Science
Of its very nature, science is humble, tentative, uncertain, and exploratory. It is embracive of correction, contradiction, development, complexity, ambiguity, doubt, and questioning. The idea of "settled science" is contradictory: while there certainly is a body of accepted truths, the nature of scientific knowing is to be unsettled, searching, exploring, reaching beyond, and questioning of accustomed knowledge. In a prior life in which I religiously read the weekly NY Times Science section, the recurrent theme was: Science has changed its mind: we believed abc but now see def. This is the very nature of science: always in change, development, conflict and contradiction. Furthermore, each science, body of knowledge, is limited in its sphere of knowledge. For example, the contagious disease scientists who advised us throughout the coronavirus pandemic offered no guidance on the mental health effect of various policies on youth and children, or the economy, and so forth. So, science at its best is always modest, meek, and deferential. Furthermore, as an exploration of the truth/beauty of Creation, it moves the explorer to adoration of the Creator.
Scientism
Scientism is the idolatry of science, an exaggerated confidence in the salvific efficacy of science and technology. "Just follow the science" is the mantra. The dogmatic certainty is that science will free us from our suffering, fragility and finitude. It flows from disbelief in a God of mercy and power and an inordinate dependence on human knowing and expertise. It is evident, for example, when one affirms on the basis of science that there is no God. This is, of course, patently ridiculous, since the nature of God, as mysterious, transcendent and spiritual, is that he cannot be known by empirical science, he cannot be verified or falsified, he is "unknowable." In that sense, an agnostic or "unknowing" stance is intellectually coherent: as God is "unknowable" to the unaided human intellect there is a sense in which the act of faith includes within it an "unknowing" even as it is a deeper and higher form of knowledge
Policy
Another form of human knowledge and practice, policy similarly has an inherent modesty, humility, uncertainty and skepticism about it. This is because any social policy entails boundless, complex and contradictory, intended and unanticipated, consequences. This became blatantly evident during the coronavirus. The policies designed to mitigate the virus and relieve its effects had immense consequences that were not intended: mental health of children, inflation. disincentives to work, decline in religious practice, and so many more.
This suggests that we handle policy always with some lightness, skepticism, ambivalence and sobriety. Most proposed policies are neither salvific nor demonic, but a trade-off of positives and negatives. Oftentimes, especially in foreign policy, we have no "good" options, but a choice among bad, worse and worst. This is true today in the Ukraine where we can surrender the sovereign country to Putin, support their war with all its horrific carnage, or increase our aid to ensure a victory but risk a nuclear strike or expanded war. The three are all bad. We must chose the "least worst." But we do well never to consecrate any policy.
Ideology
Political ideology flows, like scientism, from a detachment from God and an inordinate, exaggerated attachment to a set of political principles and policies. It is another idolatry. So it absolutizes the goodness or evil of a given policy. On any issue (that does not involve an inherent evil, as abortion, euthanasia, etc.)...war, immigration, health, guns, crime, education...there are a range of policy options, all of which have positives and negatives. Obviously the goal is to enhance the positives, diminish the negatives, and negotiate to a compromise all sides can accept.
But the ideologue consecrates a given policy as sacrosanct and necessarily demonizes opponents. This became evident in the virus hysteria when opponents of lockdowns, mandatory masking or vaccines were despised as enemies of the common good. It became unthinkable to so many that there might be another approach to the problem.
Anthony Fauci
A gifted, intelligent, dedicated humanitarian, Anthony Fauci was a reassuring figure in the early, frightening days of the virus. Along with Deborah Birx, he made us feel that all would be okay because Daddy and Mommy are so calm, intelligent, and certain. If we do what they say we will be fine. Very impressive people!
