‘Einstein’
CAERS Substack Article #89
Almost everyone has heard of Albert Einstein, perhaps the most famous scientist of the twentieth century. He is well known, of course, for his work on the physics of relativity. But his pearls of wisdom are often quoted just as frequently. One of them is along the lines of ‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’.
Insanity may seem a bit harsh, but it is true that our biases often result in us doing the same thing over and over again even when the results never change. Humans are often reluctant to change because it can be scary; there are seldom guarantees, so we are tempted to stay with what we know despite suboptimal outcomes. It would not be completely inaccurate to say that we are significantly biased against change.
It is impossible to eliminate all bias (although it can be managed). Quantum physics proved this over one hundred years ago when it became obvious that the researcher is a crucial part of the research. The double slit experiments confirmed that even the supposed unbiased observer is part of the experiment, not outside of it, and the process of them making observations alters the results in a way that cannot be avoided. In ethics we say that there is ‘no view from nowhere’.
We are now three and a half years since the start of the pandemic, and despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and tens of millions of hours dedicated to its analysis, it seems as though there is still much that is not known, not understood or not fully revealed to the public. There are many differing perspectives and opinions on the nature of COVID and our response to it, but it is disappointing that there has not been an open and free dialogue that could address some of the worrisome issues that are still outstanding, including my concerns which I have discussed in previous articles.
What does seem clear to me, however, is that advocates of the many differing perspectives have not been fully successful in encouraging the bulk of our citizenry to demand respectful and productive discussion. Why is that?
There are likely many reasons. For starters, the idea of a global pandemic is new to many of us and it has been complex and scary. To complicate matters, we tend to react with our fight-or- flight mechanisms that are primarily emotionally driven. In tense circumstances it is not surprising that rational analysis sometimes takes a backseat. But I think there is more to it than that.
We are prone, as Einstein stated, to repeat the same thinking even when we are not getting great results. There is a tendency, especially in Western society, to utilize a binary, adversarial approach to problem-solving; it’s what the public is most used to. In our political and legal systems debate wins out over dialogue. That tends to be a zero-sum game: one side wins and the other side loses. In doing so, it is not uncommon for the interactions to become aggressive and personal, even to the point of demonization; election campaigns have become more about ad hominem attacks than about issues.
So, I suppose that it should not be shocking that under stress we resort to what we know or do best: we try to overwhelm by raising our voices and casting aspersions on those with whom we disagree. And if that is not sufficient, our ace in the hole is to warn of an impending crisis that terrifies to the point where respectful and constructive dialogue largely vanishes.
If that still doesn’t seem to get the results we want, rather than considering the possibility of an alternative process, we just do more of the same, ramping up the rants with more extreme rhetoric.
An alternative, one that I have tried to do in my articles, is to offer a different approach, one grounded in an understanding of human nature based on forty years of studying our species. It is also based on principles of bioethics mediation: find common values shared by the those with seemingly different worldviews and then examine issues through those mutual lenses using respectful, rational and open-minded dialogue. It may not capture everyone’s attention, but it doesn’t have to, provided that it reaches a large enough percentage of them. It does not desire to eliminate emotions, but to control them sufficiently that we can listen and understand those with whom we may disagree but who also seem reasonable and open to listening. There are many ethical principles that can assist in such a venture, many of which I have written about at length.
I have spent considerable effort in my articles exposing and analyzing aspects of the pandemic management that I think need to be explored and assessed, including the issue of potential adverse events from the inoculations (which is why I work with CAERS, the Canadian Adverse Event Reporting System). I am concerned that the policies developed to combat COVID-19 are at the very least suboptimal, and only with a commitment to transparency and truth-telling can we know with any certainty which policies were successful and ethically justifiable, and which were not.
In order for this to unfold, I think it requires that a significant proportion of the population, ideally the majority, believe that some type of ‘post mortem’ should be done on the pandemic management. After more than three years that has not happened, perhaps because some are tired of hearing or speaking of COVID, and others are confused by the contradictory ‘evidence’ and ‘expert opinions’ offered so liberally. But as with election campaigns, many more are tired of the aggressive tone of the rhetoric from all sides and would be far more agreeable to a more civilized and constructive dialogue that offers rational arguments rather than having an ideology rammed down their throats.
Innocent mistakes are one thing, but if there has been malfeasance by some in positions of authority, then those responsible must be held accountable and reparations made. That does not mean that every Canadian who agreed with the measures is equally culpable for any harm done and it is unfair and unwise to imply that. Most, I suspect, are guilty of simply ‘going along with the crowd’ when the alarm bells rang and are decent and intelligent people who should be treated as such. We cannot know all of the details for certain without first having a majority of Canadians agree that it is possible and necessary to uncover the truth through compassionate, respectful and productive dialogue. I believe that if we are able to engage in such a fashion that a plurality of the population will appreciate that and welcome sensible questions and be willing to acknowledge any irregularities in the scientific and ethical methods used. No doubt it could be a spirited and passionate process, but one that has great potential to expose all aspects of the pandemic and uncover any wrongdoing that has occurred.
I am no historian, but I suspect that rational and respectful dialogue, although far from always successful, is often worth a serious try. It is frequently what we turn to after battles and wars fail to reveal a clear victor and we tire of casualties. It is a process that has over the ages often proven capable of getting us closer to truth. I hope that my articles are ones that the majority of Canadians would read and could agree offer valuable food for thought and reflection. I try to treat all readers as though they are decent and intelligent people who want to hone their ethical and scientific knowledge. I do not tell them what to think—Canadians have had far too much of that. Instead, I ask questions that offer a different way of approaching the solutions and leave it to them to figure out their own answers. I suspect Einstein might think that such a process could help us to avoid insanity.
Those who choose to continue debate over dialogue are free to do so. I wish them genuine and long-lasting success, and I hope that they wish me the same. After all, we are all working for the same goal: getting as close to the truth as we can.
We desperately need to open doors of communication that many of our fellow citizens have locked shut. It might be time to regain our collective sanity by at least trying a different key that might open doors that we have been unable to open so far.
J. Barry Engelhardt MD (retired) MHSc (bioethics)
CAERS Health Intake Facilitator