Mandating Mask-Wearing by Logical Fallacy?

In addition to what I wrote below, "It's just good common sense" might have some crossover with the Appeal to Common Belief fallacy, but they are not the same. The former is not about a truth claim, but rather a behavior. Again, defining "common sense" might be required here to really nail this down.

Have you considered moving to Georgia where the governor banned city and county officials from mandating the use of masks? I'm sure we won't see any spike in cases similar to the spike in Tulsa following the Trunk rally where they embraced not wearing masks. 

Hence, democracy is a terrible system.

But all the others are also either equally terrible or worse on the scale of terrible, so we're stuck.

[To Rationalissimo]

One of the main useful things about democracy is that it deters the population from rising up against authority with feelings of unfairness and feeling left out. If people vote, they feel that they have a say in what is going on, so they don't rise up against their own decisions. 

I think we should vote for methodologies instead of people. Have the methodologies based on a moral constitution. And have networks of panels of experts to conduct the methodology to arrive at societal action. Have the methodologies be transparent and independently verifiable so the people can see how decisions are arrived at instead of just having a elected authority making decisions based off opinionated decree. 

Would you say that it's common sense to look both ways for someone who isn't familiar with roads and the motor vehicles which traverse them? If it's common sense why do we need to repeat it like a mantra and with infomercials (maybe that's an anachronism now), and why do we see adults not adhering to it? 

Common sense seems to be something that is bandied about quite commonly but when you try to tie it down it becomes quite nebulous. It seems to be something which you don't need training or specialised knowledge for, but when I try to find examples I just end up down a rabbit hole. To some extent common sense seems to be used as admonishment of what someone should have used when they did something wrong, possibly to deflect the responsibility of the person who didn't supervise or give sufficient instruction. 

As the OP pointed out, "common sense" has different philosophical and psychological meanings. Before attempting to point out what is or is not common sense, it would be worth defining it. What we can do, is point out examples that are in different categories such as looking both ways before crossing the road and how a piece of cloth can or cannot protect against viruses. So to answer your questions:

Would you say that it's common sense to look both ways for someone who isn't familiar with roads and the motor vehicles which traverse them?

No.

If it's common sense why do we need to repeat it like a mantra and with infomercials (maybe that's an anachronism now), and why do we see adults not adhering to it?  

Because as Voltaire said, "Common sense is anything but common." Many people are idiots, and many more act at times in ways that ignore common sense.

I agree with your assessment of common sense... extremely ambiguous and poorly defined. That is why any serious discussions of common sense would require operationalization of the term.

This "appeal" was the singular basis for their decision-making process which they provided to the public.  No empirical or scientific-basis was included, and the Commissioner's board meeting was not open to the public.  I am not confusing the basis both the Mayor and the Board Chair released to the local media;  it was the same "common sense" message, and it appeared they were on the same page.  My point in posting this is that the appeal to common sense is in itself the very model of the Appeal to Common Belief fallacy.  

Common sense, btw, is a very complex topic, as it turns out:  there are 26 pages devoted to it on Wikipedia alone.  It turns out to be a deep subject which many historically significant thinkers and philosophers have engaged with theoughout time:  Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Horace, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Francis Bacon, Locke, David Hume, George Berkeley, Hannah Arendt,---you get the idea.  It is neither a simple nor specious topic, but rather a subject requiring applied focus and contemplative study.  Thus, to make such casual use of the term and to take it for granted that we can all be agreed as to what common sense comprises, is assuming a great deal.

When I first read of using cloth masks for safety precautions, my common sense was engaged:  I phoned the County Health Dept., and spoke to a nurse.  I asked her about the efficiency of cloth masks for aerosolized viral bodies 0.127 microns in size, when the average porosity of these masks is 60 microns?She confided that they would be a false preventative, and their primary function was to reduce stress and anxiety and quell mounting panic.  Dr. Faucci himself was interviewed back in March, denying the effectiveness of these masks, and yes, he has since backpedaled on that score.  I have before me a publication from the New England Journal of Medicine entitled 'Universal Masking in Hospitals in the Covid-19 Era'.  Their conclusions include that masks serve symbolic roles and may increase the perceived safety and well-being of those wearing them, but that they are not effective against the transmission of these miniscule, airborne viral bodies.

As recently as yesterday I came across news articles about California Assembly lawmakers  who have confirmed mask-to-mask cases of coronavirus, and I expect to be reading about more of these type of contagions.  But I digress, because I am not here to argue a case for or against mask-wearing:  if you feel more secure with your mask in place, by all means, do so.  My sole purpose in posting this was to learn if others on the Logically Fallacious "Team" would confirm the "common sense" foundation for mandating masks indoors amounted to the Appeal to Common Belief fallacy.  

[To Citizen Irrelevant]

Okay thanks for your response, some interesting views.

"This "appeal" was the singular basis for their decision-making process which they provided to the public. "

Do you have a link as I find it highly unlikely that this is true, which your claim of a fallacy hinges on.

