ACADEMIA Letters
Ambiguity, Misinformation and the Coronavirus
Gerald Gutenschwager
Many, if not most people dislike ambiguity. This is especially true of scientists and engineers.
Their life’s work is devoted to solving puzzles for which there is a single answer usually more
or less known in advance, as Thomas Kuhn describes in his books on the history of science.
Thus, they avoid metaphors, for example, by ignoring them and/or interpreting them in a literal
way as much as they can. They seek to avoid ambiguity, generally, as much as possible, and
they also do this in part by quantifying whatever they observe in order to, at least, feel that
ambiguity has been removed. This is especially true for those social scientists who ignore the
differences between social science and natural science. Not that social science quantification
is false, but rather that the process by which these quantities are produced is quite different;
they are not the product of natural laws but of human thoughts and beliefs.
Metaphors are, meanwhile, the essence of art, of philosophy and of humanity generally.
They are a product of the human capacity to create symbols to represent reality. Thus, over
time all literal meanings evolve also into metaphorical or symbolic ones, in order to enable
and enrich communication. This can be seen in the evolution of the Greek language, which
began as words representing a single thing in the environment, real or imagined, and over
time to take on metaphorical meanings as knowledge increased and human discourse became
enriched.
One example of this is money. It began as a symbol of value, which allowed goods to be
exchange beyond the barter system with its clumsy need for transporting products from place
to place. Money began as objects of value such as sea shells or wampum (in North America)
and was gradually replaced by gold and silver amounting to the actual value, and then by
simple metal coins and paper representing that value, and now by a simple electronic click.
But along the way money also began to take on other meanings, as a symbol of prestige, of
esteem and respect, as formalized by Adam Smith in his claim that it was also, by the 18th
Academia Letters, June 2021
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Corresponding Author: Gerald Gutenschwager, g.gutenschwager@gmail.com
Citation: Gutenschwager, G. (2021). Ambiguity, Misinformation and the Coronavirus. Academia Letters,
Article 1395. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1395.
1
century, a general symbol of happiness. At present in society, it carries all these symbolic
meanings following several hundred years of propaganda to reinforce these beliefs, which are
now embedded in the science of economics, itself.
But why should something as ambiguous as money be a symbol of esteem and happiness?
How has it evolved into something of such psychological importance? Based on current research one can also recognize that money is associated with the need for power (McClelland
2016 [1961]). Thus, the search for happiness and self-esteem can also be seen as a search for
power, on the assumption that these meanings are correlated in society. This is true not for
some abstract reason to be found in nature but simply because many people believe it to be
true. Social truth, in other words, is not objective but subjective: if people believe something
to be true, it is true, at least for those who believe it to be true. The actions of these believers
then make these beliefs objectively true.
Whole belief and behavior systems have been established over time by different cultures
on the basis of which those cultures function in a practical (within the limits of nature, of
course) as well as an emotional sense, including our own present world-wide culture of free
market capitalism. Empirical research has recently established that many of these economic
beliefs are no longer viable and whole movements within the science of economics now seek to
overthrow them, e.g. The Post-Autistic Economics Movement and Reality-Based Economics
as the emblem of the new World Economics Association, etc.
Any social science that is based on the assumptions of natural science will attempt to
prove that social reality is objectively (and forever) true, which, as long as the subjective
belief systems that underlie it remain in place, might seem to be the case. In this way, social
science also contributes to the metaphors that hold society together. Other unifying metaphors
are found in mythology and religion, supported not so much by scientific truths as by art in its
many forms, especially theater, broadly (and metaphorically) understood as a representation
of reality.
More recent research also now suggests that the need for power is often associated with
the fear of death and the search for immortality in a metaphorical sense, as do also religion and
mythology with their associated rituals and symbolic representations (Becker 1973; Solomon,
et al, 2015). Epicurus understood this very well, making the rational confrontation with death
one of the principle factors associated with membership in his small-scale community devoted
to happiness here on earth.
Power over others provides the illusion of immortality. This is especially the case when
the truth of one’s culture confronts another culture that threatens the objectivity (universality)
of that truth with different beliefs and symbolic representations. War may be justified by the
search for resources that are physically necessary for the survival of one’s tribe, but it is also
Academia Letters, June 2021
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Corresponding Author: Gerald Gutenschwager, g.gutenschwager@gmail.com
Citation: Gutenschwager, G. (2021). Ambiguity, Misinformation and the Coronavirus. Academia Letters,
Article 1395. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1395.
