Can you expand on that a bit? I’m taking it to mean that many on the left have a somewhat blind belief that all the products of science are benign. Or perhaps that if somebody supports their argument with data, that you must automatically agree with them.
An example would be wearing masks. The data support that masking greatly reduces the transmission of a lot of diseases, including COVID-19. That said, there are still a number of choices to be made at the level of a society and the individual. Might I be okay with risking some restaurant visits unmasked even during a peak of transmission? How do we balance keeping the economy going with the costs of various measures of fighting a pandemic?
A lot of it comes down to what value you attach to human lives at the policy level, I think. I don’t think it is wise to simply throw up your hands and say that every human life is priceless and any risk is intolerable. I also don’t think that we should take a Darwinian approach to things and let the death tolls mount beyond a certain level to support “freedom.”
I don’t think an absolute answer really covers all situations. That nuance that you mentioned is very important.
@IAmErik It came from a thread/conversation earlier that day.. To summarize I basically said “Yes masks do reduce the spread of the disease, but dont ever expect them to eliminate it, COVID is likely here to stay”… they were very beligerant because I dared to suggest masks might not be perfect…. basically it was a generally science informed stance (masks do have an effect) but it lacked nuance (rejected the idea that masks arent so effective as to be a cure)
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.