An odd thing about the coronavirus debacle is that it is
both ferociously complex yet it is not difficult to understand where the
problems are – at least in a broad sense where uncertainties are acknowledged.
As we all know, some subjects are both interesting and
exceedingly complex. As we also know, however complex they may be they have an
irresistible attraction for those who insist on their ability to guide us
through the complexities. Over-confident experts, journalists, assorted pundits
and political actors are the main culprits although celebrities often like to
join in too.
All this is familiar enough, but suppose some interesting
and important subjects are so complex that nobody actually understands them in
a completely comprehensive way. Suppose some of them are so complex that nobody
ever will understand them comprehensively because they will always be a
patchwork of specialisms. History for example.
In other words, a unifying and overarching narrative may be
impossible beyond some procedural guidelines and standards. Some subjects have levels of complexity which cannot be resolved into to any
narrative we would recognise as a comprehensive overall conclusion.
We could add to this by supposing that all these complex subjects
can be summarised inexactly but usefully and huge numbers of ordinary
non-specialists are capable of understanding those summaries. Not only that but
they are capable of detecting spurious summaries which go beyond a valid
specialism. Non-specialists can see specialist boundaries being breached, they
can detect dubious specialist summaries which claim too much.
To my mind this is what the coronavirus is showing us.
2 comments:
Yes, I think this issue is a bit like climate change. There are huge numbers of variables, some areas are completely new, and the specialisms wherein certainty are found only give a tiny glimpse of the overall picture. There are some useful synthesisers of knowledge, but they lack the specialised knowledge, and so are always taking some aspects of what they synthesise on trust.
This is fertile ground for the chattering classes. Partly because there are know-alls who want to show off, partly because there are people who thrive on telling others how to behave. Equally, importantly, I think, is that there is a fascination in the unknown. If we all knew we were soon to die, or it was equally certain that Corona was just a bad cold which is likely to kill some very sick elderly folk, it would soon lose its charm as a topic of conversation. it's a bit like gambling. Will it? Won't it? It might be that we are biologically programmed to become alert and chattery when the road ahead is seen to have a significant fork in it.
Now, where's my sanitiser?
Sam - "There are some useful synthesisers of knowledge, but they lack the specialised knowledge, and so are always taking some aspects of what they synthesise on trust."
Very well put.
In climate change, as well as the useful synthesisers there have been the useful nerds who are prepared to download masses of data, trawl through it and discover that the data doesn't support the politics. The useful synthesisers have been able to use the useful nerds to destroy the scientific basis of the climate change game. Much the same may happen with the coronavirus, but it takes time.
Post a Comment