With the passage of time, however, Birx exited the scene and a darker side of Fauci emerged, making him our country's most polarizing figure (except for Trump of course.) He prizes his Jesuit education but has clearly rejected the practice and beliefs of his Catholic background. He is a full-fledged secular humanitarian and a cultural liberal. He is older than us boomers (born 1940) but is iconic of the "new man" who ascended to dominance in the 1960s. His creed: no God, no sin, no salvation in Jesus Christ, no need for Church or sacraments. Science is infallible, sexuality is liberated from procreation and family, progressive social policy is salvific. He is scientistic, ideological, and sexually liberational.
He is of course, like all of us, entitled to his beliefs and values. God gave us all freedom. This is a free country. The problem, however, is a fundamental falsehood about his entire public persona. His mantra is "follow the science." He poses as an objective, almost abstract and transcendent, scientist, soberly receiving empirical findings and translating them into efficacious policy. He robes himself in the infallibility of scientism. There are so many falsehoods here.
1. He is not a research scientist, following the data, but a policy maker. He makes decisions and issues practical guidelines. Now these are of course guided by scientific findings. But all practical, and especially policy, decisions are determined by a host of forces aside from science. Science is on the whole a small part of the overall calculus. For example, early in the crisis, with a shortage of masks, we were told that we did not need masks in order to keep them for the doctors and nurses who really needed them. This is a commonsense consideration that most would accept. But it should not be falsified with the "follow the science" mantra of infallibility. Just tell the truth: we need masks right now for the medical professionals.
2. Especially about this virus the science has been from the beginning weak, uncertain, confused. We just don't know much about it. Additionally, the virus is mutating into different varieties so that what is true in May 2020 is not true in Aug 2022. The scientists really did not know much. But Fauci presents always a posture of confidence and certainty: science indicates.....! He simply has not been truthful. How many false negatives and positives have we seen in the tests. Early on I thought I might have had the virus as I was exposed to it but tested negative for the antibodies. My own doctor said I probably had it but the threshold measured by the test was high so that it didn't register my reaction. Even that was untrustworthy. The problem is that the policies advanced were dictated with such certitude and force: you cannot stand within 6 feet, you must wear a mask, etc. These were arguably prudent policies but they were uncertain and prudential and should not pose as infallible.
3. The origin of the virus remains unknown to us. The Communist government knows but will not tell us. People I trust see it as more probable that it was an accidental lab leak. But Fauci from the beginning has been fiercely resistant to this theory. Why? He has a number of non-scientific motives. He has a strong belief in gain-of-function research and does not want that to get a bad reputation. It seems that he may have given money to the Chinese to pursue this. He values his collaboration with the World Health Organization and the Chinese and he does not want to harm that connection. It is clear he has political, ideological motives for denying the lab leak theory. He is hardly following the science. Again, he is free to favor this research and even collaboration with the Chinese, but he needs to be transparent about it. He is not trustworthy or truthful.
4. Currently we have the monkeypox outbreak. Fauci himself said that 99% of the cases to date come from male-to-male sex. He then hastens to add that we will treat the condition but not shame the person with homophobia. The science here is simple: this act leads to this condition. But he imports his own value scheme: we DARE not suggest homosexuals abstain. Clearly his religion dictates that these acts are precious, sacred and beyond critique. Imagine that I developed a joint condition such that walking 5 miles a day aggravates it. My doctor would simply give me the science: if you want to lessen the pain and improve the condition, give up the long walks. You can replace it with swimming, biking or the gym. But imagine he has a religious fetish about walking as sacrosanct and dare not advise abstinence: he would increase my pain meds. This is nuts. This is Dr. Fauci. Like all of us, he does not function objectively out of science, but out of what he values. We saw this in the summer of 2020 when we shut down our Churches and even our parks but then allowed the crowded BLM demonstrations. This was not good science.
Publicly his persona is that of an expert, an elite leader whose intelligence, dedication, and inherent goodness allow him to lead us messianically through the pandemic. This is, however, a Wizard of Oz screen: behind that expertise is a gifted and well-intended humanitarian, a disbeliever with a disordered sense of his own importance and the nature of science and policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment