Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Leftists View Independent Thought as Intellectual Laziness
I saw a very nice 72-year-old gentleman yesterday who had questions about COVID vaccines, like everybody and their cousin. He’s a brilliant guy. A semi-retired business consultant who makes a lot more money on part-time consulting than I do in my full-time job. He said something like, “Anybody who hasn’t gotten a COVID vaccine is an idiot” or something like that.
I responded that I agreed that vaccines were probably a good idea, but that the studies on them would be completed in about three years, and I really had very little data to go on. If they are causing harm, we may not know right away. Just because we don’t know exactly what the risks are yet, does not mean that there are no risks. But I tended to agree with him, that the risks of the vaccines were likely to be outweighed by their benefits. Most likely. I’ve gotten my vaccines. They’re probably good. We’ll see. But I also told him that I understood the concerns of those who were reluctant to try them out for one reason or another. I disagreed with them, but I respected their opinion.
He just looked at me. After a pregnant pause, he said, “I didn’t know you were a Republican.”
I wasn’t sure what to say. I finally said, “So, Republicans are hesitant to make decisions without data?”
He said, “No, Republicans don’t believe in science.” Whoa. This, from a guy who joined my practice because his neighbor (who is a doctor) told him that I was the smartest doctor he’d ever met. So now I don’t believe in science. Ok. I’m pissed, but I really try to play nice. Take the high road, right?
I reminded him, “There is no science. The studies will be completed in three years. Then there’s the peer review process. Then post-marketing data. Get some data from somebody who doesn’t work for Pfizer or the CDC. More debate, more studies, more arguing, more data mining. I think you’re probably right. I think the vaccines are probably good. But call me in six or seven years, and I may have a better idea. In my line of work, I guess a lot. But I try to be open about when I’m guessing. I’m not just some guy you met at the bar, telling you what he thinks. I’m wearing a white coat, and you’re paying good money for my perspective, so you should expect a higher standard of data analysis from me. And I’m telling you that there is no data. I’m guessing that the data is likely to be good, overall. Eventually. But I really don’t know. And neither do you. Not yet. And if that level of humility can accurately predict somebody’s politics, then we have problems a lot worse than COVID.”
He changed the subject and had no further questions about COVID vaccines, apparently because he no longer viewed me as a reputable source. Because I don’t believe in science. Or because I’d like to have some data before I answer a question. Which, to him, are the same thing.
As a Christian, I am sympathetic to his perspective. I don’t need proof that Jesus is my savior. I know. But religion is a matter of faith. Science, in my opinion, is not.
This famous graphic is a pretty good summary of the study of philosophy. It may be more complicated than that. Or, perhaps, it’s not. St. Augustine does this for a living. Perhaps he can point out some subtleties that the meme overlooks.
But this is a real blind spot for those who “believe in science.” Because that graphic applies even better to science than it does to philosophy. I’ve been speaking to doctors’ groups all over the country on heart disease for nearly 20 years, and my presentations now are completely different than they were 20 years ago. Even 5 years ago. Not because I was stupid in the past. And not because my faith in “science” wavered from time to time.
No, it’s just because most science is wrong, and we do our best to figure out what is right. Over time. We should remain perpetually cognizant of the fact that much of what we ‘know’ now is wrong. We try to keep learning, even if it challenges our assumptions and biases. That’s just how science works.
I find it fascinating that leftists view any evidence of independent thought as proof that someone is conservative, and thus, evil. Imagine being a member of a movement that vilifies independent thought, and that vilifies efforts to search for truth. They don’t just vilify the truth – they vilify the search for truth. Such truth-seekers are non-scientific heretics who are not to be trusted, and who should not be welcome in polite society.
I’ve already had a few patients who joined my practice because they thought I was particularly good at science, and then left my practice when they found out that I was searching for scientific proof before recommending treatment for them. At least, in the realm of COVID. This seems very odd.
Unless you “believe in science.”
