Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Science in the Context of a Pandemic: Doubt but Action

Must read

Maria Gill
Maria Gill
"Subtly charming problem solver. Extreme tv enthusiast. Web scholar. Evil beer expert. Music nerd. Food junkie."

platform. in their gallery Globalism On December 22, 2021, philosophers Bernadette Benswood-Vincent and Gabriel Dorothy eloquently demanded A survey of the state of scientific data in current technological sciences. To listen attentively to how vaccine-resistant people build their discourse and its meaning. On the first point, they rightly pointed out that science is not immune to conflicts of interest that are often poorly regulated, that it is subject to competitive pressure that can lead to fraud, and that the cult of innovation and associated funding can lead researchers to oversell the results of their research.

With regard to antioxidants, they rightly object to being stigmatized in the category of madness or gullibility, arguing that they also have a value system related to their body, science, strength, and the way of creating a common world. However, it is unfortunate that the argument of the authors of the tribune has been weakened doubly, firstly by masking the need to work in the context of a pandemic, and secondly, by using a well-known rhetorical tool. Which is the transformation in the scarecrow of what one wants to deny.

Read also This article is reserved for our subscribers “Pandemic raises the fundamental question of the place of skepticism in science”

Think first of the need for action. Even the smartest polemicists must abandon purely theoretical reasoning in favor of action when they find themselves on the front line. The same is true of scientists who, in the face of a health emergency, must advise political authorities on measures to protect the population, even when this is not a panacea.

See also  Trapped in science, they come out of their cave after 40 days - rts.ch

Thus, while all the available data confirm that vaccines have a relative protective effect (reducing the risk of contamination, excluding perhaps the last alternative, less dangerous forms of the disease, fewer deaths) and reducing the risk of hospital saturation, it is natural for scientists and politicians to work together to try to persuade 5 to 6 million A French is not immune that it is in the public interest that they stop the vaccination split.

Unfortunately, in emergency situations, it is difficult to apply such pressure – which should never be blameworthy and even less contemptuous – without adopting measures rightly seen as discriminatory (health permit, vaccination) and detrimental to individual liberties. But in order to build a common world, it is sometimes necessary, in tragic circumstances, to temporarily forget about individual interests in favor of the interests of the entire population.

You have 52.03% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.

Latest article