At the limits of science

The pandemic and health measures are exacerbating tensions. Popular discontent has been rising for a few days.

Some fear that the government will lose control as many agitators are encouraged by the Duhaimes and Berniers of this world.

François Legault is not responsible for all evils. However, his lack of transparency contributes to rising anger.

He says he relies on science, however the process is too often inconsistent for us to believe all his explanations.

In his defense, science does not have all the answers. Above all, it must not serve as a basis for justifying political decisions based on other considerations.

Sincerity tastes better!

The quality of opinions

Scientific benchmarks have better values ​​than beliefs based on myths and prejudices. It is up to citizens to make the distinction.

However, it is more complex to assess the quality of scientific arguments by considering the work from which they derive.

Expert opinion, academic study, action research and basic research cannot be considered to be on the same level. Meta-analyses are the most reliable source of evidence.

As COVID-19 is recent, science is far from having all the solutions, and thus States are evolving at the pace of knowledge. This is better than pretending that we
injects us with microchips with the vaccines.

Science is not neutral

It should also be known that science is not neutral, more particularly in the humanities, remembering that researchers claim their position and try to support their theory.

Two recent examples external to the pandemic allow us to understand that science is not a new religion.

The government’s call for research on secularism and ways to promote it have been decried by some. Despite this, the State starts from its posture and seeks what it is interested in finding.

The recent report on spelling failures has brought out old clichés, such as effort, repetition and old fashioned methods. However, the problem lies within the Ministry of Education itself, which favors researchers of the posture of constructivism, rather than those of the posture of explicit teaching.

In such a situation, we cannot blame citizens for being perplexed by the contradictions and for asking themselves questions.

That doesn’t make them conspirators.

The real deals

To avoid a social revolt, the Prime Minister will have to show more transparency and distinguish the political and scientific foundations that guide his government in the management of the pandemic.

He should have confessed that he keeps schools open for their daycare function so that parents can work while not hiding that it is a huge risk.

Was it to clear his conscience that he closed other places that carried less risk?

Consistency and sincerity must prevail!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.