One big example of failures to utilize the critical thinking skills, and instead using the logical fallacies that we have discussed throughout the three semesters of the Science and Global Change program is the debate about mask mandates in public, and vaccine requirements as protection against the Covid-19 pandemic. The main logical fallacies at play related to the population’s opposition to getting the Covid-19 vaccine or to wearing a mask are arguments from adverse consequences and the bandwagon fallacies. While it has been scientifically proven, many times, with the results very widely accessible through any news source, that the Covid-19 vaccines are highly effective at preventing serious symptoms associated with the virus, and that wearing a mask in indoor or crowded places and staying distanced can significantly reduce the spread of the virus, a large part of the population refuses to get vaccinated or to wear their mask in public. They are deciding that they would rather spread this virus to others, especially if someone is medically unable to receive the vaccine, than wear a mask or receive a vaccine.
For the argument from adverse consequences fallacy, the main argument is that people do not want to wear a mask, and therefore have decided that it is not helpful to wear one. Despite the countless scientific articles that have been published stating how effective masks are at reducing the spread of the virus, many people are still arguing against it, and in extreme cases, refusing to comply with mask mandates. One significant example on the University of Maryland campus is at sports events- many of the attendees at sports events, both indoor and outdoor, will not wear a mask, despite the UMD indoor mask mandate, requiring that everyone wear a mask indoors, regardless of vaccination status. There will be countless announcements throughout the games, reminding people to wear their masks, and of how important it is. However, using the arguments from adverse consequences, people will still refuse to wear their masks to indoor sport events.
The other main logical fallacy that we discussed in the SGC colloquium that applies here is the bandwagon fallacy, or the argument from the people. This basically means that when one person takes a stance solely because the majority of the population supports that stance. In this context, it refers to the people who refuse to wear their masks to public events based solely on the fact that most other people around them are not wearing a mask for that event. This is a problem because, rather than focusing on the facts and statistics presented by scientists, people are choosing to ignore these recommendations, and in the case of UMD indoor events, refusing to follow mask mandates, and only focusing on what those around them are doing. Just because the majority of the population follows one action, such as refusing to wear masks, does not mean that it is the best action to be taken. This is why it is important for everyone to do their own research, pay attention to scientific news, and make their own, informed decisions, not based on what those around them are doing. The discussion of these logical fallacies not only helped me understand these current scientific debates in politics, but to a smaller scale, helped me identify some reasoning behind the statistics discussed in my Math-135 supporting course.
Overall, I think that the topic we discussed in SGC that has helped me the most in my major was discussing the solutions to the climate change problem. I have always been interested in science, most specifically in animal and biological science, so I was considering taking some environmental science classes during my time here at the University of Maryland, especially since they would likely fit pretty well in my general biology major. After learning about the specific solutions we had laid out during this last semester, as well as how dire the current climate situation is, I have an even stronger desire to take some environmental science classes. Next semester, I have chosen to take an ecology class, which was definitely influenced by what we discussed in SGC. The topics of climate change and solutions have also helped me in my current principles of evolution biology class, in seeing the effects that global climate change had on past species as a warning for how it has potential to significantly affect us on the planet now, and truly understand the urgency for a solution.
By having my first two semesters of SGC online over Zoom, it was definitely difficult for me to interact with others in the class. By having group projects, I felt like I was able to actively discuss topics with my group for that project. For this one in-person semester’s group project, I chose to work with the same group I had worked with online for last semester’s group project. This allowed us to actually get to know each other and have more time to talk to each other and discuss than we were able to when the class was on Zoom. Since my roommate is also in the SGC program, we would be able to discuss the class content if one of us did not fully understand, and if one of us had to miss a class, we could catch each other up so we did not miss out on class content.
In life, being in SGC has definitely shaped how I look at media headlines- especially ones related to scientific research, and not only analyze the validity of the headline and article (checking if any major logical fallacies are present, etc.) but also my own reaction to reading the article. I am now able to more effectively check my own critical thinking skills when reading a news article, scientific paper, or something similar, and making sure that I am truly grasping the full meaning, rather than relying on a logical fallacy. I can also more easily identify when the hypothetico-deductive scientific method in the news and media, and can use that to help determine the validity of a scientific claim.