Philosophy
Should you tolerate flawed theories about COVID-19?
What are the limits of tolerance against stupidity in theories about things which matter
If someone claims that Covid will disappear within two months (no matter if it is your uncle or scientist on a TV), should you say anything, ridicule the person, or be tolerant?
Tolerance against intolerance is way to hell
Let's firstly define what it means to be tolerant. Tolerance is the acceptance of other people, their ideas, and acts. Acceptance means you might disagree with them, but you will not say or do anything against it.
Tolerance is a virtue. If you say about someone that she is intolerant it’s not an appraisal. You should be tolerant, that is imperative in our society. You can try to claim that you are intolerant only against intolerance. And with a bit of help from philosopher Karl Popper your point can be accepted as valid.
But what if you are intolerant against stupidity, which might lead to harm of people or ecosystems? Good luck explaining this point and not sounding arrogant. Indeed, this is very thin ice we are walking now.
What is intolerance?
When speaking about abstract words I always like to define them first. Imagine, how my girlfriend is angry when she asks me something and I always ask back: “What do you mean by this word?” Really, always.
But anyway, let’s start with the proper definition of these words.
Intolerant means that you do not accept some ideas, claims, or behaviors. When tolerance is a passive approach of inaction about things you disagree with, intolerance must implicitly be an active approach.
Two types of stupidity
What is stupidity? I come up with my definition of two types of stupidities for this article. Some stupid claims might sound nice, are well structured, and make sense. But in reality, these are not true. This is “Input/output type Stupidity”. And this is common among smart people. Internal logic is present, but the real word data input are flawed or their conclusion does not apply to the actual situation — proven many times.
Let me give you some examples. Economic prediction and some of economic those theories are “Input/output type stupidity”. Nicolas Nassim Taleb calls these people Intellectual yet, idiot.
Contrary, the “Process type stupidity” is based on real world observation, but methods of how the conclusion was reached are flawed.
Anecdotal evidence from pub-friend who has been everywhere and experience everything are “Process type stupidity”. They have the right data from the actual world, they are even sometimes right, but without a proper method general conclusion derived from this are wrong.
Conspiracy theories usually comprise both stupidities
I developed up these two types of stupidity because although there are so different how they lead to wrong conclusion, they have one thing in common: Believe in a description of reality, which is less probable than other description of reality.
How to be intolerant of stupid theories and don’t sound arrogant or stupid yourself
Firstly, acknowledge that even you don’t know anything for certain. We are not discussing what is correct and what incorrect but rather moving on a probability scale.
The way how we perceive our world is based on models, a simplified version of reality. To accept any claim or theory, we need a leap of faith. But for acceptance of some, the leap of faith could be tiny, for other is huge — it means ignoring 99% of evidence and pick the one that supports your view. So keep in mind that some theories are probable than others. There is a famous quote from philosopher David Hume:
“A Wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”
What does it mean when these less probable claims are harmful? Should you protect free speech or don’t allow people to speak when their theories are really not probable.
Let's speak about Covid now
Some theories on how covid is spreading, how deadly it is, and what we can do to prevent it are more certain than others, more supported by evidence.
There are other opinions/theories which, on the other hand, are supported by weak evidence. I would call them stupid per the definition above. You can name it. It’s just flu. It will disappear in summer. People are dying with covid, not because of covid. But it continues to crazy conspiracy theories, which I don’t want to bother to discuss.
So the question is, should you tolerate ideas which are not well supported (I am not saying impossible) and might lead to worsening of the situation and consequently more suffering and financial harm?
Simple answer:
No.
Long Answer:
No, but you should not mute these people. But let them explain the theories, with critical thinking in mind. Confront them with their previous statements. I would say that it is our moral obligation to confront them.
Long live the tolerance of free speech, let arise free speech with accountability.
Make public intellectuals responsible for their claims.
Be wise
In a crisis like this, we have an excellent opportunity to see inside the system. It’s cracking and we see inherent failures. I am not speaking about governments only. We see that scientists and medical doctors are not the people who always have right answers. We see that media does not serve the purpose of finding the truth, but as moderators of two opposite parties, where true is somewhere between. No, it’s not.
It’s our responsibility to educate ourselves, understand the complexity of the world.
Be wise:
- Ask yourself which theories are more probable based on the method used and evidence gathered.
- Behave according to more probable theories.
