Complicity of science in miscommunication of the reality modelled

Misleading Modelling of Global Crises (Part #8)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Much has been made of the level of misinformation and disinformation regarding the pandemic, as discussed separately (Reframing Fundamental Belief as Disinformation? Pandemic challenge to advertising, ideology, religion and science, 2020; Identifying information specifically held to be misinformation, 2021). Much has also been made of the miscommunication by authorities regarding the response to the pandemic in terms of frequent changes of recommendations and regulations regarding lockdown, masking and vaccination. Noted above was the unpreparedness of those with modelling skills, exacerbated by the low level of transparency with regard to the assumptions made and the data selected as relevant.

The pattern is variously evident in the case of earlier crises -- and presumably to be expected with respect to implementation of any future global response to climate change. One example is offered by the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (2010) in the Caribbean, acknowledged as the greatest recent environmental disaster, as discussed separately (Enabling Collective Intelligence in Response to Emergencies: illustrated by the case of deep oil spill containment, 2010):

Another example is offered by the disaster the following year arising from the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami in Japan (2011), as discussed separately (Anticipating Future Strategic Triple Whammies: in the light of earthquake-tsunami-nuclear misconceptions, 2011):

A third example, potentially of greater relevance to future responses to climate change, is offered by the unusual flooding in Europe in 2016 (Disastrous Floods as Indicators of Systemic Risk Neglect: implications for authoritative response to future surprises, 2016):

The themes discussed in each case raise questions about the complicity of science in exacerbating emergency unpreparedness -- especially in the light of massive investment in other priorities (Challenges More Difficult for Science than Going to Mars, 2014). Given the communication confusion associated with the pandemic, it is appropriate to ask in what single location is to be found descriptions of the extant models relating to the pandemic, as previously advocated (Wiki-model for eliciting strategic responses to urgent issues, 2010).

Why is the research justifying lockdowns, masking, sanitising and the advantages (and disadvantages) of particular vaccines not assembled in a public accessible facility -- whether or not this could be appropriately managed by the World Health Organization? Why is it currently inconceivable that authoritative arguments challenging aspects of such research should be assembled in the same location and appropriately cross-linked to facilitate debate -- and challenged in its turn?

Irrespective of the viciously perverse handling of any challenge to vaccination itself, how is the justification of the research regarding worldwide social distancing to be discovered, as explored with respect to 1.5 meters. As with the arbitrary identification of a 1.5 degree threshold for global warming, such figures are all the more puzzling when crudely converted into other scales, as with the Biblical 6 feet requirement for the separation from lepers (Humanity's Magic Number as 1.5? Dimensionless constant governing civilization and its potential collapse, 2020).

More puzzling, in a period when governments and model-makers are surprised by "mysterious" breakthrough cases of COVID-19, is the failure to take account of potential transmission of infection by the exposed eyes -- following the mandatory covering of nose and mouth (COVID-19 Infection via the Eyes and Mask Protection Misinformation, 2021). Why indeed were potential threats of this nature not documented in the same facility for the benefit of those required to where masks -- especially when front-line health workers have been recommended to protect their eyes?

Given widespread use of slogans to the effect that "we are all in this together", "do the right thing", and "it is for the benefit of all", why have such calls for participation not been matched by the development of facilities whereby the public can explore variations in the the parameters in models from which arbitrary regulations are currently derived by anonymous experts? Has science proven itself to be too arrogantly self-confident to enable the masses to use internet technology to game the parameters of a crisis -- despite having been invited to do so with respect to protein folding (through Foldit) and astronomy in collaboration with AI (Kevin Pimbblet, Across the Zooniverse: keeping an eye on citizen astronomy, Phys.org, 19 April 2013).

The case for widespread engagement will become ever more relevant with the disastrous consequences of global warming. A valuable insight in this respect is offered separately (A. N. Christakis and M. Kakoulakiby, Objectifying Intersubjectivity through Inclusion for a Scientific [R]Evolution: avoiding polarization by engaging stakeholders for saliency, priority and trust, Institute for 21st Century Agora).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Gallery] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]