Science Doesn’t Care Who You Voted For
To me, science is truth. We may not fully understand everything, but that’s okay because with every study, we’re getting closer and closer to the truth.
So when people pick and choose which science to listen to — like the anti-vaxxers or, more recently, the anti-maskers — that’s really disappointing and frustrating. Science doesn’t care what you believe in or what opinions you hold. I mean, just look how widespread the coronavirus is in the US right now! The virus doesn’t care who you vote for because it’ll keep doing what it has evolved to do: infect as many people or animals as possible, make them sick, and even kill them.
No virus will stop and be like, “Oh, you voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election? Okay, I’ll skip you and go to the next person.” That’s just a fool’s hope.
But it’s that kind of false hope and foolhardy pseudo-scientific attitude that has become more prevalent and obvious during this pandemic. Those undercurrents have always been there, but now they’re out in the open.
In my debut book, Necessary Symbiosis: What Happens When Science and Government Work Together (and When They Don’t), I explore what happens when people pick and choose what science they want to listen to, and how scientists can advocate their own research to regain some of the credibility that has been lost.
Below is an excerpt from my seventh chapter (formatted for Medium). Enjoy!
Every time there is a power shift, those in power try harder to cling to their power, until they’re no longer in power. It’s generational too, and every generation hears the same thing from the generations before them. But unlike the previous generations of politicians, today’s policymakers and leaders aren’t listening, aren’t thinking about the potential for innovations. So, people are taking matters into their own hands, thanks to the internet.
Since anyone can post anything on any subject on the internet, that feeds into the gap between science and policy. Policymakers can use any information they find online, even if the information is false and not scientifically sound, for the basis of policies.
And this gap between science and policy appears because humans are more probabilistic than precise. That means, generally, humans rarely make decisions based on complete evidence. There’s always some aspect of the evidence that’s missing or some level of uncertainty, but we still make decisions. Science strives to be as precise as possible, and that means scientists also try to be as precise as possible. That’s why the gap appears. The public and policymakers want to prove causation in areas like social science, but it is hard to find the language that makes scientists comfortable with the policy change because of the underlying assumptions of causation.(1)
Take this fictional example for instance: Looking at the sun causes x-ray vision, so the policy of always wearing sunglasses will prevent people from getting x-ray vision because we’re going to stop people from looking at the sun. The made-up causation here is that that looking at the sun causes x-ray vision, even though there are many other assumptions. Maybe the sun isn’t the other reason for getting x-ray vision. Maybe some people are more susceptible for developing x-ray vision and the sun was just a catalyst. There were many unmentioned, underlying assumptions in that made-up causation, which can hurt the credibility of the scientific community as a whole.
There may be a correlation, but unless we know for sure, there isn’t a causation.
A very important distinction.
Scientists need to persuade the public so that the public understands that science doesn’t have all of the answers. Oftentimes, scientists make pronouncements based on the data they have at the time, like with dietary recommendations or the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. And if they get new data in a couple of weeks, months, or years that counters their earlier recommendation, scientists have to edit it, making part of the public think that scientists don’t know what they’re talking about. If the general public understands that, then they’ll understand why science is actually more powerful the more we ask questions. We need to continue to ask “why” and “how” in order to get closer to the truth.(2)
Over the next weeks, I’ll be sharing excerpts and stories from my book, Necessary Symbiosis, in this article series. My book Necessary Symbiosis: What Happens When Science and Government Work Together (and When They Don’t) is available here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08PW4XP38. If you want to connect, find me on Twitter (@KarraVyshnavi), Instagram (@karravyshnavi, @necessarysymbiosis), and at www.vyshnavikarra.com.
(1) Sean Sanders, “Weaponizing science for the greater good,” AAAS Science, June 6, 2019.
(2) Ibid.
