Science as Assurance, or "Experts Say"

     As we enter the post-COVID world (or more accurately, the 'post-COVID hysteria' world, since COVID still exists), it makes sense to reflect on how society managed the only real 'pandemic' to affect America in my lifetime. (The H1N1 outbreak in 2009, while more virulent, wasn't met with the same hysteria, largely because it wasn't as contagious. I can personally attest, however, having had both that COVID isn't big enough to be H1N1's weakling little brother....)

    There were myriad lessons learned from how countries and individuals reacted to a new virus outbreak, and one of the lessons is probably the wide variation in what each of us would consider the lessons to be learned; fear, whether justified or not, showed the incredibly wide variation amongst us for risk acceptance, driving such a wide range of responses that some folks screamed for the 'unpersoning' of folks refusing an experimental vaccine, and others demanding to be left to choose for themselves.

    Of course, the 800# gorilla in any room, the Federal government in the US and its analogs in Europe and other places, was at the crux of the dispute, since it's not really possible for people to compel others behavior without the force of the government behind them. As mentioned, everyone takes their own lessons away from how that went; since this blog focuses on the intersection between government, anarchy and chaos, it seems appropriate we discuss the ones which relate to that:

    We Got the Leadership We Deserved

    A governmental system where leaders are chosen by popularity is doomed to fail in the situations where real intelligence and competence is required. Oh, I know folks will tell you they look at a candidate's record, their concordance with the voter's own beliefs and all that, but it's a popularity contest in the end. We have debates, which approach game show levels of shallowness, and are consumed by the majority of the population as curated sound bites at that. In the end, however, it's common to hear people say, "I just like him/her better" or "I think they're trustworthy." 

    Compare the skills needed to campaign-the ability to deliver short, memorable messages repeatedly, the ability to organize people toward a goal and the ability to raise money-and you'll find little overlap with the ability to understand emerging science, understand mass psychology or seek advice from subject matter experts effectively. In fact, most of our elected officials have been nothing BUT elected officials for most of their lives, preventing them from getting any real-world, problem-solving experience dealing with emergencies or disruptions. As a job interview, campaigns are ineffective. 

    It's not human nature to say, "I loathe that person, but they're the most qualified so I'm voting for them." It doesn't happen, so we choose our leadership by a popularity contest, and (as we just found out) that's no way to find competent managers.

    People Don't Understand the Scientific Method

    Oh, they think they do, but most folks seem to have a deeply flawed view of how science actually works. This was obvious when 'Experts Say..." became a de facto debate ender, and when the 'argument from authority' supplanted the rigor of conflicting ideas working to disprove theories until only the truth remained, which is more like the real scientific method.

    We were told repeatedly that 'the science says' as a foundation for actions the government took, when the simple truth is that good science is never about consensus, but about diversity of opinion contending, with supporting data, to become the primary hypothesis. It's why Pluto was a planet and no longer is, it's why we're still studying the process of evolution and why most real scientists will almost never claim something is 'settled science.' 

    Does this matter? Well, I took a shot I was assured was perfectly safe-'settled science'-and which is now off the market because of the risks it presents. Science is a process, and not a destination, and power-hungry scientists obscured that to the uneducated public to gain authority, quell healthy dissent and consolidate policy with questionable scientific foundations. 

    Half the World is Below Average, and They Vote Too

    The simple fact is that large societies might simply be untenable in the modern age. With large numbers of folks lacking critical thinking skills (often with advanced, non-STEM degrees giving them an air of expertise that's wholly unwarranted) and their voices amplified by social media, it might be that true Democracy is not workable. Consider this conundrum:

You're at sea in a lifeboat with ten other people, and the boat is too heavy to ride the waves so you have to jettison some supplies. You vote to jettison the seven years of back issues of People magazine, and the other nine vote to jettison the water. 

"Democracy" might not be the solution to that problem....