I wrote about this a few years ago, in a post “Those who ‘Believe in Science’ don’t understand science.” I was amazed by Harrison Ford’s performance at a climate change conference. But it’s really not that amazing if you understand the leftist view of science as a religion, and religion as superstition. Unless it’s science. Or something. I think. It’s still amazing to me. Because I don’t understand.
And remember, Christians are irrational superstitious emotional fools, while those who ‘believe in science’ are rational thinkers. Or something. I don’t understand.
And remember, Joe Biden won over 50 million votes in the last election. Perhaps 80 million votes. Whatever. That’s amazing. I don’t understand.
Conservatives tend to be skeptical of those who are experts at basketball or science opining on matters of philosophy or politics. It’s not their field, so what do they know, right?
But I’m arguing that a true conservative should be skeptical of those who are experts in science opining in matters of science. We really don’t know. We’re just doing the best we can, with the information available to us at the time. And that information changes, as we learn more. So humility is not a nice feature, but an absolute requirement.
And when I hear a ‘scientist’ who lacks humility, then I automatically know that I should turn up my ‘skeptical-meter’ from its usual nine or ten to something around twenty thousand or so. If that ‘scientist’ will not filter his perspective through a healthy dose of humility, then I should filter his perspective through a healthy dose of skepticism.
And that does not mean I’m a conservative. That just means I’m not a fool.
And remember, this very intelligent, very successful business consultant doesn’t just want me to treat other people with no consideration of scientific research or facts. No, he wants me to treat him that way, too. He views independent thought as intellectual laziness. Or something. I don’t understand.
You don’t have to control the political institutions to control the people. You just need to control the educational establishment and the media. Which the left does. So here we are.
I don’t understand. I really don’t.
But I’m skeptical…
Published in General
I’ve never seen that graphic before. I guess it’s a fair description of what most philosophers do.
But philosophers are responsible for responding to logic, and they often do. So it’s not a fair description of what philosophy as such does. It’s just a fair description of what many philosophers do. And those are usually ones who are trying to do their own original philosophy.
The way to not make that mistake is to study lots of different original philosophers.
That’s all I do. I generally try to avoid original thoughts. I’d rather be right than original.
I must share this tidbit from Ace of Spades Overnight Open Thread:
I’m not sure about your hypothesis that Leftists reject independent thought. They seem to promote and support independent thought on a wide variety of issues, as long as such independent thought points toward a Leftist conclusion.
Just look at the transformation regarding LGBT issues over the past 10-15 years. In 2008, Barack Obama ran on a platform opposing SSM. The whole trans thing was viewed as something of a joke. It took a lot of independent thought to challenge traditional thinking on these issues, and it happened. It was based on factual falsehoods and logically unsound arguments, but it happened.
My own hypothesis is that, for some reason, Leftism seeks the destruction of everything that is good. What do they hate? Picture a happy, prosperous, traditional family having Thanksgiving dinner. That seems to be what they hate.
If you are not questioning the science, you’re not doing science.
The important thing is not to stop questioning.
— Albert Einstein
Your patient is parroting the lie the media have peddled — i.e., reluctance to take the vax is a problem arising among stupid, knuckle-dragging, Trump-loving Republicans — even though actual studies show the highest percentage of those declining the vaccines is found in terms of education, among the highly educated, the PhDs and health care workers, and, in terms of demographics, among minorities, especially blacks.
Not hardly the media’s stereotype, but there we are. Facts are now raycissss.
Lucky for me, my belief in engineering supersedes anyone’s belief in science. No humility.
If Feynman were alive today, he would roll over in his grave…
Ah, but
An interesting tale, well told. I would, however, have to disagree with the characterization of the person as “intelligent.”
Isn’t this the definition of communism/socialism?
Jerry, I’m not sure, but what you’re describing seems more like psychosis.
“On strike against God”
–a leftist whose name I cannot remember, uttered a long time ago
For as long as I can remember, I have not thought of science as a static thing, but as a process. Am I wrong?
I do not believe that religion and science are in conflict.
You are correct. Science is by its very nature always evolving, unfolding to intelligent inquiry.
