September 28, 2023
The American form of government is based, in part, on the concept of the “consent of the governed.” In order for this to last through the generations, it is necessary to cultivate a public that is dutiful, moral, informed, and wise. It was perhaps inevitable from the beginning of the Republic that this would be a challenge, as the human vices to the contrary have an immensely strong pull. This does not mean we ought not try however, and we certainly should not discourage those that seek to fulfill their duty in this regard from doing so.
There seems to be a concerted effort recently to discourage this, especially since the calamity that was the COVID-19 response in America (and worldwide). Anthony Fauci famously stated during that response effort, ““I was talking with my U.K. colleagues who are saying the U.K. is similar to where we are now, because each of our countries have that independent spirit. I can understand that, but now is the time to do what you’re told.”
Such authorities, who were embarrassingly incorrect about so much during the COVID era and beyond, prefer citizens just shut up and do what they say “for the greater good.” Their often visible frustration with non-compliance and questioning of their preferred mitigation (to the extent it did occur) is testament to their disdain for our “independent spirit.” Also telling was their heavy hand of censorship, using government coercion and threats of retaliation to stifle discussion and dissent at every level of government and shame those that did not comply.
This did not, and has not, stopped. For every authoritarian in an official position of power there are countless sycophants underneath them and out in the periphery of society running defense for their cause. Many of them are true believers in the heavy-handed “top-down” mentality, especially when it comes to responding to “threats to public health and safety.” One of the most pertinent defenses these promoters of technocratic bureaucracy push is the notion that so-called “experts” in a given field ought to enjoy almost unchecked authority to determine what is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on a given topic of concern. This truth then, according to these proponents, must translate directly into policy, regardless of whether or not it may conflict with other interests or recognized restraints on power.
This has resulted even in attacks on the competency and confidence of the citizenry to conduct research and make informed judgments about important matters; an essential skill and duty we must trust people to complete as a society based on the “consent of the governed” and the preservation of fundamental rights secured by a limited and checked government. It has also resulted in the further annointment of bureaucratic authorities as “the science” itself, an attempt to bypass accountability for human mistakes and errors by flipping it around on critics to accuse them of attacking scientific methods or being themselves “anti-science.”
This is all pure sophistry. Below is an example of one such internet-based attack on freethinking citizens as well as an example of the deification of scientific bureaucrats by shifting around definitions to make it seem as if science itself is under attack instead of mere criticism of certain human conduct.
The first example, from “The Unbiased Science Podcast” is as follows:
Each part of the post will be addressed below.
“The phrase “do your own research” has become a bit of a battle cry among people who seek to dismiss scientific evidence and the expertise of individuals in relevant fields.”
“Do your own research” is a battle cry among people who seek to dismiss scientific evidence and the expertise of individuals in relevant fields? That is an awfully bad assumption. “Do your own research,” in itself, seems more like a call to action to seek the truth. It could mean “trust but verify,” “seek alternative viewpoints,” “consider all the relevant factors of a policy,” “be weary of groupthink,” or any combination of all of these. Attempting to belittle this advice before any argument is even made is improper, for if we are to assume negative motives, the same would apply to anyone that would make this charge. Our task is to figure out the truth and consider appropriate action; we should not poison the well before we begin.
“Often, this idea is paired with the notion that scientists are somehow in cahoots with some evil entity to mislead the public, but untrained individuals will be able to figure out the REAL story by doing their own research.”
This touches on the bigger picture concerns that are reflected in policy that actually impacts people’s lives. There is again an unwarranted assumption built into this statement; that people are irrationally afraid of an “evil entity” rather than just looking at all the angles, motives, and perspectives while recognizing that there are always competing interests at play. Concerned citizens attempting to fulfill their duty as informed actors in a democratic republic are not always “untrained individuals.” It is rather condescending to reduce them to that level and it is contrary to the point of our entire governmental system. The “REAL story” is another weasel term attempting to bypass argument and belittle valid concerns people have with certain policies.
“Let’s address the elephant in the room, and yes, this may be jarring to hear for some. Scientists – whatever the field – train specifically to be able to design studies, conduct experiments, collect data, and evaluate those data in a manner that enables them to make accurate conclusions and interpretations of those data. This is a skill set that we acquire over many years in the field. It also equips us with the ability to read a scientific study and determine how relevant or robust the data are – and whether there are flaws in how the study was conducted, analyzed, or interpreted. Not all scientific studies and papers are created equal; plenty of crappy studies are published daily.”
This undermines their own argument. Yes, there are plenty of really poorly designed studies. There is also “bought” science and there are invalid conclusions made given the data. Scientists are only human and are subject to the same vices and error as everyone else. This supports the notion of citizens “doing their own research,” it does not invalidate the need for it. Part of that research would be listening to other trained scientists and their critiques, so the fact that scientists in general are equipped with the tools necessary to read scientific studies conducted by other scientists does not help the argument that the general population ought not bother. Also, we are usually talking about topics that can be understood by a motivated intelligent human being with general knowledge of research and analysis if the scientific papers are written properly. We are usually not talking about high-level physics or mathematical papers that contain theorems and symbols that are foreign to the general public. So assuming all people cannot conduct this task is about a bad as assuming all scientists are “in cahoots” with an “evil entity.” Again, the criticism simply does not pass logical muster.
“It is somewhat insulting, frankly that many members of the public believe they can bypass all the intensive and technical training and be as skilled as those experts, simply by reading some stuff online. More importantly, it is FALSE. Doing a Google search is not doing research. Going onto PubMed and cherry-picking one or two papers that support your opinion is not doing research. Sharing memes on social media is not doing research. Reading content that is curated on a website – even a credible one (like ours) – is not doing research.”
The insulting thing about this is the idea that the American public ought to just bend to the will of some supposed “scientific consensus” on topics of concern, especially when they are instrumental to crafting public policy that has far-reaching implications. It is also insulting to suggest critics of said consensus or those that wish for people to question such authorities are merely going off of “google searches” or “cherry-picking studies on PubMed.” This is fallacy, not an argument.
“Just like most scientists would never claim to be experts in areas outside their scope – architecture, waste management, information technology, construction – why do non-scientists feel that this does not apply to them when it comes to science?”
This statement completely undermines their entire argument. This is because, as indicated above, this debate is not really about any particular scientific fact, rather it is about the public policy that is partially influenced by scientific findings. “Partially” is the operative term because good policy also takes into consideration moral/ethical restraints, legal precedent, social implications, economic implications, practicality (short/long term) and other factors including alternative scenarios and opportunity costs. Just as there are scientific experts in the primary relevant field of concern (that may agree or disagree with a so-called conscensus) there are other scientific experts that may have other concerns, as well as a myriad of experts in other fields that have concerns too. It is true none of us are experts in everything (including the politicians that are tasked with creating our public policy and therefore must listen to other experts to make valid judgments). So we need to do our best to hear all the relevant views and apply them to our rights-based framework in order to find solutions to problems that are moral, legal and practical.
“We need to improve science literacy for the public, absolutely. But that does not mean everyone will be able to ‘do their research’ – it means they should be able to determine which EXPERTS are those that can be relied on to distill the research for them.”
Americans do not want a technocracy or a nanny state. Americans can and do seek out experts they trust. This includes experts in fields of study the creators of this argument admitted they do not completely understand. And as we indicated, there is more to making proper judgments than simply relying on the opinion of a given scientist in one scientific field. Scientific literacy is great, as is the ability to conduct proper research. But as we all should understand, even complete recognition of undeniable scientific fact does not necessarily warrant instituting policy that would coerce people to act in accord with such facts. For example, the best science conducted to date will all conclude that in general it is beneficial to human health to eat healthy, exercise, get enough sleep, etc. Does this warrant bans on junk food, forced physical activity, and curfews with mandatory bedtimes? Of course not. Furthermore, even regarding public health, the best science concludes healthy people are less likely to become symptomatic when infected with certain pathogens, less likely to transmit said pathogen to others, and therefore less likely go spread the pathogen and use up critical hospital resources during outbreaks. Shall we force the above-mentioned health measures on everyone in the name of public health and safety? Shall we lockdown those that are deemed unhealthy and therefore more likely to transmit the pathogen and/or take up vital resources during treatment? Again, this presents ethical problems and is very impractical. Yet this is in line with the thinking that many seem to promote with such scientific expert-heavy dictates. People that think like this appear to be assuming the truth of their preconceived conclusions in their premise, which is ironically a charge they are making against the hypothetical “do your own research” people they are lamenting here.
As you can see, these people have no problem making accusations, but come up short on explanation when the totality of the content is considered. What about the claim critics are attacking science itself?
Scientism Advocates Running Cover for Recent Massive Scientific Blunders
This post is also making the rounds on social media. Contrary to the point Matt Blaze is attempting to make, the post actually reflects the dangers of “scientism” as opposed to the virtues of the scientific method and its rightful place in our quest for understanding. The message Matt Blaze is communicating is distorted because when someone says the statement he highlighted, the point they are making isn’t usually to address whether or not science works. It is meant to explain why any specific bit of “science” (consensus or otherwise) may not be sufficient in itself to “trust” and base a practical decision on, especially rash decisions, since they necessitate many other considerations (scientific, moral, legal, economic etc) and there are inherent risks/opportunity costs in doing so. Just as there are attempts to attack anyone that may try to conduct research outside of the approved “scientific consensus,” this is an example of cover being run for wayward scientific consensus that was not only incorrect, but caused a lot of harm as well.
Scientism, according to Merriam Webster dictionary, is “an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities).” It becomes a substitute for proper judgment, which ought to be practically more broad but based first on rational moral principle, something that necessarily precedes any observations in the physical world. We see the dangers of this type of thinking manifested in technocratic bureaucracy and parroted by “intellectuals” that may be experts in their specific fields, but not necessarily wise when considering matters outside of their compartmentalized knowledge. They reason that if they are so great in their fields, their counterparts in other fields must also be great in theirs, which may be true but ultimately misses the point of making wise judgments for policy based on more than just “the best scientific conclusions at the time.” As mentioned above, this may be one component of such judgment, but it cannot the the only, or even the more important, component.
It should not be lost on the reader that quite often the same people that decry other citizens acting independently and “doing their own research” are also supposed advocates for “power to the people” democracy. There is an inherent conflict in their beliefs however, as it appears the majorities they covet and the voices they claim to wish to rise up are only acceptable so long as they are obedient to their pre-existing beliefs and authority. This conflict is resolved by recognizing that criticism of authority is a good thing, people ought to act on their interest upon considering for themselves information from a variety of sources, and that government power limited to only that necessary to protect rights from infringement and uphold order is our duty to maintain. If advocates of “official policy” wish to convince people to comply, they ought to do a better job communicating their message. Belittling those that disagree, seek clarification, demand accountability, or that seek alternative measures is never a valid substitute for good arguments. Preserving free choice and fundamental rights through the promotion of fact-finding and an understanding of how policy fits into our moral and governmental systems is certainly the American thing to do.
