Science can't tell Gov. Whitmer how and when to reopen Michigan- guest opinion

[XLFD]

I read a letter to the editor in the Detroit News from a physics professor at Lansing Community College named David Shane (pictured right) that makes a lot of sense, and it comes with a bonus, it's not at all difficult to understand.  By its nature, physics is a science that is difficult to politicize, unlike ones that have become politicized over the years such as sociology, climate science, and most recently, medicine. 

Equations within formulas, which make up a large part of the physical sciences, all have this property:  the values on the left are equal to the values on the right.  How non-partisan is that?  Shane writes about the limitations of science involvement in public policy and simplifies the solution to humanity's common denominator.  From the Detroit News opinion page:  

Science can't tell Gov. Whitmer how and when to reopen Michigan

According to a recent report, Gov. Whitmer pledged not to soften the state response to COVID-19 until there is a vaccine, saying “Until then, we’re going to have to continue to follow the science.” She thereby continued what has been a habit for her throughout the COVID-19 response, which is to mischaracterize the nature of science, and deploy vague appeals to science like a shield to hide behind that would nullify any criticism of her actions.

Science is a tool with limitations. Science does not tell you how you should live your life, and science does not tell politicians what policies they should set. It may and, in many circumstances does, provide helpful information in making such decisions, but it cannot make the decisions.

The governor does not have access to a book, helpfully labeled “SCIENCE” on the cover, that informs her on page seven that, according to the science, she should not further reduce restrictions in the state until a vaccine is available. Science cannot answer that question. Science does not tell you how to balance the many considerations that make up a human life. And we should stop pretending (for a game of pretend is all it is), that it does or can.

Maybe this is a strange thing for a physics professor to write, but I think much of our COVID-19 response has forgotten our humanity (and to forget our humanity in the name of “science” is even more painful). I have called it, in another context, the “idolatry of health,” or perhaps more specifically the idolatry of avoiding COVID-19. We write policies as if the only thing that really matters is reducing our COVID-19 statistics.

But the purpose of human life is not to avoid a disease. Maybe science is to blame for part of the confusion. A scientific lens often sees humans as just their biology, which exists to reproduce and survive and … is there anything else to life?

Yes, there is. But again, what matters most in life will not be taught to you from the pages of a biology textbook.

People who want a normal backyard gathering with friends, with their kids tumbling in sport under the tree, are not being “selfish” even if they are increasing the risk of COVID-19 spread by such activities; they are just recognizing that life is not about avoiding all risk.

People who gather with fellow believers in a church every Sunday and sing their hearts out, or who long for the day when their business can truly return to normal and they and their customers can smile at each other again in friendly conversation, are not acting “against the science”; they just correctly recognize that there is more to life than a reductive appeal to the sciences could teach them.

Let us recognize that science is helpful, but science alone cannot tell you how to live a human life, or write a political policy.

Read another incredibly well written article about Covid restrictions and mask mandates from the Federalist written by David Shane here.

[Willy]

I am pleased that David has added his knowledge and experience to this issue. However, I hope David keeps his job. LCC is a female run, radical, leftist college. So, he will be under a microscope or worse from now on. 

Tracking Michigan COVID-19 hospitalization data trends

[XLFD]

I thought it rather remarkable that he was a professor at the liberal-leaning LCC speaking so freely of the rights of individuals and the vagaries of 'science', when the modern progressive mantras are so opposite.  Maybe this is America's Jordan Peterson.  Here's an incredibly perceptive and intelligent snippet of a recent article he published in Polimath called "The Cult of Caution":

"...there are several elements that make up the caution cult and it applies to how people demand, first and foremost, that everyone applies a single and very stringent standard of caution. This standard is demanded as a moral obligation, which means that anyone who rejects this standard is not just wrong on the facts, but is a bad person...

The Cult of Caution frames everything not as an individual personal choice but as a collective moral choice. When you do something that is not approved, you’re not making a personal evaluation of risk, you’re wickedly putting everyone in danger. The problem with caution and morality is that there is no limit to how good you can be, so it becomes a morality arms race. I’m not going to movie theaters but also I’m not going to the gym and also I’m not going to a restaurant and also I’m wearing a mask and also I wear it outside and also I’m against kids going back to school and also and also and also. There is no limit to the caution one can take and once people get on board with one level of caution, a new one is demanded (often because, even with all the caution, the virus continues to transmit)...

The way we work is to make our own determinations of risk and value. We will have some people who go above and beyond the recommended levels of caution because of their situation or age or condition. We will have some people who have determined that the risks are low enough that they can permit themselves some higher risk activity. This is always how it has been and how it will be.

"'The only thing that matters in life is COVID-statistics' is one way of summarizing the present dysfunction. We have finally discovered the purpose of human life, and that purpose is to avoid getting COVID." ~@david_shane

One of the under-appreciated concepts in public health is the realization that people have limits on what they are going to accept or do. This idea absolutely permeates the work of the heroes of disease eradication. They recognize that the purpose of life is not to avoid catching a disease and there will be a revolt if we try to restructure all of society around that."

[Willy]

As well as writing for the Federalist,

David has some very good student reviews