Questioning Science
For many of us, the new-found effort to base decisions on data is a welcome change from ideologically driven pre-pandemic politics. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Chief Medical Executive Dr. Joneigh Khaldun insist they will continue to work with experts and provide fact-based, data-driven approaches to decisions, especially about reopening the economy.
The contrast between states embracing data for decision-making and the increasing denial of even the existence of data by the Trump administration is stark. This week the Trump administration is shifting strongly toward denying the seriousness of the pandemic.
The New York Times reported on an idea circulating in the White House that death figures are being exaggerated by Democrats for political gain. This idea has been surfacing for a few weeks on right wing blogs, news, and talk shows. It is gaining increasing momentum as pressures for reopening the economy intensify.
The ideas of false data are not spontaneous. They are being advanced by ideologically driven groups that honed their arguments and propaganda strategies in climate crisis denial. Familiar players include the Heartland Institute, Exxon Mobil, Phillip Morris and the Mercer Family Foundation. The Times reported, “It’s the same individuals. It’s the same modus operandi, the same organizations and the same backers,” said Michael E. Mann, who directs the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “Right-wing conservative interests that are benefiting from the Trump presidency obviously want to see a continuation with the Trump presidency.”
Here in Michigan the usual right wing advocates have been behind the protests in Lansing. The Michigan Freedom Fund, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the DeVos Family Foundation are recycling old arguments, even reenergizing the chant to “Lock her up,” aimed at Gov. Whitmer. Nationally, they are pushing pandemic denial.
This assault on data, presented as science, is dangerous for many reasons. Chief among them is that it can lead those of us who respect real science to the conclusion that data is a substitute for judgment. It is not. Data has its limits. It can give us a picture of what is happening, why something is happening and, at its best, predict what might happen. But information is not the same thing as wisdom.
Just days before the announcement of a State of Emergency, Gov. Whitmer said the “public health data” did not warrant an order to put a moratorium on water shut offs. She invoked scientific reasoning to support an inhuman policy. This, too, is a well-worn strategy of those who support policies of power and control.
Science can teach us many things and help us understand our world. But it does not tell us what we value, what we need to protect, whose lives matter, and what choices will nurture the creativity of our children. The questions we face now cannot be answered by facts. They must be answered in the context of the values and visions we embrace for our future.
As we resist Trump’s efforts to destroy science and welcome the pledges by governors, mayors and councils across the country to “look to the data” as they make decisions, we need to remember that our choices will not be made for us on some objective standard. Our choices will reflect the kind of world we want to create together.