David Zweig, author of the book "Invisibles" and frequent contributor to The Atlantic, New York Magazine, The New York Times, Wired and many others, joins the show to discuss his fantastic work on school masking, CDC flaws and how experts and politicians make decisions
It was a great interview, with you and David pondering the exact the questions I've been wondering about for 2 years! As you were talking about why Fauci did a complete reversal on his mask stance over 3 days (or three weeks) I recalled him being quoted as saying that people weren't taking the pandemic seriously, there wasn't enough fear in the population. So I wonder if his mask-180 had to do with the reality that masks promote fear. I think masks are actually quite good at that! Photos of masked people (outdoors) with their heads down, not looking at anyone, not interacting with anyone... what could better illustrate the fear narrative?
He keeps talking about being worried if he's talking about boring the podcast audience but is asking all the most important questions in my opinion. What evidence did they see? Did they at any point drink their own Kool-aid?
I've stopped caring so much about what the data say; while important, I know the nunbers are on my side. But I remain far more interested in the sketchy argumentation and the epistemological crisis. Unless we address those things, the same problems will play out with any and all datasets, not just the ones pertaining to COVID-19.
1. Not having a conclusion or abstract section in papers is not a good answer. A healthy peer review process handles all of problems you cite. The issue is not the process. The issue is that significant swaths of the university/government system is not healthy, it is corrupted by a) money from big-pharma, government subsidies targeting specific political ends e.g. climate b) more administrators than professors at all the major universities, and c) the administrators have frequently become or are controlled by postmodern, social justice ideologues who openly admit that their beliefs are “unfalsifiable,” that all knowledge is “subjective,” and thus the scientific method is fundamentally flawed and of no meaningful utility in managing human affairs.
2. What is happening, as David noted, is the politicization of science. Read Koonin’s Unsettled, or Shallenberger’s Apocalypse Never, the same non sequitur editorialization via abstracts and conclusions are happening in climate, environmentalism, and ESPECIALLY in social “sciences” who have largely abandoned empiricism altogether. If you haven’t read Thinking Fast Thinking Slow, the masterwork that started behavioral economics, it is a very hard read but brings scientific analysis to the how and why experts become morons parade.
Oh, and just read the abstract and the conclusion ;-). Ha ha. It’s not a bad place to start. I’ve studied the paper. I find it valid. But I’m not a scientist. Or a biologist.
If you ever want to talk. Call me. None of this is that complicated. It just sucks.
It was a great interview, with you and David pondering the exact the questions I've been wondering about for 2 years! As you were talking about why Fauci did a complete reversal on his mask stance over 3 days (or three weeks) I recalled him being quoted as saying that people weren't taking the pandemic seriously, there wasn't enough fear in the population. So I wonder if his mask-180 had to do with the reality that masks promote fear. I think masks are actually quite good at that! Photos of masked people (outdoors) with their heads down, not looking at anyone, not interacting with anyone... what could better illustrate the fear narrative?
Hey Ian, we (the airline pilots suing the CDC) would love to chat with you about the federal transportation mask mandate and it’s effect.
He keeps talking about being worried if he's talking about boring the podcast audience but is asking all the most important questions in my opinion. What evidence did they see? Did they at any point drink their own Kool-aid?
I've stopped caring so much about what the data say; while important, I know the nunbers are on my side. But I remain far more interested in the sketchy argumentation and the epistemological crisis. Unless we address those things, the same problems will play out with any and all datasets, not just the ones pertaining to COVID-19.
If you're looking for someone who might be interesting to talk to, I would suggest Philippe Lemoine, I found this piece very insightful:
https://necpluribusimpar.net/lockdowns-science-and-voodoo-magic/
He's got some great work.
Guys,
1. Not having a conclusion or abstract section in papers is not a good answer. A healthy peer review process handles all of problems you cite. The issue is not the process. The issue is that significant swaths of the university/government system is not healthy, it is corrupted by a) money from big-pharma, government subsidies targeting specific political ends e.g. climate b) more administrators than professors at all the major universities, and c) the administrators have frequently become or are controlled by postmodern, social justice ideologues who openly admit that their beliefs are “unfalsifiable,” that all knowledge is “subjective,” and thus the scientific method is fundamentally flawed and of no meaningful utility in managing human affairs.
2. What is happening, as David noted, is the politicization of science. Read Koonin’s Unsettled, or Shallenberger’s Apocalypse Never, the same non sequitur editorialization via abstracts and conclusions are happening in climate, environmentalism, and ESPECIALLY in social “sciences” who have largely abandoned empiricism altogether. If you haven’t read Thinking Fast Thinking Slow, the masterwork that started behavioral economics, it is a very hard read but brings scientific analysis to the how and why experts become morons parade.
Finally, if you want a short form of how experts become morons then read this excellent academic paper: https://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/motivated_numeracy_and_enlightened_selfgovernment.pdf
Oh, and just read the abstract and the conclusion ;-). Ha ha. It’s not a bad place to start. I’ve studied the paper. I find it valid. But I’m not a scientist. Or a biologist.
If you ever want to talk. Call me. None of this is that complicated. It just sucks.
Ian, I am waiting with bated breath for a transcript. This looks like important stuff. Thanks.