Epistemology Trumps Epidemiology

When the lock down was first forced upon Americans, public officials told us that they were following the science. While it is completely proper to follow the science, we must select the proper science to follow. In responding to the pandemic, government officials followed the wrong science. In responding to the pandemic, the government should have followed epistemology rather than epidemiology. When it comes to public policy, epistemology trumps epidemiology.

This might seem like an odd claim to make, given that epidemiology is the science that studies the spread and prevention of disease. Epistemology, on the other hand, is the science that studies the nature of knowledge.

A rational epistemology prescribes reason as the proper method for attaining knowledge. The scientific method is a method of reason—of observing facts and using inductive and deductive reasoning to determine the truth. Every science, including epidemiology, is founded on reason. In claiming that they were following the science, public officials implied that they were using reason to judge the facts regarding the novel virus and develop public policy. They weren’t.

When one follows reason, one relies on persuasion in dealing with those who disagree. One presents the facts that he is considering and the conclusions that he has drawn from those facts. When one follows reason, one respects the minds of others and he appeals to their reason. But when one rejects reason, the only means by which to deal with those who disagree is force.

In responding to the pandemic, government officials rejected reason. Rather than present the facts and appeal to our reason, they issued mandates. They forced businesses to close. They forced tens of millions to stay home. They forced us to wear face masks.

By forcing businesses to close and individuals to stay at home, government officials prevented us from using our reason. Business owners were prohibited from using their reason to find innovative ways to protect their employees and customers. Individuals were prevented from using their reason to assess the dangers posed by the novel virus and act on their judgment. In rejecting reason and resorting to force, government negated our judgment—our reason.

We were told that protecting the public health required such restrictions on the individuals comprising the public. This is the type of contradiction that results when one abandons reason.

Using reason requires a consideration of the full context—all of the relevant facts—regarding the issue. But public officials focused their attention on an isolated group of facts—the medical facts pertaining to the coronavirus. They did not consider all of the relevant facts. They considered the issue out of context and ignored the proper purpose of government.

America was founded on the premise that individuals should not be forced to obey any authority—not God, not the King, not scientists. Individuals, the Founders held, should be free to live their lives as they deem best. Individuals, the Founders held, should be free to use reason to live the best life possible. They held that the proper purpose of government is the protection of individual rights—life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The foundation of those rights is an epistemology based on reason. Epistemology prescribes reason as the means for obtaining knowledge and the guide to one’s actions; freedom is its social/political manifestation.

The lockdown restricted our freedom. Government officials resorted to such coercive measures because they rejected reason. They evaded the fact that epistemology trumps epidemiology.

Yes, we should follow the science. But more importantly, we must choose the proper science to follow. Government officials chose the wrong science to follow in responding to the pandemic, and the result has been suffering and economic devastation. This is not a medical issue. Fundamentally, it is an epistemological issue. In the realm of public policy, epistemology trumps epidemiology.