Sunday, July 26, 2020

On Science (and Facemasks)

The masked scientisit


Out biking today, I noticed some people without facemasks (who were walking or mingling; unless in a crowded area or stopped for a prolonged period, I don't wear mine when biking in the open). In conversation about this topic, most seem to say that the deicision whether to wear a mask is "political." Similar things are said about vaccinations also. Are these issues political? I think not, at least in a direct sense. But these decisions are a matter of science. But not "science" as most people seem to use the term. This leads me to the following observations:

Science as a human creation and endeavor. No humans, no science. Of course, Nature, the universe, the material world--whatever term you prefer--exists independently of any human being. And events and processes occur whether humans identify them or not. Science is the human effort to understand the natural world by using empirical observation and (mostly) mathematical modeling. But whatever conclusions we reach are reached by we fallible humans. Based on this fundamental premise of human fallibility, all our knowledge of "science" is in some measure hypothetical, tentative. Some conclusions are now beyond serious dispute (e.g., the earth orbits the sun) but a great deal of what we call "science" is simply our best effort to arrive at what we should consider a tentative conclusion. And when we move away from relatively mechanical systems (e.g., the orbits of the solar system) into complex systems, such as those of biology, which are neither mechanical nor fixed (unchanging), we are in a much more difficult arena in which to navigate. Thus, when we speak of science, especially concerning the biology of viruses, human health, or vaccines (to provide only three topical examples), we don't have "Science" that provides us with infallible answers, but only fallible science as an ongoing endeavor to attempt to drive away falsehood while at the same time allowing us to act with some sense of rationality (matching our actions to intended ends). 

Thus, if I refer to "science" in support of everyone wearing a mask in public (as I do), I'm not appealing to an infallible writ from on high, but to the most persuasive conclusions based on the best evidence upon which we can base our actions. All that may change--and will undoubtedly change--as we learn more from gathering new facts and forming new models. Indeed, at the beginning of the pandemic, masks for Americans were discouraged, although the recommendations seem to have been based more upon problems of human behavior (hoarding, decreased risk aversion) rather than recommendations based realities of viral transmission. But in any event, "science" seems to have changed its mind, as well it should. This isn't a shortcoming of science, it's the essence of its strength and utility. 

So, based on the best available scientific knowledge and conclusion (tentative though they may be), WEAR THE DAMNED MASK! And when (assuming here) a vaccine arrives, make the best possible decision based upon the best available evidence. Understand that every human act entails an element of risk. Every action is an experiment of sorts and will entail unintended consequences. But this is a part of the human condition. Acknowledge our predicaments and dilemmas and act accordingly. 

2 comments:

David Pierce said...

We are fallible, but also perfectible, in the sense of Jesus's injunction, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Collingwood took this to heart, I think, as does science, implicitly: we can know things, better and better.

As I understand, treating the sun as a center around which planets revolved was the Copernican hypothesis that allowed discovery of Kepler's Laws, which could in turn be derived from Newton's Laws. These last are justified by their general usefulness; but for navigation and other purposes, keeping earth at the center may still be useful.

A scientific conclusion beyond dispute is the germ theory of many diseases, including now Covid-19. The best way to keep the germs from doing harm is not always clear; but those who study the matter propose mask-wearing as reasonably efficacious against the novel coronavirus, and why not trust them? (I think I'm just repeating your message)

Stephen N. Greenleaf said...

David, thanks for your comment. And my thanks for bringing it to my attention! (I'm hoping that a late response is better than none.) I certainly agree that science as a body of knowledge and as a human undertaking strives toward perfection, at least in the sense of certainty about our knowledge of the natural world. But as science continues its course, the horizon constantly recedes before our advances and our human foibles remain,stubbornly resistant to our aspirations. In this regard I take "science" and "scientists" (their statements) with a grain of salt. And (to venture into waters in which I cannot swim for long at all), it seems that "perfect" knowledge is impossible concerning topics such as complex systems and quantum mechanics, at least if "perfect" knowledge entails the ability to flawlessly predict the future.

All this being said, I believe that we have to place our best bets based on the best we know at present. And thus, WEAR THE DAMNED MASK! is indeed my conclusion.
Thanks,
Steve