In my previous post, I talked about how we ought to think about the unanticipated outcomes of our actions, and how we should expect those consequences to play out. If you haven’t read that post yet, it might be worth checking out just to get the background. That said, let’s set the stage for a situation I think is analogous to the issue at hand. 

Suppose I find myself in the presence of someone who is having a medical crisis, but with whom I can’t clearly communicate (perhaps they’re too catatonic due to illness, or speak a different language). I can see evidence of various symptoms – the patient is clearly in distress and in pain, sweating, running a high fever, along with many other indicators of problems. However, against all odds, a mad philosopher has locked me and this person together in a room that just so happens to be the world’s largest medical supply warehouse. Every possible drug and form of medical equipment you can possibly imagine is available to me. So here’s the question – should I try to use the vast supplies available to me to administer treatment to this person? 

The case in favor: clearly something is wrong. This person is ill, injured, and suffering. If I can render aid to them, I should do it – it would be terrible of me to simply ignore the problem when I could do something to help.

The case against: despite having watched a significant amount of House, M.D., I am not a doctor. I don’t have anything close to adequate knowledge to intervene properly. I can sort of see what various symptoms are – the presence of fever and vomiting are evident, their pulse is racing, etc., but I don’t have any reliable way to determine what is causing these symptoms. And I have no way of knowing which, if any, of the drugs available to me would be helpful. Nor do I have an understanding of this person’s medical history and the complications it entails. Perhaps they’re already on some form of medication that would have a terrible interaction with something else I might give them. I simply have no way of knowing what the consequences of my attempts would be. 

Now, someone might suggest at this point that since I have no way of knowing what the outcomes of my intervention would be, I also have no way to know if the result would be better or worse. Technically, that’s true – I can’t know that. But in this case, do I have good reason to think that my attempts are more or less likely to do harm or good? 

It seems extremely obvious in this case that I’m far more likely to do harm than good if I intervene. Michael Huemer has described a similar thought experiment, where he points out that for most of human history, doctors usually did more harm than good. This is because for most of human history, we understood next to nothing about how the body works. Huemer talks about how George Washington was given ineffectual treatment by the doctors of his day meant to help him, and that almost certainly contributed to his death. As he put it, “Washington’s doctors were respected experts, and they applied standard medical procedures. Why were they unable to help him? Put simply, they could not help because they had no idea what they were doing. The human body is an extremely complex mechanism. To repair it generally requires a detailed and precise understanding of that mechanism and of the nature of the disorder afflicting it – knowledge that no one at the time possessed. Without such understanding, almost any significant intervention in the body will be harmful.” That is, when acting from a state of ignorance in carrying out medical interventions, it’s technically possible that the unknowable results of your intervention might be positive, but it’s far more likely that the outcome will be negative. 

This is due to the fact that there are simply far more ways to harm the human body than there are to heal it. In the same way, and for the same reasons, there are far more ways to increase the disorder of a complex system than increase order. There are far more ways to disrupt the natural balance of an ecosystem than to stabilize it. This is why most new ideas are terrible. When intervening in a complex adaptive system you don’t understand, the valence of unanticipated consequences is far more likely to be negative than either neutral or positive. 

But, you might say, not everyone shares my ignorance of medicine. What about a trained medical professional, with years of experience? Wouldn’t medical intervention be a good idea if they were the one doing the intervening? 

That certainly does change things. Clearly the intervention of such a person would be justified. Of course, this doesn’t depend on claiming that the doctor possesses perfect knowledge and their attempts are guaranteed to be a success – that’s an absurdly high standard. Doctors can still make mistakes, and sometimes there are unexpected complications they couldn’t reasonably anticipate. The standard here is not perfection. What makes the difference is that a doctor can justifiably believe that their intervention is significantly more likely than not to help the patient recover. They won’t get it right in every case, but they’ll get it right more often than not. 

However, at the risk of testing the reader’s patience, there is one more layer I can put on this thought experiment. While I am no medical expert, I do know at least a few things about basic first aid. Nothing fancy, but stuff that I can usefully apply if needed. I could, for example, bandage a wound to stop bleeding, or clear out an obstructed airway – simple things like that. Those are interventions I can justifiably engage in – but if I attempt to go beyond that I may inject the patient with a massive amount of warfarin and melt all their skin off because hey, since I don’t know if the outcome of using this drug will be bad or good, it’s all indeterminate so there’s no reason not to try! 

The relevant question here is whether technocrats, politicians, and policymakers are analogous to skilled medical professionals treating a patient whose condition and medical history they thoroughly understand, or if they’re in a position more similar to me locked in a warehouse with the hypothetical patient, or George Washington’s doctors.

Michael Huemer argues that policymakers “are in the position of medieval doctors. They hold simple, prescientific theories about the workings of society and the causes of social problems, from which they derive a variety of remedies–almost all of which prove either ineffectual or harmful. Society is a complex mechanism whose repair, if possible at all, would require a precise and detailed understanding of a kind that no one today possesses.” I think this somewhat overstates the case. I’d say policymakers are more analogous to me in the warehouse with the patient than medieval doctors. That is, there really are a few basic things that are understood well enough to be implemented – things at the level of general rules like protecting property rights, a system of stable laws, prohibitions on violent crime, etc. 

These kinds of basic, general rules are the equivalent of my ability to render basic first aid. But advocates of technocratic policy see themselves as being more like skilled medical professionals with a detailed understanding of their patient, capable of carrying out complex interventions in a complex system in a way that reliably produces beneficial results. 

That mindset is not new, of course – that level of overconfidence has always been present. And that very mindset is part of what horrified Edmund Burke at the ideas animating the French Revolution. Burke, too, used an analogy of someone sick and in need, and thought our approach to social problems should reflect the way we’d approach “the wounds of a father, with pious awe and trembling solicitude.” And he saw those motivated by the pretense of their imagined knowledge as being like me rushing to the patient with a syringe full of warfarin, describing such people as “children of their country who are prompt rashly to hack that aged parent in pieces and put him into the kettle of magicians, in hopes that by their poisonous weeds and wild incantations they may regenerate the paternal constitution and renovate their father’s life.”