This story was published in the July 09 Missoulian.  I cannot furnish you a link as the site throws up a paywall and insists I subscribe first.  It was also covered on local TV station KECI, same date.

It's southwest Montana, so, yes, it is possible that further details were not accompanying these reports.  Not just possible, but standard operating procedure.  Think:  small town, sparse demographics.

I had found a news article from the previous week where they were discussing who had the authority, so I guess they decided who did. 

I now found this after using a VPN due to being geographically blocked. This just details the rule, not justify it. Is it normal that the relevant authority explains why they made decisions? I was going on the basis that their common sense comment was an appeal to people to encourage them to follow the rule. 

When I say appeal to, this isn't to be confused with fallacies which contain appeal to in their name, where that is a form of argument, rather than a request. 

If it is normal that your authorities explain why they made decisions, and this was given as their basis for the decision, then fair enough. I'd be interested to see the justification for banning marijuana given that it was racist as far as I'm aware. 

Sorry for delving into the background and whatnot, I just don't like accepting things on face value given so many things are false these days, whether intentional or just due to misunderstanding or miscommunication. 

I'm beginning to wonder if the common sense thing was an ironic reference to the Missoula Vs Common Sense Facebook page. 

Btw I definitely didn't say anything about masks preventing spread, nor say that wearing a mask protects the wearer. The idea of it being symbolic a la seatbelts on a plane is interesting, albeit opinion. 

The NEJM article, co-authored by 5 M.D. Specialists, states unequivocally: " In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."  The consensus of this report seems tome to suggest masks as marginally beneficial.  And since the study presented for peer review in the NEJM was centered on the N-95 Respirator Mask reserved for hospital settings, one may reasonably conclude that bandannas, homemade coth masks, and now, the commercially available "designer" masks are many times less effective at preventing spread.

Thank you for this dialogue and exchange of views.  

Oh was there a peer reviewed paper as well? I only found an article which is an opinion piece, whether the author says unequivocal or not. I'm not saying the article was wrong, and I found it interesting, simply that on it's own it is just opinion. 

[To Citizen Irrelevant]

I've had a look at multiple peer reviewed papers and none of them concluded that masks weren't effective in combating the spread of SARS-COV-2, while all of them seemed to note benefits from wearing masks. 

Perhaps you've seen Bill Nigh's video where he blows a candle flame while wearing masks, and blowing hard he couldn't blow it out, or with a good mask barely caused it to move, if at all. This isn't about preventing pathogens passing through the mask but rather limiting their range. 

Also regarding your comment about Fauci, I'd like to see a citation for this as I'm aware that there is a video which cherry picks and misrepresents what he said in March, a time when there was a shortage of face masks and people were discouraged from panic buying them when they were needed by health care workers. The doctored video missed out the part when he said that it was important for people already infected to wear masks to limit the spread to other people, which is still the reason for people wearing masks in public. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/08/facebook-posts/video-shows-outdated-face-mask-guidance-dr-anthony/

Bryan,

With all due respect, I did not post here to argue the efficacy of mask wearing as a preventative to contracting the Coronavirus.  My intent was to question, in this instance, our local authorities mandating mask wearing by simply asserting it was just a matter of "good common sense".  ( I have since realized this same mandate founded upon the exact same assertion of common sense, was taking place in multiple locations across the country, on July 9th.  It seems to have been a coordinated measure. )

I believe ascribing this action to common sense resembles the appeal to common belief fallacy.  I further believe that mandating public regulations based upon logical fallacies is a dangerous precedent, and indeed, a slippery slope.  I would be much more comfortable if mandates such as this were based on empirical evidence, or solid scientific studies.  To employ " sensus communis " in such a casual fashion as the foundation for what amounts to law, strikes me as flawed thinking and thus an invalid justification.  Interestingly, the local news team referred to a "poll" which returned the results that an overwhelming 80% of respondents were in favor of the mandate.  Digging a little deeper, though, I discovered that the poll they alluded to was only posted on the City-County Health Dept. website;  the bias here is that unless you happened to visit this site you would be unaware of the survey.  In fact, the 3,200 "votes" (clicks) in favor, from which they derived the eighty percentile figure, would represent but 2.7% of the County's population.  The original poll may not have been created with any ulterior motives in mind, but the cherry-picked statistics and subsequent glossing over the complete picture demonstrates not only how polls can be manipulated, but how easily misinformation is generated.

Just an FYI, I have been a member of a surgical team, and I do recognize the importance of mask wearing under many different conditions.  I simply have little faith in the effectiveness of cloth masks during this current pandemic.  As you may have already seen, mask-to-mask contagion is now documented as taking place amongst the California Assembly.  I believe there will be more.  Stay safe however you can.

[To Citizen Irrelevant]

You didn't post here to argue that, however when I tried to establish a basis by which common sense would be more than reasonable (as far as I understand common sense) you then chose to do so, not me. If you don't want to discuss it then the best approach is to not discuss it, not state your opinion whilst saying that you don't want to discuss it with the expectation that I will just let your comments go unchallenged. 

