Originally Posted by
IlPrincipeBrutto
Not sure what warranted all that capital case aggression, but hey, whatever makes you happy.
I would like to focus on this bit:
There are two sides that concern the decision to force people to wear a mask, and the two side don't have the same weight (imho, of course). The obvious side of the issue is the scientific merit of the decision itself.
The less obvious side, and imho way more interesting, is the method used to arrive at such a decision. In a few words, I think this is a case of government by (poisoned) science.
.
It starts by presenting TheScience as an abstract, monolithic, unquestioning and unquestionable institution, a body of conclusions about which there is no dissent. This is the view of science that dovetails pretty well with the instinctive, popular view of Science as a realm of very educated people impartially evaluating the Truth via carefully collected empirical evidence; as such, it's easy to get it accepted.
The problem with this view, which is perfectly acceptable for everyday purpose, is that it masks the fact that Science, the real one, is first of all a process (not an institution) that encourages and thrives only through the relentless expression of doubts and the challenge to received wisdom. And this is especially true in idiographic sciences, like anything medicine-related, which don't deal with natural laws (like nomothetic sciences do, e.g. physics).
.
This idea of one single TheScience, infallible and with no doubts, is then used as justification to assume decisions that trample over the most basic rights. It's a very effective mechanism, because if the majority of people think that TheScience is infallible, then when TheScience says that a mask is mandatory, there is no point in raising objections.
.
Side note: this used to be the role of TheMarket, a social construct that was elevated to the rank of self-evident principle of all human interactions. The grossest abuses could, and have, been perpetrated in the name of TheMarket and its assumption that maximum personal profit results into the highest social benefit. But later TheMarket has lost a bit of its lustre, a lot of people are beginning to see the aberrations it leads to. So, something stronger was needed, something with a reputation for impartiality and competence; that something is TheScience.
.
What has happened is therefore that the good name of Science, the real one, has been transposed and applied to a very partial and twisted version of it; a version where dissenting scientists are silenced, doctors who ask questions are struck off, and experts can only offer 'the right' opinion, because if they offered the wrong one, their career would suffer. People think what they see is Science, the true one, but they are seeing a travesty of it. And this is doubly tragic, because not only it leads to massive abuses and loss of freedom, but it also destroys any trust one can have in true Science.
.
So, people making a fuss about having to wear a mask are not dong so just because it's inconvenient, and it makes little medical sense. They are also raising the alarm about the method that lead to this situation, because once this method is established unchallenged, it can, and I think it will, be used to justify any sort of monstrosity. Because method is always superior to merit, so a critique of the former is way more important than one of the latter.
.
IPB