v1.4 How the State Exploited Public Trust in Science
When Bro Science replaces medical expertise
One of the great dangers of the pandemic was the government’s promise of certainty when there was none. This certainty was premised upon the exploitation of public trust in science when science itself could not promise such a feat.
There exist hard problems in science; those with definitive conclusions and certain answers. There are certain things that we can conclude with a high degree of confidence; what are the molecules necessary to produce a particular compound, what are the effects of seat belts on crash mortality rates in a specified population, what is the efficacy of a vaccine in a given population over a specified period of time. There exist studies, there exists evidence and although there is always a subjective judgement as to what extent of evidence is necessary to reach any definitive conclusions, we can always rely upon the raw data to validate or nullify our hypothesis. These are the hard problems of science.
They are the domain of the expert and all reasonable experts as evidenced in their academic writing are deliberately careful in the presentation of their conclusions. There is no credible scientific paper that does not existentially doubt its own conclusion or provide the particular conditions under which its conclusions hold. Hubris and zealous belief is the fatal flaw and the dagger in the heart of progressive science. Has one ever read a compelling paper that did not present a counter argument of itself and then justify why it did not stand? Has one ever met a brilliant scientist who did not lay awake, doubting their own assumptions, logic and conclusions despite sincere conviction in their beliefs? Indeed the great philosopher Wittgenstein presented two seminal works on the philosophy of language, one entirely contradicting the other. The mark of great science is existential doubt in itself, for only through constant self-doubt can problems be discovered, discussed and dealt with.
The disposition of a society’s scientists and intellectuals has a profound implications for its own conscience. A society of humble science treads softly, thinks critically and accepts its own mistakes readily. A society of humble science is a truly progressive society for progression is contingent on trial, error, failure and reconstruction. How can society progress if all the conclusions are predisposed and presented as certainties?
This necessity of a humble science is particular amplified when one uses it and her conclusions to draw public policy recommendations. We transform the uncertain and self-doubting conclusions posited by science to impose broad reaching public policy. In doing so we move from hard problems, i.e. problems of the degree of evidence, problems of the credibility of the experiment to sociological and political cost-benefit analysis which is the basis for public policy recommendation.
For example, it is one thing to ask the efficacy of a vaccine for a specified population but it is another question entirely as to whether one should vaccinate a specified population. The former is a hard problem of science; yes it too involves its own series of assumptions but if one trusts the epistemic quality of the scientist undertaking it, one can reasonably support its answer. The latter question however is not a scientific question alone. It is a political, economic and deeply personal decision. It requires a cost-benefit consideration on individual agency and the responsibility of the state to protect the health of her citizens. It is not a scientific decision alone. We elect politicians, pay civil servants and entertain ‘think-tanks’ to help us reach conclusions to such multi-faceted problems. As citizens of a democracy we have the responsibility to not only question these subjective political choices but also to follow the laws that our governors eventually impose. It is not in the streets that we decide laws, but in our parliaments and her elections.
However the desire of a population to follow her states laws is conditional upon not only the perceived credibility of the electoral process, but also the trust we have in our governors to make decisions in our best interest. The rot of this political trust is the hallmark of our era, it is the origin of our populism and the political poison of our time. Echo chambers of self congratulatory politics who pride in ignoring, upsetting and ‘triggering’ the opposition is the politics of today. This politics, though an effective electoral tool is destructive for effective national governance. If supporters of the opposition do not trust the law maker, they find joy in mocking and flaunting his laws. The precedence of the electoral political strategy of ‘win at all costs’ has thus disabled the ability of the victor to govern the land for the citizens do not trust him and do not care to follow his dictates. It is a consequential step into anarchy.
So how then does a trust-less system govern under emergency? How does a trust-less law maker impose necessary decision upon his citizens? There exists a strategy which has been self-evident; appeal to expertise. If the citizens do not trust their elected official they are prompted to trust the science guiding their decisions.
We saw over the course of the pandemic not politicians being the focal voice of reason, but chief medical officers and ‘SAGE’ committees of experts. These scientific institutions remain one of the last institutional vestiges of trust in our democracy. However they are being required to not defend the hard problems of science, a subject within their domain of expertise, but indeed to defend the political public policy decisions that arose from it.
A parade of scientists; Witty, van Tam, Harries, Fauci were brought to the public eye, to babysit our elected leaders as they made the most consequential political decisions in our lifetimes. However these medical experts were asked to lend their faces, their reputations and their professions credibility in order to justify political decisions such as lockdowns. Moreover they were asked to provide absolute certainty over the efficacy of these political decisions when none existed. A humble scientist can never provide such certainty without extreme contingency, doing so is the absolute antithesis of scientific inquiry.
Yet they were.
A scientist can with epistemic credibility defend the efficacy of masks and vaccines but they can not defend the imposition of political decisions made from it. These are matters of political decision making. They should be the domain of our senators not our scientists.
However the partisan disease that has infected our politics has required them to defend the flag for they remain the final carriers who we trust to carry it with our best intentions at heart. Though their domain is in the efficacy of hard problems, their credibility is used to defend political decisions. This is a significant and deliberate abdication of political responsibility by elected officials to unelected civil servants. Whether the imposition of a lockdown; one that damages the mental health of millions and indiscriminately decimates small businesses should be enforced in order to reduce the mortality rate (with some degree of certainty) is not a question for Witty, Fauci or any scientist. It is a multi-faced problem that should be made by our elected leaders. Having the scientists on the tele, lending their credibility of their profession in order to justify such a choice risks the destruction of public trust in it if they are wrong.
This abdication of political responsibility by our leaders comes with the contingency of promising certainty. The humble science was brushed aside in favour of the totalitarian truth. Dissent was disdained. In doing so, that most fundamental and progressive force, the perennial doubter, the questioning scientist was forced to provide certainty where none exists. The humble scientist was asked to wear the dress of the confident politician. It was and continues to be a naked exploitation of public trust in science and her institutions.
It can only end one way.
Assuming there is a small probability of mistaken conclusions and assuming the continued exploitation of science by the political elite, it is merely inevitable that there will be a disastrous failure where our unelected political guardians simply get things wrong and lose the public trust. Is not an if, but a when. Moreover suppose (quite fairly) that some of the political choices regarding lockdowns turn out to have disastrous long term consequences. Will the public blame their elected leaders? No, they will remember the parade of scientists who lent their professional credibility to justify political choices.
But mistakes are the pride and joy of humble science for only through them can progress be made. However under our current regime of totalitarian truth such mistakes are deadly and intolerable for they will destroy the public trust in medical science. Thus mistakes will be covered, the whistle-blowers smeared and the inquisitors pushed to the fringes. As more pandemics emerge who will the public turn to in search for truth? I fear we are already seeing this effect in action. The prominence of celebrities and their influence in medical and political debate is the consequence of decay of public trust in politicians and their medical side-kicks.
This exploitation of the public trust in science will only end with its loss.
But I believe there is hope for a resolution. I remain perennially optimistic on this.
Yes politicians due to their historical records of lies, corruption and deceit have lost their appeal to authority. Yes politicians due to their unrepresentative and unrelatable backgrounds have lost their appeal to emotion but there remains a more fundamental power that they yet have not, and will not lose; the appeal to reason and logic.
In times of crisis, the citizenry is capable of remarkable and inspirational maturity and sacrifice. Has there been a more touching image in our times than the sacrifice of doctors and nurses for their patients. Has there been a more inspiring sight than the ordinary and lowly paid service staff in fulfilling their responsibility, out of a sense of duty for the continuity of society. It is in such trying times that the exceptional qualities of the ordinary individual have shone.
What is most remarkable is at once to recognise this exceptional maturity of the citizenry and to then treat them like children who must be dictated to rather than reasoned with. The responsibility of elected officials is to admit that the pandemic is an exceptional emergency that required decision making under uncertainty to protect the health of her population. There is a possibility that the decisions made were wrong and may have unknown long term negative repercussions. To convey this is not an admission of scientific defeat or a risk of public acceptance of the advice, it’s simply the truth.
My sincere belief is in the compassion and empathy of the public if one treats it with honesty and maturity. No one expects absolute certainty, no one expects optimal decision making in an unprecedented crisis; one only expects that the decisions are made by the most qualified people with the best intentions and information at the time. It is the absolute responsibility of our elected officials to recapture the role of making and defending political decisions such as mandates and lockdowns. Forcing medical officials to defend political decisions with the certainty of a scientist when its consequences are uncertain and subjective will result in an eventual loss of public trust in these officials. Thus it will make it consequentially more challenging to impose emergency response under the next health crisis for there will be no public institution that the citizenry trust to tell them the real honest truth, except the armed forces…
Thanks all so much for reading, its crazy to see how fast this blog has grown, if you enjoyed this please do sign up for more somewhat cogent but always authentic commentary by your favourite communist dictator.