Thoughts on Fauci, anti-science, and a cult of ignorance

This week, the nation’s leading authority on the Corona virus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and lead member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force spoke up about anti-science bias in America. He was speaking with assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for public affairs Michael Caputo on the Learning Curve podcast.

AF: Yeah. Well, one of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are, for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable, they just don't believe science and they don't believe authority. So, when they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who's talking about science, that there are some people who just don't believe that. And that's unfortunate because, you know, science is truth. And if you go by the evidence and by the data, you're speaking the truth.

Caputo pinpointed the problem in America referring to two acquaintances of his—one who trust the information that Fauci puts out, the other who doesn’t have any faith in experts like Fauci. Lack of faith in experts like Fauci, when it comes to public policy, is evidenced by the antivaxxer movement, global warming skeptics, and objections to evolutionary theory. Very recently such anti-science discourse has been evidenced by protests against corona virus safety guidelines and even theories proposing that the coronavirus pandemic is not even real.

Opinion, point of view, and free speech are essential to the American democracy. But it is important to note that the founding fathers viewed the democratic process to be intertwined with a respect for science, as argued by philosophy professor Barbara Forest in the book “Anti-science and Assault on Democracy.” So what good is free speech when the populace is misinformed about the qualities of the scientific process, a question asked by professor of biochemistry Isaac Asimov back in 1980, a time when many argue was the beginnings of this anti-science movement in America. In his essay, “A Cult of Ignorance he states;

“I contend that the slogan ‘America’s right to know’ is a meaningless one when we have an ignorant population, and that the function of a free press is virtually zero when hardly anyone can read.”

Asimov pinpoints the issue in American democracy where it is considered proper to respect an opinion even though it is scientifically invalid.

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through out political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”

Susan Jacoby, in her book “The Age of American Unreason” coined the term “junk thought” and comments on the current celebration and acceptance of anti-scientific rhetoric.

“The real power of junk though lies in its status as a centrist phenomenon, fueled by the American credo of tolerance that places all opinions on the equal footing and makes little effort to separate fact from opinion” (Jacoby 211)

In the “Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, famous astronomer Carl Sagan points out that skepticism when used properly with true scientific process can be a reward for democracy and government. But he points out that when not properly used, it can be dangerous.

“The business of skepticism is to be dangerous. Skepticism challenges established institutions. If we teach everybody, including, say high school students, habits of skeptical though, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOS, aspirin commercials, and 35,000-year old channelees. Maybe they’ll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they’ll challenge the opinions of those in power. There where would we be?”

Perhaps that is where we are now – in an era of absolutes, where we cannot respect intellectual achievement that continues to ask legitimate questions. Philosopher Bertrand Russell once said that “in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt” referring to how the Natzi movement was able to take over the entire German country. Fauci and Caputo discussed the problem with absolutes.

MC: You know, so it's interesting, doc, because I kind of see that the people who don't believe science are people who believe in absolutes. That the truth is it's either true or it's not.

AF: Right.

MC: And in this process, we've seen the models shift. We've seen the data shift. We've seen an instruction shift. And I think perhaps those who believe in absolute truth, don't really end up being believing science that shifts. Don't you think that in the end, the American people have to begin to understand that science is an absolute truth?

[…]

AF: Okay. So, science is the attempt in good faith to get to the facts, and it isn't perfect. And what happens is that science can be self-correcting.

[…]

So, as long as science is humble enough and open enough and transparent enough to excel -- to accept the self-correction. It's a beautiful process. So, the science doesn't change. What it is, is sometimes interpretation. That's the point.

[…]

MC: And I think most -- many Americans haven't. They don't get that that science is really something that thousands of people participate in to end up on one -- in one immutable truth.