To the Friam diaspora,
So. At today's friam we had a discussion about "the science of ebola" and why so many well educated people are disregarding it. What interested me was that amongst a table full of mostly scientifically committed individuals we had a range of opinion about what should be done, despite a scientific consensus from the medical community (see http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139?query=featured_home <http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1413139?query=featured_home&;> & ) Partly I think this is due to a piss-poor exposition by the government and the media of why the disease is more difficult to contract than a cold. Official explainers have appeared to rely on the idea that it is only transmitted by bodily fluids, leaving everybody to wonder about sneeze aerosols. But the fact that it is only transmitted by fluids alone is not the key piece of information; the key fact seems to be the virus does not make its way into those fluids until after it has caused a fever. These facts are connected because the same event that causes the fever makes the disease contagious. So, on this account, we weren't on the same page because the science had not been explained to us very well. One side conversation that grew out of this thread suggested that the official explainers had confused us by not including social science in their explanation. There are, the argument runs, highly predictable features of human behavior in the aggregate (even tho we cannot necessarily predict which human beings will do which behaviors) and this knowledge (from a long history of experiences with epidemics) guided many decisions in the present situation, but was not made explicit. A couple of people challenged the premise the argument, essentially taking the position that "social sciences" is an oxymoron -- social phenomena are too fast-moving, and two influenced by science itself, to be included within the science of ebola. As those of you who have read my posts over the last year (all three of you) already know, I am convinced that this all has to do with the decline of the Deweyan consensus of the 50's to the effect that a scientifically informed democratic electorate will make the correct decisions in the long run. This attack began with the antiwar left in the sixties (don't trust anybody over 30), was intensified under Nixon, extended under Reagan, and has reached its apotheosis with the Tea Party. Science is just another opinion, on a par with crystals, and scientists are just another cult. There are no fact-facts; just your facts, and my facts. So am curious what you-all think out there. Do you accept the consensus document of the NEJM? If not, WHY not? If you were the surgeon general, what would you do? Nick ' Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
