Philosophy has been described as ‘not so much a subject area itself, but rather a set of tools for thinking clearly about difficult or obscure problems.’ Life in the time of coronavirus begs for those tools.
Benjamin Jantzen is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at Virginia Tech.
“What philosophers are good at doing,” says Jantzen, is seeing the big picture and drawing out implicit premises, implicit assumptions, and recognizing and redressing ambiguity.”
And he says,“All of that is important right now. We all want to know the truth about how this virus spreads, how we can stop it, how we can mitigate the loss and how we can do so in an economically viable way. That's what we want to know. And we want to know it right now.”
So, how do we know if it’s right, correct, verifiable? That’s where looking at things from a philosophical approach helps.
"‘Good inferential practice’ is about making clear what (information) you have, what you're confident in assuming, and then proving what, you have, if anything,” and finally, “How far you can get toward what you want. And then we go with the strongest guarantee we can have.”
But one thing is clear, and that is, “you need to be clear (about) what you don't really know, versus what you do (know).”
So, what do we know about this, when people are dying and livelihoods are threatened? Is it better to choose the most expedient approach, take more risks, than perhaps would be appropriate for less turbulent times?
Jantzen picks up on the specious premise, “Shouldn’t we just do what's expedient, do what we can, fast, and not worry about, sort of, doing it right?” No, it is not. This crisis, he posits, “is the worst time to abandon your methodological rigor.”
“It's true that we need to make decisions quickly,” Jantzen adds. “And it's true that we may be willing to take on more risk than we otherwise would have. But in terms of the confidence you put in purported facts, in terms of how you draw your conclusions from the data that you have, now is the time to be as precise and rigorous as possible.”
Two major COVID-19 studies by prominent publications had to be retracted recently. One said antimalarial drugs like hydroxychloroquine are dangerous and another said blood pressure drugs might work against Coronavirus. But both depended on unverified data and have now been disavowed. The authors of the studies said they could not release information about their data base because it was proprietary. So how are we to know whether we have the right information?
“We should be doing the things, … taking actions that we already know are effective to mitigate the worst outcomes that we already know are happening” says Jantzen.
“Take the stuff that we are most confident about, the things that are closest to the actual disease. That means paying attention… to what is coming out of ICUs in hospitals across the nation.”
Jantzen tracks in ‘what we know.’ “We know lots of people are getting very sick in novel ways and that they are dying. And we already know something about how to mitigate that. Those actions may not be the things we most want to do. But you know, if you're looking for clarity and maximum certainty, that's where you start: the things that we already know about.”
‘Knowing what you know” is important, but Jantzen points out. “There's no substitute for a clinical trial of a vaccine.” When it comes time to publish “something that may become some kind of public action, there's no substitute for verifiable and transparent data.”
As we all navigate the new world of ‘Pandemia,’ Jantzen suggests, “It’s a good idea to listen to the people who make clear, their assumptions, their methods and the limitations of their conclusions.”
***Editor's Note: Radio IQ is a service of Virginia Tech.