The common sense fallacy is when something is presented as common sense but which isn't common sense. That is not the case here. 

Whilst your membership of a surgical team is commendable it's largely irrelevant. I'm not going to say fallacious as I don't think that's helpful. Mask to mask infections do not mean that there is no benefit to wearing masks, and I would contend that it's actually impossible to attribute such a thing anyway as there are many opportunities to become infected outside of these conditions, as well as equipment misuse or failure, operator error, poor sanitation practices, etc. 

Whilst it is to be expected that a mutation is likely whereby the pathogen becomes airborne, if it isn't already, there is benefit to be had from reducing the range at which surfaces can be contaminated. If it does become airborne then a mask isn't going to stop particles which become airborne, but there would be a reduction. And your point about the psychological effect also has a real world benefit. If nothing else masks are a constant reminder to remain vigilant. I know that I found myself forgetting about precautions when out and about without a mask.

As to your claim that the basis for masks was common sense, none of the material I found said anything about common sense. I didn't watch the 1h47m meeting as the webpage adverts kept locking up my browser. Your comment about Fauci highlights only how cherry picked statements can present things in a false manner, and perhaps you saw something without context but even if it was accurate and in context as you described, I don't agree that it isn't common sense.

Edit: as you said:

 ( I have since realized this same mandate founded upon the exact same assertion of common sense, was taking place in multiple locations across the country, on July 9th.  It seems to have been a coordinated measure. )

That's good then, you should find it easier to provide a citation. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just too used to people making claims that aren't quite correct and it's good to be able to check. Don't you agree that citations are good? I find that right wing claims, for example, are almost always dishonest, while right wingers claim that liberals are guilty of this without any citations. 

The simplistic terms are too simplistic.  The vapor is invisible.  It's a gas.  The condensate is visible and it's the condensate that billows out and that has the pathogens, not the vapor.  It's also the condensate that has appreciably-sized particles and it's the condensate that can be blocked by masks. Even viruses are many times larger than the molecules of vapor.

[To DrBill]

I agree that many of the terms are too simplistic, though only if you're going to drill down into a detailed discussion which wasn't intended or required. This kinda goes towards the fact that it's not really practical (or should that be practicable?) to explain why experts give certain advice as though the public need to sign off on the decisions without any understanding. Can you imagine trying to justify this to people who refuse to accept that a virus is actually a thing? Or who see conspiracies behind every news story?

When issues come up that are dealt with solely by argument, and my background and skills can add value, I try to help (as I did with my answer).  It can be like spitting into the wind, sometimes, but I persist.

Even now, just 10 minutes ago!, I heard a popular radio personality assert that masks are to protect everyone else from the wearer, not the wearer from exogenous infection.  Nice guy, and I like him in general, but he's no deep thinker.

The folks who don't believe that viruses exist have been badly informed, and people of that sort were the greatest challenge when I was teaching freshman chemistry.  I could not reach all who attended class and it's much harder if there's already a mindset and I'm only trying to use logical rhetoric in a forum.  

FWIW, this forum is a far stronger source of logical argument than I've been dealing with on Quora. 

The problem with face masks with regards exogenous infection (had to look that up even if I could somewhat infer) is that protection from breathing in pathogens is only a minor factor, and the main cause of spread is touching surfaces and then touching yourself. 

I don't know if you saw my comment added to the question above regarding Georgia's governor, or about the spike in Tulsa, but it seems that Oklahoma governor Stitt, who was one of those at the Tulsa rally embracing his lack of a mask, has been tested positive. I hope he gets well, but especially hope he wears a mask now and takes measures to protect others, instead of trying to curry favour with he who shall not be named. 

Indeed, the improper use of masks could be counterproductive, and touching one's face is to be avoided at least until one's hands have been washed.  I wear my N95/Ag and use the alcohol handwipes to touch anything in the store (especially the handles of the carts), and then wash my hands anyway.  I leave the mask in the sun where UV finishes the job.

I went looking for the comments you mentioned, missing them, but relying on your summary, would say your point about Stitt's now wearing a mask makes sense.  His prior failure to wear one could even be thought evidence of a general casual attitude.  The mask can prophylactic, and its presence is a physical reminder for good avoidance practices, including hand-washing as you mentioned.  

There are many things that are excellent when used properly, some of which are actually harmful when not used properly. Critical thinking is not common sense, but it should be.

Governor Stitt has been described as "a fierce opponent of safety measures". Before aTrump's rally in Tulsa he said "we're going to be very safe" and made a show of not wearing his mask. The subsequent spike in cases might be purely coincidental.

Dr Bo... was there a glitch in the Matrix?  Got an email 

[paste]

Hello DrBill,

Well said! Your answer or comment was voted up by Bryan.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/questions/zOXTvZy3/mandating_maskwearing_by_logical_fallacy.html#cVFxIOhX

The Logically Fallacious Team

[end paste]

...and stopped by to enjoy the ^ and it's not there. 

Oh it's certainly there, just mine wasn't the only vote if you get my point.

ty