Science v. Superstition

Good op-ed from a pediatrician involved in the vaccine approval process, pointing out that a “vaccine skeptic” is someone who brings the appropriate skepticism that is a hallmark of the scientific method to the approval process:

Mr. Kennedy, on the other hand, is a vaccine cynic, failing to accept studies that refute his beliefs. He claims that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine causes autism despite more than a dozen studies performed in seven countries on three continents involving thousands of children showing that it doesn’t.

He has claimed that “there is no vaccine that is safe and effective.” (Childhood vaccines have prevented more than one million deaths and 32 million hospitalizations over the past three decades). He has encouraged people not to vaccinate their babies: “I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby, I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated.’”

When asked about the polio vaccine, Mr. Kennedy claimed that it caused an “explosion in soft tissue cancers” that killed, “many, many, many, many, many more people than polio ever did.” Setting aside the fact that an “explosion in soft tissue cancers” hasn’t occurred, studies comparing children who received early batches of polio vaccines with unvaccinated children found no differences in cancer incidence. By 1979, paralytic polio was eliminated from the United States. When Mr. Kennedy says he wants vaccines to be better studied, what he really seems to be saying is he wants studies that confirm his fixed, immutable, science-resistant beliefs. That’s not skepticism.

A particularly difficult needle to thread at the moment is this: It’s important to acknowledge that the practice of science is by its nature very fallible, because science is a human and sociological phenomenon. This means that it’s subject to all kinds of analytic and psychological errors, including hubris, financial and ideological corruption, and social prejudice in all its forms. It’s also important not to fall into a classic no true Scotsman fallacy, in which people say things like “I believe in science,” and then when confronted with various failures of the scientific method respond with “well that’s not real science, that’s pseudo-science,” or what have you.

Another mistake to avoid is scientism, which is the belief that the scientific method can answer all basic metaphysical questions: a belief which is obviously irrational unless you engage in what should be some very obvious question-begging, i.e., the assumption that the current heuristics of the natural sciences are absolute truths, as opposed to pragmatic methodological conveniences.

So it’s all very complicated, especially at the present cultural and political moment, but what is not complicated is that science is at all times and places to be preferred to superstition, and superstition is at the core of contemporary right wing ideology and rhetoric. RFK Jr.’s beliefs about vaccines and a host of other health-related issues are superstitions wrapped up in the rhetoric of science:

In his book “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” Mr. Kennedy reveals one possible source of his anti-vaccine fervor. He casts doubt on the germ theory — the idea that specific germs cause specific diseases and that the prevention or treatment of those germs can be lifesaving (which is unequivocally true). He writes: “The ubiquity of pasteurization and vaccination are only two of the many indicators of the domineering ascendancy of germ theory as the cornerstone of contemporary public policy.” Rather, Mr. Kennedy seems to favor the idea that fortifying the immune system through nutrition and reduced exposure to environmental toxins may be enough to prevent infections.

It is, perhaps, this belief that explains his penchant for drinking unpasteurized milk and his view that vaccines are not beneficial. It may also explain another particularly disturbing fact: He seems to doubt that H.I.V. causes AIDS. In his book, Mr. Kennedy cites AIDS denialists who believe that AIDS wasn’t widely spread, was not transmitted from person to person, and was most likely caused by recreational drugs like poppers and the antiviral drug AZT. He calls the use of AZT “mass murder.”

Rejecting germ theory is no different than rejecting the theory that the Earth is not flat. People who hold such beliefs should be nowhere near political authority because they are delusional. There’s no point in trying to “work” with them, by engaging with whatever non-delusional beliefs they happen to hold. The only kind of engagement that makes sense is try to remove them from political power as quickly as possible.

Here’s a perfect example of how any on the other handing of this kind of thing contaminates public discourse. Bret Stephens on the Los Angeles fires:

[I]t’s way too soon for political arguments and ideological score-settling, whether the alleged culprit is climate change or D.E.I.

So the alleged culprits here are a scientific theory that has been confirmed to the extent it’s possible for any theory to be confirmed, or a paranoid right-wing conspiratorial delusion that doesn’t even begin to make sense no matter how many assumptions you pile on to it. The truth no doubt lies somewhere in the middle.