Well, the point I was trying to make is that intelligent, informed people can disagree on some types of questions, but not others. Among the questions that intelligent, informed people certainly can disagree about are value questions. And I suppose that since it’s a value question whether or not a given thing is okay (and what “okay” even means), it’s okay for us to disagree about whether or not it’s okay for people to disagree about vaccines and masks. 😉 Or, more seriously: I would say that many forms of disagreement make me sad, because I believe that they lead to human suffering, but when there is no other option, we have to be okay with things that make us sad.

I agree with both your points. The epistemic problem disconnect is a major problem in our society right now, but as you say, not everyone is able or willing to engage with it productively. Also, I have noticed myself and others among the fully vaccinated not-super-high-risk population sometimes reacting with a greater degree of fear than is necessarily warranted by the probability of a bad outcome to themselves. It’s hard, though, because the risk in any given situation changes as we go through different waves of the pandemic, and readjusting your mental calibration of risk constantly is hard (not to mention exhausting).

I’m so sorry you’re in that situation. This is one of the tragic parts of the pandemic, in my view: if everyone who was able to get a vaccine did, then we would be able to rely on herd immunity to protect the people who truly cannot get the vaccine, and it would not matter greatly that the percentage of people who were vaccinated was less than 100. Just like babies under the age of 1 are protected from chicken pox by the vaccination of the older children in the community, who are able to be vaccinated safely.

I appreciate so much your advice and the importance of finding commonalities, especially on such a difficult topic where the culture encourages tribalism.

Intelligent, informed people can disagree, and that’s okay. Thank you for this reminder.

Sometimes when I hear people talking about isolating the unvaccinated or denying them access to critical resources like health care, groceries, jobs, etc., I admit to feelings of anger and frustration. I’ve given many hours of thought to this and how to be open and listen while still ensuring that I am protecting my own health.

Where I live there are mask and vaccine mandates in place. I am in constant fear of losing my job as a result of vaccine mandates where I work. I’m currently on a medical exemption which allows me to work remotely – I am never allowed to an official office meeting or gathering for any reason. I don’t have the option to be tested and attend, wear a mask and attend, the option is not available to me to work face-to-face with my co-workers. And at least every 60-days they do a new evaluation of my accommodation – if my management decides at any time that I can’t continue to do my job remotely I will be out of work.

So my choice is to get 2 shots that will each most definitely send me to the emergency room with an allergic reaction and very possibly kill me, or spend my days wondering constantly if I am going to lose the major income in our home. The risk of dying from Covid is a smaller risk for me than from the vaccine. For my age group the survival rate for Covid is over 99.4%.

I pray that by sharing my story it will help those struggling on both sides to give consideration to the path we are on. There isn’t one answer to this that will fit all people. Nothing in this world can be set down to “this will work for every individual on the planet” and we need to try and realize that differences of opinion are often times rooted in difference of viable options.

Steven, I have so much appreciation for medical professionals dealing with the current epistemic mess. Oof.

The challenge you cite, where the coached response could be ethically irresponsible, is the same conundrum regular folks wrestle with, only physicians have more at stake.

After reading Jonathan Rauch’s The Constitution of Knowledge (which needed a new edition as soon as it went to press), I’m convinced the long-game conversations Justin Hale describes are a critical tool for talking about the epistemic divide itself–in appropriate contexts, of course.

Because I share your concern, I have to think of Hale’s approach as complementary to unapologetic fact-based guidance. The two types of conversations work together toward the same goal of health and well-being in our communities. I don’t think either approach alone will be able to address the epistemic divide.

I agree it’s tricky, and would add. . .

1) The problem of “no agreed-upon pool of facts” and also “no agreed-upon way of learning new facts” is critical and overwhelming (to me). I’ve found some people on opposing sides of issues who are able to talk about this fundamental problem (obviously, not everyone, but some)–so being open and prepared when those opportunities arise is a way we can help. The epistemic disconnect absolutely makes it harder to do what the author suggests, but I’m trying hard to fight my own inclination to withdraw and give up. It’s just too important for that. We can choose to engage when it’s safe and potentially productive to do so, and change the subject when it’s not. But creating safety to talk about the epistemic problem, IMO, is one of the most important things we can be doing right now, as we are able.

2) Absolutely, setting boundaries is a healthy thing to do when physical or psychological safety is at stake, and even in safety, many of us have limited energy for this sort of engagement. That’s worth listening to. I also have to be aware of online narratives that feed my natural tendency to withdraw–I see so many fear-based narratives that don’t always pass a reality check for my real-life situations (which have not yet actually threatened my safety, only my mood). I have also ungraciously assumed a person with opposing viewpoints was less rational and caring than they actually are, based on my (at the time) unbalanced social media feed. That’s just not who I want to be in the world. So, yes to setting healthy boundaries without apology; and also a hard squint at social media narratives that cause us to assume the worst about people.

Ditto to what Kirsten said!!!