We have been preparing a response to yet another ad hominem Guardian article. Here is a brief extract:

'High among the unexpected, non-health compensations of masks is their value as shorthand. At the same time as they impede communication, they offer, anywhere that people exhibit extreme non-compliance, a rapid non-verbal personality indicator that is rivalled only, I would argue, by manspreading. Of course there are many other single but baleful inducements to run for the hills – personalised number plates, not tipping, devotion to the works of Ayn Rand or Judith Butler – but these may take time to discover or may even, on rare occasions, be redeemable.' https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/05/refusal-to-wear-a-mask-says-more-about-you-than-your-face-ever-could

The article carries the same image as the equally overwrought piece by Marina Hyde which was published a few days earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/30/anti-mask-blitz-war-public-good

Photograph: SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

By any reasonable standard of rational dicourse, these articles rapidly descend into nonsense - literally non-sense. Were any student to submit such deliberate anti-reason at any respectable university they could expect a big 'See Me!' note.

The anti-reasoners

By contrast, this alternative article is clearly written, evidenced, and humble. The author admits she made a mistake in her thinking and has now reassessed.

Here is a brief extract:

'Please, let me be clear: I am not commenting here on the safety or effectiveness of any vaccines, nor whether I think it’s smart or otherwise to get yourself or your children vaccinated. Of course, being vaccinated with a product that is safe in and of itself and effective at preventing an infection that can cause you long-term damage, is a very good thing. It’s a miracle. There is basically no-one on earth arguing otherwise, I promise you.

The reason I am ashamed now of my previous blanket pro-vaxxer position is that it was based on precisely zero investigation or research or data. I just assumed that my trust in those injecting me or my children was perfect. I arrogantly assumed that if someone I labelled as an ‘expert’ said it, it must be true and the smart thing was just to follow their recommendations.

I trusted my own judgment 100% and so I trusted those I judged to be ‘experts’ and I thought I was terribly clever placing my health in their hands. I was informed, I thought. I was smart, I thought.

Any people who disagreed were clearly less informed, or their minds had been hijacked by ‘conspiracy theorists’, I thought. It was all very sad.' https://thinkscotland.org/2021/12/were-not-even-waiting-on-the-science-never-mind-following-it/?fbclid=IwAR2rmPvdU2NnICDuCbEcQWfX0rDjLFzd55z4UBlA12M8DA31EF0Sq-d5Fw0

The preparedness to learn

Reading articles on both 'sides' of Covid debates, the difference is striking. It is not so much the difference in content - though that is huge - it is the difference in attitude. Padgham's article shows that she is prepared to learn and see other points of view. She exhibits self-awareness and considered reflection, qualities absent in the Guardian examples.

Is the difference that the use of sense opens up the possibilty of growth and learning, while the use of nonsense does the opposite? Given the power of human thought demonstrated over millenia, does the abandonment of reason carry the seeds of its own destruction?