Episode 574: Stephen Macedo
Listen to Episode on:
Watch the Unabridged Interview:
Order Books
In COVID's Wake: Analyzing the Efficacy and Consequences of Pandemic Policies
What can be gained from looking back now at the pandemic response during COVID? What would a “postmortem” tell us about how policies were designed and how scientific discussions played out?
Stephen Macedo is a professor of politics at Princeton University, as well as at the University Center for Human Values, and the author of several books including
Greg and Stephen discuss the decision-making flaws during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of robust debate, the role of public health experts, and the increasing influence of partisanship. Stephen explores the potential long-term implications for democracy and science, the concept of noble lies, and the necessity of balancing expert advice with broader public interests. Their conversation also touches on the importance of liberal virtues and the need for both improved decision-making structures and individual adherence to professional ethics.
*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*
Episode Quotes:
When public health crowds out public values
09:52: The public health mindset is that you only pay attention to reducing disease, and so public health experts had too much power. Wider decision-making should have been made by people looking at the whole range of public values, not just disease reduction or attempts to reduce disease. So, the many things that came together—but we regard the book as a window onto the state of our democracy, and in a way, our—you know—the dangers of our epistemic tribalism, to put it that way. The degraded state of deliberation in our country.
How epistemic bubbles are making us dumber
50:57: We are making ourselves stupider by being ensconced in these epistemic bubbles. We are undermining our own capacity for critical thought by not being more open to disagreement.
Science can’t decide for a democracy alone
55:58: We need both more checking of a wide array of elites being involved in thinking, challenging, questioning decisions, but also some way of making sure—possibly through legislative oversight, House of Representatives being involved. The public voices need to be heard as well because they bear the cost of these—need to be heard as well because they bear the cost of these measures. And as we said before, science is not going to make these decisions for us. There are value judgments involved, and it is the people's value judgments that matter to some degree of risk tolerance…[56:35] We need more checking and balancing in these kinds of decisions that affect the public as a whole, and more open debate, discussion, more tolerance of disagreement—including, or maybe even especially, coming from the partisan other, as it were.
Science needs scrutiny, not censorship
14:17: We need empirical inquiry to test the assumptions behind these particular policies and assumptions—not censorship in advance of evidence that might be unwelcome with respect to, you know, certain kinds of policy claims. So, I think there's a wider politicization of science. I do think we need more viewpoint diversity in the academy, and people say, "Wasn't this the code word for having more conservatives?" And I'll say, yes. I think we're a bit too far out of balance. We should not reflect the American public—I mean, that's not the aim—but I think we do not take seriously enough, reasonable concerns coming from the other side of the political spectrum. So, it's a long-winded answer to your question, but I think the COVID experience is emblematic and indicative of a wider problem and deeper problem.
Show Links:
Recommended Resources:
The Great Exception: The New Deal and the Limits of American Politics (Politics and Society in Modern America) by Jefferson Cowie
Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign by Frances E. Lee