2
easier to destroy and/or enslave those whom you claim are inferior because they threaten your
illusion of immortality. Endless wars, as well as hundreds of years of imperialism would seem
to verify this.
All of this questions the ability to discover an objective truth in a social setting. Much
ink has recently been spilt over the problem of misinformation, conspiracy theories, etc., in
relation to the current pandemic of the coronavirus. This problem is seen as obstructing the
search for the objective truth of policies to curtail this pandemic, especially in the search
for a vaccine. In the circumstance of the belief that the free market system will resolve all
problems in the most effective way, we must ask if the involvement of money in the search
for a solution to the pandemic will not introduce emotional factors that must be considered.
Health care is a social need, meaning it exceeds the boundaries of individual interest, which
motivates behavior in the market system. Scientific researchers are embodied in this market
system, which means that their behavior may be motivated by more than pure science. This
is certainly true for the pharmaceutical companies which could make enormous profits if and
when their vaccines were the ones chosen for wide spread utilization.
So, we have an ambiguous situation here. We certainly cannot assume that private companies involved in the search for a vaccine will not be searching for profit; it is their practical
and symbolic duty, after all. How can we assume that those scientists involved in this search
will not be influenced by money with all of its symbolic baggage, for all of the reasons discussed above? This is not to claim that scientists are corrupt in any way, or that some people
don’t tell lies in pursuit of their own interests; it is just that in this ambiguous situation they
might be inspired by different motives, consciously or not. Is it misinformation to point out
this truth, and/or is it simply an existential problem that we all face in today’s international
socioeconomic system of beliefs and consequent behaviors? It appears that we essentially
confront a worldwide loss of faith or trust in our institutions, an inevitable result of placing
the satisfaction of public needs into private hands, especially when those private hands are
larger than some countries in today’s world.
Essentially, all things in society are ambiguous; society is socially constructed and therefore always subject to change. Those who seek to overcome their fear of death by seeking
power in society will usually oppose change if it brings to mind that fear and threatens that
power. Culture is intimately involved in this process; it embodies a moral code that gives a
sense of certainty and security to its members. Therefore, the importance of money in today’s
society must be understood not as some natural law but as a product of an ever-changing and
evolving social reality. The free market system of capitalism, aided and abetted by science
with its important revelations about nature, has placed a great deal more importance on the individual, especially the male individual, than have previous cultures. But this has also created
Academia Letters, June 2021
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Corresponding Author: Gerald Gutenschwager, g.gutenschwager@gmail.com
Citation: Gutenschwager, G. (2021). Ambiguity, Misinformation and the Coronavirus. Academia Letters,
Article 1395. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1395.
3
an obstacle to cooperation, an essential biological need long appreciated by homo sapiens as
absolutely necessary to survival.
In the contemporary social world cooperation is frequently accomplished necessarily by
domination and control. Not always, but often, the wealthy and/or powerful seek to control the
majority of both men and women as they pursue their need for evermore power in their illusory
search for immortality. This is irrespective of the particular ideological system in which they
find themselves. This is also an expression of a basic tension between the individual and the
group. How do we protect the needs of the individual while also protecting the needs of the
group? The restrictions on society imposed by those with power because of the pandemic,
expose this tension to one and all throughout the world. Thus, the suspicion and distrust
everyone feels (Mishra 2017).
Indeed, we seem to be at a turning point (Capra 1982) in our evolution as a species as
illustrated by the world-wide crisis brought on by this pandemic. Do we see the search for
a vaccine as a competitive process among companies and countries like a football match, as
so many immature politicians do? And in the same spirit do we continue to use many of
our scientific advances to build ever more sophisticated technologies to conquer others and
possibly annihilate ourselves in the process? This is what our tribalist instincts along with
the vision of a perfect society brought on by everyone pursuing his own individual interests
would suggest. Or do we seek to find ways to cooperate at an international level, recognizing
that we are all in the same terrestrial boat?
References
Becker, Ernest (1979 [1973]), The Denial of Death. New York: Free Press
Capra, Fritjof (1982), The Turning Point; Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New
York: Bantam Books
McClelland, David (2016 [1961]), The Achieving Society. Golden Springs Publishing
Mishra, Pankaj (2017), Age of Anger: A History of the Present. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux
Solomon, Sheldon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski (2015), The Worm at the Core: On the
Role of Death in Life. London: Penguin Books
Academia Letters, June 2021
©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Corresponding Author: Gerald Gutenschwager, g.gutenschwager@gmail.com
Citation: Gutenschwager, G. (2021). Ambiguity, Misinformation and the Coronavirus. Academia Letters,
Article 1395. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL1395.
4