Listening to experts

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, May 5. 2020

Why science can’t actually tell us what we should do

Rightly or wrongly, Trump and other national leaders took the advice of medical experts when they offered terrifying predictions.

Experts are of course fallible, but another problem with expertise is the tendency to view things through their specific lens. Safety experts, for example, might wish the max speed limit to be 35 mph. It would save many lives.

Posted by The Barrister in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 13:05 | Comments (11) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

It is the "experts" in the administrative state that scare the hell out of me. They have zero respect for liberty or property.

#1 indyjonesouthere on 2020-05-05 13:48 (Reply)

Imagine you are one of the "experts" in front of the camera lights with the nation hanging on your every word.

Are you going to say, all will be well, and risk the blowback to your ego and reputation if things go south, or are you going to say, "Things are going to Hell, but if we do A, B, and C, things might not be so bad. " Then when your dire predictions don't pan out, you can be acclaimed as a hero because your directives were followed.

It's easy to see why they behave as they do. And let's not forget the ego trip of the attention and the power they briefly hold.

Meanwhile they can't stop the spread of the illness at all.

And the public just laps their bullshit and wants more.

Sigh . . .

#2 feeblemind on 2020-05-05 14:24 (Reply)

All of the models that predict both the spread of the virus and its effect on the economy are multi-variable logistical models. The "optimal" course of action depends heavily on which of the variables you choose to optimize. If you optimize for slowest spread rate you will get a very different course of action than if you choose to optimize for minimum economic disruption. Both of these are just as "scientific" in that the answer comes out of the equations. The question of which variables to optimize for is a question of policy, just as subject to judgement and debate as any other political question.

#3 Another Guy named Dan on 2020-05-05 14:29 (Reply)

If you remember Freon was banned based on the experts claims and their computer model forecasts. Supposedly Freon caused the hole in the ozone so if Freon was banned the hole in the ozone would close. Well, the hole in the ozone hasn't closed and a hole in the ozone actually opened in the northern hemisphere. That sure wasn't predicted by the experts with their computer models.

#4 Ray on 2020-05-05 14:39 (Reply)

Well, as expensive as this lesson is going to be I am confident that in 18 months we will know what was right to do and what was a mistake. Having said that I would still expect it to be a political football such that if Trump were to win in November that they would still impeach him for failing to prevent any and all deaths.

#5 OneGuy on 2020-05-05 15:30 (Reply)

Science is just the latest hypothesis that hasn't been disproven yet.

#6 Andrew Stanton on 2020-05-05 15:58 (Reply)

Science is the practice of relying most firmly on whichever currently circulating hypotheses have suffered the least from efforts to disprove them so far. Most important, it's the practice of continuing revising theories as new evidence comes in, instead of clinging to beliefs out of habit or comfort--but that includes unscientific beliefs.

#6.1 Texan99 on 2020-05-06 10:54 (Reply)

I expect the experts will tell me what they know and detail the uncertainty of the situation & data, and the relative risk of possible actions. Then the policy making leaders will decide on the best course of action, weighing the risks and trade-offs. Is there any other, better, way to manage through a crisis?

Both the experts and leadership have let us down. They should and could have done better.

#7 steve walsh on 2020-05-05 18:49 (Reply)

I don't agree. The one exception I see where your point would be correct is that NY failed terribly when they put Covid-19 patients back into nursing homes AND when they didn't insist that others in nursing homes with symptoms were immediately transferred to hospitals. I think what they did actually might be criminal.

#7.1 OneGuy on 2020-05-05 21:46 (Reply)

I would add leaving the subway open is highly suspect as a major vector for spread.

#7.1.1 Andrew Stanton on 2020-05-06 08:51 (Reply)

They didn't just leave it open. They saved money by decreasing the number of cars as ridership dropped, thereby ensuring that riding conditions would remain as crowded as they began.

#7.1.1.1 Texan99 on 2020-05-06 10:56 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, May 5. 2020

Listening to experts