If the scientist is called upon to recommend a particular course of action for a government, and to announce his or her recommendation during a press conference, then the scientist, like it or not, has a big personal stake in getting his or her recommendation welcomed and accepted by the public.
Because of this understandable human interest in the public acceptance of one’s claims, the process of truth discovery frequently gives way to the process of political persuasion. The role of the scientist and that of the politician become blended together, and we do not know for sure whether the scientist addressing us is reporting scientific evidence, or pushing a particular policy with a highly strategic and selective presentation of the evidence.
For example, when a scientist recommends a heavily disruptive lockdown, his professional reputation is deeply enmeshed with his ability to persuade the public that the lockdown was successful. Consequently, he has very strong incentives to only present evidence that suggests his lockdown saved lives and reduced infections; and very strong incentives to stay quiet about evidence that puts the efficacy of lockdowns in question.
In short, the logic of scientific inquiry and the logic of politics do not mix well. The method of science is supposed to tell us how things work, whether or not we like the answer we get; the methods of politics aim to advance a particular public policy, or consolidate the power of an officeholder, or legitimate a particular policy or regime.
It is imperative that science remains at some distance from the political process, because otherwise, the logic of the scientific method will inevitably become corrupted and colonised by the logic of political power and persuasion.
Occasionally, it may be inevitable that a scientist intervenes directly in debates about public policy. For example, climate scientists may be fully justified in publicly expressing opinions about climate policy. But there is a very fine line between exhibiting what one takes to be the state of the science on a given question, and campaigning for a particular scientific perspective to gain pre-eminence in the public square.
The confusion of roles between scientific researcher and political activist has a lot to do with what the public expects from scientists, especially during a crisis involving complex scientific questions, such as an epidemic.
Some people mistakenly believe that scientists have some sort of crystal ball that allows them to magically resolve incredibly complex problems through a fool-proof or virtually infallible method. Disappointingly, some scientists play into this role, by making highly speculative and ill-informed projections about the course of an epidemic, or by throwing the weight of their scientific career behind a scientifically uncertain measure of disease control, such as lockdowns or masking.
Besides the difficulty of getting a read on highly complex matters, many issues are simply not susceptible to mathematical or quasi-mathematical solutions, or require forms of lateral and multi-dimensional thinking that go far beyond the narrow methods of a single science.
This pandemic has confronted societies across the globe with a host of complex problems that cannot be resolved by simply applying a particular, well-defined scientific method, whether experimental or deductive.
For example, which experimental method or mathematical formula can tell us how much risk is acceptable, or how to make a responsible tradeoff between a risk to life and health on the one hand, and the joys and consolations of normal social interaction on the other? Which scientific method can tell how much liberty we should be willing to sacrifice in return for an increase in personal safety? Which scientific method can tell an elderly person whether to isolate themselves from society to avoid catching Covid-19, or to use their few remaining years to spend time with close family and friends?
These sorts of problems are completely irresolvable from a purely scientific perspective, because knowledge about probable outcomes, correlated events, and even direct causality between events, does not settle for us the problem of how to live our lives, what makes for a meaningful life, or how to balance the often conflicting values that make up a human life.
These sorts of difficult problems can only be resolved through wise and suitably informed judgment.
Of course, once science enters the political arena, it is inevitable that politicians will attempt to use the findings of science to legitimate their own prudential judgment calls.
For example, some politicians will claim that community masking has resounding scientific support; or they will represent lockdowns as a scientifically validated method of disease control; or they will suggest that science itself tells us that natural immunity to Covid-19 lasts for no more than 6 months. In all cases, they would be either lying or taking their scientific advice from very shoddy sources.
It is not especially surprising that a politician would either succumb to simplistic, pseudo-scientific narratives, attempt to enlist scientific authority in the service of his preferred policies, or pretend that there is a resounding scientific consensus on a particular question just because it suits his political agenda.
But it is profoundly disappointing when a trained scientist, who should know a lot better, pretends there is scientific certainty on an issue that divides scientists, just because he is unwilling to admit to his own fallibility, or has thrown in his lot with a particular policy.
Thanks for reading! Check out my other writings and videos at davidthunder.com. You can also subscribe to my Telegram, Youtube, and Rumble channels.
You will receive free content on a regular basis but you also have the option of subscribing on a monthly or annual basis to get access to the full archive that includes subscriber-only posts.
Subscribing on a monthly or annual basis is a way of supporting the work I do to share ideas with my readers about the conditions that favour a free and open society; ideas that are often kept out of mainstream and social media.
Pfizer tweets memes while you give important information....
https://twitter.com/truerinfo/status/1458658323784343555?t=YxW3ZfPBEDf7jp4EDTPtiQ&s=19