust.
Against my proposal, you might argue: "Well if you pay philosophers and psychologists to help people get on board with a vaccine that will horribly backfire."
I do not think so, for the following reason 19/
Against my proposal, you might argue: "Well if you pay philosophers and psychologists to help people get on board with a vaccine that will horribly backfire."
I do not think so, for the following reason 19/
I believe, along with such authors as WEB Du Bois and John Dewey that the best science communication is honest science communication, and that the best science communication conveys how science is done and how it works. People don't want spin in science. /20
There is psychological research that shows that people have in-built mechanisms that help them filter info that comes at them from other sources, these are called "epistemic vigilance." Science communication should work in concert with such mechanisms. /21
For example, regardless of their political affiliation, participants are much more likely to accept global warming if they understand the *mechanism* through which it occurs.
You can't check the science, but this allows you to check its plausibility.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12187 /22
You can't check the science, but this allows you to check its plausibility.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12187 /22
So, a concerted effort in transparency on how these vaccines are developed, a massive effort in conveying this to the public (this also involves increasing the knowledge of laypeople of such matters, e.g., how the immune system works) could have long-term benefits /23
This would allow people to be real stakeholders in the political landscape on how governments act in the face of scientific information (see also Dewey's views in his 1927 The Public and its problems--briefly discussed in this piece by @shengokai and me
https://theconversation.com/a-pragmatist-philosophers-view-of-the-us-response-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic-138760/24
https://theconversation.com/a-pragmatist-philosophers-view-of-the-us-response-to-the-coronavirus-pandemic-138760/24
So, in sum: any public communication on Covid-19 (vaccines, health measures) should be informed by insights from history, sociology, philosophy etc. STEM folks ignore these insights, leading to botched communications and erosions of public trust. We must do better /end
