Problems with "follow the science," part two
I really do not like hearing the phrase “follow the science.” I have written before about the many problems associated with it, but want to respond specifically to this piece by David Leonhardt. Reading it made me feel like we have a hive mind. Few people have done as good of a job explaining the pandemic and its tradeoffs as he has. I have recommended reading him before and will continue to do so. Anyone wanting to read someone who can explain the pandemic in layman’s terms and the tradeoffs that come with it will be hard pressed to find a better source.
In the context of the pandemic, “follow the science” has frequently been used to mean complete deference to the CDC. As Leonhardt points out, virtually nobody does that on everything. The CDC makes all kinds of insane recommendations on everything from women of childbearing age drinking alcohol to eating raw cookie dough. While their guidance on those areas is crazy, it is mostly harmless because hardly anyone even knows about it, let alone follows it. Their guidance in the case of the pandemic is another matter.
I have written before about the limits of expertise and am not going to repeat it here. What is critical to remember is that expertise and science can only tell us so much. Just as important, science is a process, not a fixed thing that never changes. It is not a deity and those who work in areas of science are not a monolith who always agree. Science can tell us plenty of things such as how a virus spreads, what will treat it, what can reduce its spread and how it will affect someone who gets it. Science cannot tell us how to respond to all that because that is about value judgments.
That is, among other reasons, why “follow the science” does not sit well with me. At best, it is incomplete. Science is just one of many considerations. Science cannot tell us about the economy, for example. It cannot weigh tradeoffs because there are many tradeoffs that are not scientific.
The phrase “follow the science” has frequently been abused during the pandemic to justify all kinds of things that were not science-based (scrubbing surfaces, closing parks) or to dismiss concerns about tradeoffs. Leonhardt notes that many on the left, claiming they were following the science, were dismissive of the idea that closing down schools had any downsides. “Follow the science” has also been used to justify indefinite mask wearing even though that has costs, especially for kids.
Needless to say, those who have downplayed the pandemic and refused to get vaccinated are guilty of not following the science although not many of them have claimed that is what they were doing. If someone truly does wish to “follow the science” regarding the pandemic, the most obvious thing they can do is get vaccinated. Beyond that, it really is up to them to decide what they want to do. The science says that vaccines are amazingly effective and reduce the odds of serious illness to negligible amounts. On anything else, i.e., mask wearing, there is really no science-based reason to do it or not to do it. That comes down to value judgments and how much or little risk tolerance someone has. My own view is that individuals are free to have whatever risk tolerance they want, but those who are risk averse have no right to force everyone else to accommodate them, i.e., mask mandates by governments are not legitimate anymore.
Regarding the CDC and value judgments, it is important to remember that the CDC is staffed by people with close to zero risk tolerance. They spend their entire lives looking at diseases and are always thinking about the worst outcomes. Their understanding of tradeoffs is zero because they are not trained to do that, which is why giving them complete deference is bad.
When the CDC says for everyone to wear masks even if vaccinated, they are expressing their opinion, not their expertise. An expert on viruses can tell you about your odds of getting a virus depending on which activities you engage in. What they cannot tell you is which kinds of precautions you should take because that is about risk tolerance, not expert knowledge. The inability of the CDC to distinguish those two things is one of the biggest reasons why they should not be deferred to. They can have whatever opinions they want, but they are just opinions.
Failing to distinguish expertise from opinion has had serious consequences. For example, the CDC is almost unique in the developed world in recommending masks for preschoolers. Almost no other western country does that. While many blue states are finally getting rid of mask mandates, the CDC still recommends them for everyone. In general, the CDC has handled the pandemic horribly and has screwed up everything from masking to booster shots. I have written before about that and why they have lost the right to be deferred to so feel free to check it out for more detail. One way we will know that we truly are back to normal is when everyone goes back to not even knowing what the CDC recommends.
Do we have any consistent beliefs?
What really irks me the most about “follow the science” is its near-religious use by the left. They were guilty of it before the pandemic, but since then it has been turbocharged. In my previous piece on problems with that phrase, I mentioned several instances in which the left is guilty of not following the science. Examples include opposition to GMOs (they are safe) and opposition to nuclear power (it is safe and has few environmental costs compared with other energy sources).
That is why I believe “follow the science” is more of a form of signaling which tribe someone belongs to. To be sure, the right is guilty of the same thing, just on different issues. For example, claims by those on the right to be in favor of “law and order” are just signaling which tribe someone belongs to, not any broad and consistent affinity for police. I would love to see a Venn Diagram of people who fly blue line flags and people who think what happened on January 6 was good. I suspect the overlap would be close to 100%. I would like to see the same for those who put up yard signs saying they believe in science and those opposed to GMOs and nuclear power.
People love to preach about broad principles that they seldom practice consistently. That does not surprise me, but still drives me off the wall. I say that mainly because it means what they are saying is in bad faith. Those preaching the virtue of following the science are not really interested in science, for example. I am long past the point of naively expecting people to consistently practice what they preach, but I still do not like it one bit.
The list of things that are supposedly sacrosanct but are not actually followed goes on forever. This is just a guess, but I would bet that 95% of people do not have strongly held beliefs on almost all political matters. That is true even if they say and insist that they do. One of the best examples of that is those who live in cities with strict zoning laws that make housing unaffordable for almost everyone claiming that they care about inequality. They could, if they wanted, vote to reduce those laws so as to allow more people to enjoy the prosperity that they are enjoying, which would do more to reduce inequality than probably anything else. But how many of them actually want to do that?
People love to talk a great game because it is easy. Walking the walk is another story. On the right, people love to hate “big government.” But how many of them are willing to give up something they benefit from? How many Republican-voting farmers want to give up farm subsidies? How many conservative seniors would be willing to reduce their own Medicare and Social Security benefits? I would wager the answer is almost none. And who can blame them? Talking about government being bad is easy. Taking action on it requires giving something up. At the end of the day, people are mostly comfortable in their lives and averse to change. If keeping their comfort and avoiding change conflicts with a broad principle they claim to believe in, the former will win out nearly every time.
Is there a way past that?
I doubt it. It seems to be in our nature to stick with our tribes and fight to keep what we have. We have probably always been that way. Fortunately, we have developed institutions that restrain the worst of those tendencies although they are not foolproof.
It would be nice if people really did consistently believe things. I try my best to do that and hope that I am succeeding. I do not want to say that I am succeeding though because that would probably mean I am not.
Certainly, there is no legislation that could be passed that would solve that problem. Legislation can deal with many things, but what is in people’s hearts and minds is rarely one of them. What I try to do is always question things and keep an open mind. I try to be as humble as I can and recognize how little I know. When I see phrases like “follow the science,” I ask myself what that actually entails. I try to not be dogmatic and try to look at what the data actually shows as well as what those who know way more than I do think. Even then, data only tells you so much. We all have values and that takes precedence over all else.