Follow the science

...except that science doesn’t lead anywhere

“Follow the Science” has become a mantra repeated over and over during the pandemic. It is a favourite weapon wielded by COVIDians. Typically it’s used as a blunt instrument to bludgeon opposing views, instead of dissecting them or debating them.

Someone argues against mask mandates? FOLLOW THE SCIENCE! Don’t agree with lockdowns? FOLLOW THE SCIENCE! You don’t think 100% of the population should be forced to be vaccinated? FOLLOW THE SCIENCE!

Keeping kids safe by “following the science”

There are several problems with the statement. Mainly the first 2 words: “follow”, and “the”.

We can’t follow something that doesn’t lead

First – “Science” doesn’t lead anywhere, so we can’t follow it. Science is a method. It’s a systematized way of producing factual knowledge about the material world.

Science can tell us about the way electrons flow through metal, but science doesn’t make a wire. Or a telephone. Or a computer. Those came from the human imagination. Humans use scientific knowledge to produce these inventions. Science empowers us, but it is itself powerless and inert without human imagination.

Science can inform us on risks of our life choices. Eating cheesecake is bad for your weight and blood sugar, but sometimes we choose to eat it. Science doesn’t make that decision. Mountain biking on gnarly trails means a risk of injury or even death. But science doesn’t tell you whether to go on that ride. Science can tell you if there is a 0.0002% risk that your plane will crash. It can’t tell you whether to book a ticket to see your parents. These life decisions are made based on individual values, physical needs, and spiritual beliefs.

Science doesn’t “lead” anywhere, so we can’t follow. In the case of COVID it can inform us about risks. We have to put these risks in context, compare them to other risks that we are familiar with already, look at the benefits of taking those risks, and then consider our needs and values to make a final decision on how to live our lives.

Who ever thought “the” could be problematic?

The second problematic word in “Follow the Science” is “the”. Science is a method. It’s not a set of dictates or commandments. We can try to “follow the bible” – that makes more sense conceptually than “follow the science”. But even that is hard because, if taken literally, the bible is full of contradictions and interpretable statements.

Science is also full of contradictions. By definition, science is meant to be adversarial. If following the scientific method, one cannot claim to have found the ultimate truth, and thus shut down debate. That’s not how science works. By definition, scientific claims have to be potentially falsifiable. Others are not only allowed, but obligated, to look for errors and try to prove that claim is wrong. If further evidence contradicts it, the claim is not “true”. Nobel prizewinning scientist Richard Feynman, also a renowned teacher, famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”. There is no “the science”, there is only “science” as a method of seeking the truth of the material world.

Thus it’s always wrong to ever talk about “the science”, and especially in a new and highly contested realm such as COVID research.

Scientism as a substitute for religion

Philosophers and political scientists have worried for many years about growing “scientism”. As religion has died out as a source of meaning and moral guidance in much of modern society, it has been replaced by a faith that materialism – the constant effort to improve our material circumstances – will fulfill us. We no longer look to priests and clerics to help us lead our life in a proper way, instead we delegate that to scientific “experts”.

But even if scientific information is 100% perfect and correct, a scientific expert still can’t tell us how to live. He can tell us the risk of visiting grandma, but not whether to risk visiting grandma. He can provide data on whether masks decrease COVID transmission (hint for an upcoming article – they don’t), but he can’t tell us whether mask mandates are right or wrong. Science may eventually define the risks and benefits of vaccines, but cannot tell us whether it’s OK to force someone to be injected against his will with a new vaccine.

Science and COVID policy

COVID policy is not strictly scientific. There are political, moral and spiritual dimensions and impacts to all these decisions. So it is wrong to think of these policy decisions as being answerable strictly through science. Thus it is wrong to cede supreme executive power to a medical officer of health, even if that MOH were scientifically omniscient.

Normal parliamentary debate and discussion has been avoided for 2 years by declaring an unjustified and perpetual “state of emergency.” Medical officers of health have been handed the keys to our kingdom. They have been told to go ahead and micromanage every decision of our lives as they see fit. But an individual’s life decisions cannot – should not! - be made by an appointed third party who cannot possibly know that person’s values and needs.

This situation needs to end – NOW. As my wife says, “micromanaging your life is my job, dammit!”.