Scientific Mindset Needed to Face Pandemic

KOMPAS/Lasti Kurnia

A man Joint a class in making natural hand gel sanitizer from Amore Natura Skincare Learning Center, online at his home in the Kebun Jeruk area, Jakarta, Thursday (26/3/2020). The online class can make a handsanitizer for personal use.

In dealing with any pandemic, and COVID-19 is no exception, nonscientific attitudes tend to circulate widely in society as constructs of the mind to understand the pandemic.

As nonscientific constructs, these attitudes certainly do not correlate directly with the pandemic -- in the sense of preventing or stopping its spread. Instead, the nonscientific constructs even exacerbate the spread.

Therefore, it takes humbleness from all elements of society to leave mitigation efforts for the COVID-19 pandemic to parties with the relevant authority, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the Health Ministry and the government (via the COVID-19 Mitigation Task Force). The rest, nonauthoritative institutions, must restrain themselves from interfering with authoritative efforts and worsening the situation. There is a popular expression that, if you can’t help solve a problem, at least don’t be part of the problem.

Anachronistic perspectives

What must be considered and realized by everyone now is the risk of mortality due to the presence of inhibiting factors in the mitigation of this outbreak. Factors inhibiting COVID-19 mitigation efforts include anachronistic perspectives commonly held to in Indonesian society.

In many cases, such views become a kind of stubbornness – not to say social silliness – that gets in the way of tackling COVID-19.

Anachronistic perspectives here pertain to perspectives that are not appropriate in responding to the spread of this virus. In many cases, such views become a kind of stubbornness – not to say social silliness – that gets in the way of tackling COVID-19.

Among the many perspective anachronisms that circulate in society, there are at least two of the most striking examples. First, sociocultural anachronism. As we know, our society is characterized by a communitarian-communalistic culture (read: we like to get together, gather) in social units that are networked with each other.sikap ilmiah

Stopping -- at least temporarily -- these communitarian manifestations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is certainly not an easy matter for our society. Of course, there are strange, awkward, and unusual feelings when people ignore the usual "social rituals". There must be something missing when our society is forced to abandon these social habits because there are cognitive contradictions between health reasoning, such as practicing physical distancing, and communitarian reasoning.

Disregarding the above social norms, of course, can lead to sociocultural disruption, because these norms have already formed a cluster of existential significance in our society. This is where some of our people tend to ignore the COVID-19 preventive medical protocol as issued by authoritative institutions. For some of them, the medical protocol is interpreted as an effort to reduce social meaning strongly embedded in society.

Through a variety of social media, we are treated to a variety of religious narratives that ignore, reduce or even oppose the medical COVID-19 mitigation protocol.

The second anachronism is our society\'s religious understanding that is contrary to the COVID-19 prevention protocol. Through a variety of social media, we are treated to a variety of religious narratives that ignore, reduce or even oppose the medical COVID-19 mitigation protocol.

Among the religious narratives that are quite popular in society are the theology of death as God\'s prerogative and that the COVID-19 pandemic is God\'s punishment for human sins, so that there is no need to fear anyone -- including COVID-19 -- except God. With this mindset, physical distancing is seen as negating faith.

An anachronism of religious understanding that is counterproductive to the COVID-19 medical preventive protocol becomes a serious stumbling block in the midst of the hard work of all parties – especially the medical teams as those most at risk – in taming and stopping the spread of COVID-19.

In fact, people who have an anachronistic perspective will eventually become vulnerable groups exposed to this virus if they continue to be rebellious. When they become the chain of transmission, the domino effect of the spread will obviously be inconvenient for the COVID-19 mitigation task force team and the government.

KOMPAS/FERGANATA INDRA RIATMOKO

Newly arrived bus passengers to Solo line up to wash their hands with soap on Wednesday (1/4/2020) at Tirtonadi Terminal in the city in Central Java. The bus terminal has installed disinfection booths and hand washing facilities for arriving passengers to flatten the curve of the Covid-19 outbreak in Indonesia, although the number of passengers passing through the terminal has dropped dramatically since the outbreak emerged.

Health reasoning

If left unchecked, anachronistic perspectives like the two outlines above become obstacles to addressing the COVID-19 pandemic, which is spreading increasingly fast and far.

It is natural that the mortality rate of this epidemic in Indonesia is among the highest in Southeast Asia (8.46 percent) given these nonscientific attitudes. Such attitudes have already created a comfort zone for those who are not familiar with disciplined and compliance lifestyles, two main requirements for mitigating COVID-19.

As long as the individual\'s way of thinking and lifestyle do not directly impact public lives, the perspectives described above may not need to be questioned.

This is intended to prevent people from becoming a burden on the state in handling COVID-19. Once again, if we cannot be a solution, we should not ourselves be part of the problem.

However, if they go against reason and public health policy, the state has the authority to take coercive measures in the context of implementing COVID-19 medical protocols based on health reasoning and scientific attitudes. This is intended to prevent people from becoming a burden on the state in handling COVID-19. Once again, if we cannot be a solution, we should not ourselves be part of the problem.

The scientific attitude needed to understand and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic manifest in inductive reasoning as a mechanism for understanding social reality.

Inductive reasoning is a cognitive mechanism of causation based on the empirical reality of people\'s lives. Meanwhile, deductive reasoning is a normative reality that, if it is revealed in empirical reality, is not always diachronistic or in line with a particular context of space or time. Under such conditions, what happens is the type of anachronism explained above.

Kompas/Heru Sri Kumoro

A motorist drives past street art on Thursday (2/4/2020) beneath the Jl. Latuharhari overpass in Central Jakarta. Graffiti artists and talented locals have responded to the public health emergency by painting murals and graffiti to raise awareness and urge togetherness, as well as to cheer on medical workers on the front lines of the outbreak in Indonesia.

Consequently, one cannot haphazardly use sacred text to justify the reality of the COVID-19 pandemic. Such religious reasoning in understanding pandemics will only worsen the situation, because it is contrary to health reasoning.

Therefore, it would be wiser and beneficial if we leave the COVID-19 pandemic issue to the experts. Do not create unnecessary (read: ridiculous) stumbling blocks. Our lives are far more valuable than winning a public debate over the handling of COVID-19.

In this inductive reasoning, what matters is evidence-based argumentation, and not a priori argumentation. Following Immanuel Kant (1878), a priori reasoning is mathematical-logical cognition of a particular concept construction.

Meanwhile, aposteriori reasoning is an argument that is built from a series of empirical facts that have been rigorously tested in a laboratory or empirical reality. In the language of Ibn Taymiyah (w. 1328), truth lies in the reality of life, not in the mind (al-haqiqah fi al-a\'yan la fi al-adzhan).

Even though it is logical, but it is not supported by empirical facts, it cannot be used as a basis for arguments for decision-making in handling the COVID-19 pandemic.

Masdar Hilmy, Professor and Rector of Sunan Ampel State Islamic University, Surabaya