Rosenberg: And there are actually multiple streams of expertise that are necessary to deal with complex problems. But when people say they’re following the science, they really mean some subset of relevant expertise. We don’t see a lot of social scientists standing up there. To most people, following the science means that there are people like Fauci who talk about the nature of the virus, infectivity, and so on. I’m not trying to sell social science, but you see the point. But when they say “Follow the science,” people don’t generally mean sociology or social psychology. Shapin: Yeah, because infection is a social disease. Rosenberg: But that’s how you translate the former into action. We don’t hear much about that second bit. In other words, there has got to be a science of the virus, and there’s also got to be a science of society. But in order for this science to be followed, it has to include the science of how people interact with each other. So there is a science about the virus, there’s a science about the immune system, and there’s a science about the spike protein. Hence the mask, the six feet of distance, or whatever you have. COVID is a virus that infects people, and that infection flows along the same channels as people’s interaction with each other. Now, here’s where I think it becomes complicated. When people say they’re “following the science,” I think they generally mean: Here are certain facts consensually attested about the virus, about the R 0 of the virus, about the immune system, about the spike protein, about mutations and variants, etc. But it’s complicated in what I hope is an interesting way. That’s the point at which I want to say it’s really complicated. You want to criticize people by saying that they’re not following the science. We both know that saying that you’re “following the science” seems like a very intelligent, reasonable thing to do. Steven Shapin: So one of the reasons that journalists don’t listen to people like me is we don’t trade in sound bites. Yair Rosenberg: I want to start with a really easy question: Should we trust the science? Yes or no. What follows is an edited excerpt of our conversation. We sat down to discuss why some people trust podcasters over professors, how Joe Rogan and other iconoclasts tap into the myth of Galileo, and why “following the science” is a lot harder than it sounds. In other words, he’s been studying the exact problems we are facing today for his entire career. Among other publications, he is the author of the fantastically titled book Never Pure: Historical Studies of Science as if It Was Produced by People With Bodies, Situated in Time, Space, Culture, and Society, and Struggling for Credibility and Authority. But are we?įor decades, Steven Shapin has taught the history of science at Harvard University, where I was fortunate to be his student. Taken together, it feels like we are experiencing an unprecedented breakdown in scientific trust. In this hyper-politicized information environment, experts like Anthony Fauci have been alternately lionized and demonized. Social media has enabled scientists to share their findings directly with the public, but it has also led to confusion and conspiracy theories as people attempt to sort through an avalanche of complex and conflicting content. Effective COVID vaccines were created, but many people rejected them in whole or in part, including high-profile politicians and podcasters like Joe Rogan. At the outset, the public was told to continue normal life and not buy masks then they were told to lock down and always wear masks. These days, it’s hard to figure out who to believe, what to believe, and how to persuade others to believe.įor many, the coronavirus pandemic has been an exercise in epistemic whiplash. This is a free edition of Deep Shtetl, a newsletter about the unexplored intersections of politics, culture, and religion.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |