“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
—Richard Feynman, “Cargo Cult Science”
Last week, scrolling Facebook as part of my morning routine, I saw a post from a friend of mine, a retired nurse who was on the front line of the Covid nightmare. She saw, first hand, the ravages of that fast-burning disease, and how unprepared we were. I remember her posts from the middle of it: the people who weren’t taking Covid seriously, the front line workers who rarely rested. She’s earned the right to comment.
So last week, after Anthony Fauci pleaded the fifth one hundred and eleven times in a senate hearing, some are calling it a show trial, she posted: “Fauci was right!” A friend of hers asked, “About what?” She answered, “Don’t be ridiculous.” Then the pile-on. Against the question. Against the questioner.
About. What.
That’s the question we should all be asking, isn’t it?
I take Feynman’s line to mean the worry isn’t about being wrong. It’s when you stop looking once you’ve decided you’re right. I think Fauci was doing his best in a moment of extraordinary chaos. Trump was deeply unpopular. Distrust in our institutions was spiking like the virus itself. Fauci was, for most of us, the adult in the room. But in retrospect, some of what he said was wrong. And in retrospect, a lot of what he said was right. We will never get a real accounting of the failures, on any side, until the next pandemic shows up, and it will. If we can’t question the scientists, we’re doomed to repeat.
It occurred to me that believing something as a matter of faith isn’t a sign of healthy skepticism. Take an accusation: a woman who says she was assaulted should be believed. That’s a complete thought. But it isn’t a full stop. Believe, then examine. Ask the questions. Investigate. All of it starts with that first word, believe, and through the process we move from believe to confirmed. Right?
Now take Mr. Fauci. I’m not going to wrap myself around the cultural critique of him, that’s not my point here. I’m going to start with believing him, and just as we do with an accusation, we question, we evaluate the evidence, we determine the facts. In Fauci’s case, we’re screwed, because the politicians have turned him into the Covid monster, hanging every mistake made anywhere on him. I’d plead the fifth too, considering the pitchforks lined up against him.
My objection isn't to women, or witnesses, or scientists, or expertise itself. It's not that we believe first, we do, and we should. It's when belief is the only move, when examination never comes. "Believe all women" and "believe the science" get twisted into stopping points instead of starting points, ways to skip the part where evidence gets checked. A woman can be telling the truth and still face cross-examination. Fauci can be brilliant and still be wrong. Scrutiny is good and it's necessary. But in our current politics, questioning Fauci, or questioning the science, has become a loyalty test. Doubting my accuser makes you a rape apologist.
It's the same move religion makes for a god, or a coach makes for "the system," or a company makes for "leadership." That's what faith is for: a way of holding a claim that doesn't need evidence to stand. Say "have faith in science" and any scientist worth her degree will likely correct you. Science doesn't run on faith. It runs on testing, measuring, questioning, and all the friction that faith has no patience for.
The law works the same way. Imagine a courtroom: “Your honor, Mr. Hagerman is accused of rape, and while we’d love to show you the evidence, we have none. But we have faith that she’s telling the truth.”
We shouldn’t replace facts with faith.
I’m on the side of the scientific method. I’m also a skeptic. I don’t think Fauci is Jonas Salk. He’s an institutional scientist, a bureaucrat, and he’s been in public office for as long as I’ve been alive. We should acknowledge his contributions, and he should answer every question we have of him, until we’re done. And the grandstanding politicians should be focused on what matters to the public: what did we do wrong, what did we do right, what did we learn, how can we do it better next time.
It was the same with my accuser. Answer the questions. Show the evidence. Prove your case. It’s the least we should expect.
Science is supposed to be self-correcting. The law runs on evidence and proof. The trouble starts when correcting the scientist gets treated as an attack on science itself, or asking an accuser for evidence gets treated as calling her a liar.
Nope. It’s a process for grown-ups, and it really is life and death. And none of us, scientists or not, should put up with this childish bullshit. Fact over faith. Evidence over authority. Anything else is just shitty theater.