When they started saying Global Warming was “Settled Science,” I knew for sure it was a scam, for science is never settled.
You showed amazing discipline and self-control. I’d have punched the guy in the face. Well, no, I wouldn’t have, but I’d love to have read that you punched him. Well, no, that wouldn’t have been good either. Good job, Dr. B.
I don’t either. They have different problem spaces. You might as well ask about the specific density of love, or the moral qualities of Avogadro’s Number.
It all depends upon the premise. If the premise is true then the conclusion should be true. If the premise is that a Covid vaccine will prevent you from catching Covid then you should take the vaccine.
We know that this is not true based upon the fact that vaccinated individuals have been infected. The premise that; taking the vaccine will mitigate symptoms if you catch Covid. Therefore if you take the vaccine your chances of surviving the infection are much greater. This seems to be true.
The Corona virus is like the common cold. There is no vaccine for the common cold so repeated infections are not unusual. Therapeutics can mitigate the symptoms, but there is no vaccine to actually prevent an infection.
It all depends upon how you construct the argument
All women are Republican. [major premise: false]
Hilary Clinton is a woman. [minor premise: true]
Therefore, Hilary Clinton is a Republican. [conclusion: false]
Can’t like this enough.
Doc, I had another thought about this one. I’ll state it starkly.
Science is not about the search for truth. Science is incapable of proving that anything is true.
Science is a process for ruling out falsehood. It does not provide truth. The only things that the scientific method, properly understood, can tell you are: (1) that a particular hypothesis is false, or (2) that a particular hypothesis has not yet been shown to be false.
The scientific method may even incorrectly determine, in some instances, that a hypothesis is false, if there is some confounding factor that was not taken into account in the experiment that is believed to have demonstrated such falsehood.
This does not mean that science is useless. All hypotheses and theories are models of the world. All those that I know of are simplifications, but they may be useful. (It may be Godel’s theorems that prove this to be the case, but I’m a bit rusty on my Godel. And I don’t know how to insert an umlaut in a Ricochet comment, obviously.)
In fact, a hypothesis may be extremely useful, even if it’s wrong. Newton’s theory of gravitation is wrong, if I understand the physicists correctly, but it’s a pretty good model and is very useful. The German gunners on Bismarck weren’t using Einstein when they fired the shot that blew up the Hood. Newton was good enough.
A+ on getting Karl Popper right.
I think science does tell us some truths. I know from science that bacteria exist, e.g.
All models are simplifications, or they have no value. What would you do with a model more complicated than that which it models?
Hold down the ALT key and type 0246 on the keypad. (make sure Numlock is on.) “Gödel”
Jerry, I think you’re wrong about this. The Dems had an unspoken unity on these issues. Sure, Obama stated in 2008 that he opposed SSM; I think we all knew he was lying. I think it’s not “independent thought,” but rather a unity of thought (for lack of a better term) opposing tradition.
I still think that climatology isn’t a branch of science, it is a branch of history. And I still think that epidemiology is climatology all over again. And now I will add immunology to that.
Or maybe later. In any case, before the history is written, it must first happen. Considering how torpid society has become, how happy so much of it is to stay home and wait for another government program it will almost certainly get, I suppose I shouldn’t be so surprised at how badly it wants debate to be suppressed.
What did Xiden say on the campaign trail?
”We believe truth over facts!”
At the time it seemed like a typical Xiden malaprop. But now? Maybe he was actually trying to tell us something.
And the reason we didn’t wait for three years to study the vaccine is because of . . . Trump. This time last years liberals were saying how they won’t take the vaccine if Trump tells them to. But when Biden says to the vaccine is undeniably safe and effective. If science changes based on presidential elections, then perhaps that science shouldn’t be believed.
Which is why most Muslim countries have laws against evangelism by other faiths. Almost like they are admitting that defending their faith is a debate they can’t win.
Or suggest that you made the Kessel run in less than 10 parsecs.
CS Peirce: “Upon this first … rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.”
“Science” isn’t what it used to be.