I must open this piece by clarifying three things off the top: I agree that strict measures were needed in an attempt to stem the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Further, action or not, there are many intricate concerns about how to equitably distribute the pain of the pandemic. Even more, there are deeply difficult questions about how alternative courses of action may trade off lives lost to coronavirus against broad and deep disruption of human well-being (which may itself result in lives lost).
This piece is about none of that.
![The image is a tweet dated 23 Mar 2020 @ 4:11am. The tweeter is blurred and the text reads: "Good morning, Texas. Here is an interactive map that prepared by science that shows their projections if we move as a state from your current order to the #StaySafeStayHome order [blurred text] 430,000 deaths v 5000 #FlattenTheCurve [blurred text]"](https://lifeloveillusion.com/wp-content/uploads/tweet-200325-0411.png)
As the pandemic accelerated, a certain Texas politician made a tweet calling for stronger societal restrictions. In itself, I found this to be a good thing. Yet there was a certain phrase in the tweet, or more specifically, implications behind the phrase — “prepared by science” — that I believe endanger our collective ability to guide society by clear thinking. I’ve masked certain details in the image of the tweet because I do not wish to vilify the politician, nor do I wish to critique the study it points to (just yet). I do wish to vilify the tweet itself.
But…sigh…I must hasten to interject more clarifications:
- I’m fine with an expedient use of the phrase; I won’t pick on the fact that there is no entity “science” that prepares anything. The phrase can be a useful shorthand. Fine.
- I’m all for good science. “Good” is the key word.
- I don’t know (and am not focusing on) the tweeter’s actual understanding of the phrase.
- My concerns are with the implications of the phrase when it is thrown around in this way and with its treacherous effect on the civility of society.My concerns are with the implications of the phrase when it is thrown around in this way and with its treacherous effect on the civility of society.
By the by, I should say why I feel compelled to insert these clarifications. The acceleration of certain peoples’ stridency and aggression in beating the drums of their political doctrines has advanced to the point where any petty troll might pluck out a phrase, ignore the thrust of what I’m saying, and then shoot and stab at windmills. I’d like to save such trolls the trouble and embarrassment.
Anyway, in the language of the tweet, the phrase “prepared by science” functions as an appeal to authority: “You should believe this because scientists say it is so.” If indeed good science supports it, indeed we should believe it, but an appeal to authority does not make it good science.
We could simply leave the tweet’s ad verecundiam fallacy at that but, in the context of a society (a) divided by what makes good science and (b) prone to using arguments that are more highly emotionalized than solidly reasoned, the tweet’s appeal to authority carries an insidious implication: If you don’t agree with the tweet’s call to action, you must be anti-science. Tossed around the way it is, the phrase weaponizes the tweet. It tends not only to cut off debate, but to shame and pillory any who might dare to take issue with its call to action.
And not only this phrase in this tweet. Media, social media, and political conversations are rife with all manner of ad verecundiam appeals to science weaponized in the same way — and more clearly so, or even explicitly so. Ironically, and sadly, this type of dogmatic exclusion of civil discussion seems, in my experience, to often arise from voices that wish to be known by their grand tolerance for and deference to diversity. At least, it seems, diversity of selected types.
Let me not, however, merely vilify the tweet; I shall offer an alternative. Clearly, the tweeter was convinced by whatever is contained in the study pointed to. Fair enough; I respect that. The tweet might then say something such as this:
Framed this way, the tweet would allow debate. The tweeter would offer respect to tweet’s targets by allowing that they might
BudgetPet
have a response, also based in science (or else bringing in a broader and more complete spectrum of public policy considerations), that draws a different conclusion. Framed this way, the tweet would seek a society based in civility and meritorious debate instead of, as it is, treading in shaming-based power plays of influential-might-makes-right.
Imagine all the people being better to each other that way. I hope to be, and I think I’m not the only one. I hope some day you’ll join us.
Postlude: Meritorious debate is all well and good, one might say, but this was a time for rapid action. Also fair enough. The tweeter’s intended urgency is a different matter, which I shall address in a separate piece.
