On being a scientist and changing your mind: Anthony Fauci, masks, and other things
This is a simple observation. I'm working up to some other things, and John Lewis died, so I'll try to keep it simple for this morning.
Anthony Fauci. Interesting fellow. I am motivated this morning by that oppo-research and Navarro piece that the White House put out to discredit him, and I'll take the example that he changed his mind on the necessity of wearing face masks. He changed his mind as the data presented a clearer case for the necessity of masks.
As John Maynard Keynes said, "when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
As I remind my students at every opportunity possible, science is never about "proving" anything. In mathematics, we can prove a theorem, yet that theorem is merely the logical deduction from a set of assumptions, existing in a hypothetical netherworld. Philosophers may argue that they can prove within the realm of their own ever-more-abstract abstractions, yet they also argue about the concept of the proof, and the concept of concepts, and how many concepts can dance on the end of a piece of lint into which they gaze amid their navels.
Except Harry Frankfurt. He rules.
Anyway, we scientists-- and yes, social science is science-- never prove anything. We make observations, we hypothesize, we test those hypotheses, and we build "theories" in the technical meaning of the word as well-tested explanations for broad sets of observations, but we never prove anything. Every statement we make is subject to the possibility of refutation should new data become available to challenge our existing beliefs.
We are ever skeptical. Ever skeptical of our own observations and beliefs. At least, that's what makes for a good scientist. Good scientists change their minds. Not in the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" way, but in the "OK, that's new" way.
You may have noticed, in my July 4 post, that I made some uncharacteristically optimistic comments about the potential future of the country. Short version: as the GOP begins to accept the narrative that Trump may be toast in 2020, it will be more difficult, although not impossible, for them to back his efforts when he engages in both legal and illegal actions to hold onto the presidency in the face of a legitimate electoral loss under the auspices of "voter fraud" claims. That doesn't mean they won't or can't, but the odds are changing. Trump will never concede, or permit a normal transition of power, because he's Trump, but without the rest of the party establishment backing him, he could actually get thrown to the curb, taking away the worst of the nightmare scenarios. I'm... changing my mind on this. New data. Watch me incorporate new data into my analysis.
Scientists change their minds. When I see people who never change their minds, I know they aren't thinking. My level of respect for such people is rather low. What do you do, sir? Or, choose your honorific.
Several things are at play, though. First, we have a very low level of scientific literacy among the populace. Even the idea that science is a method rather than a set of subjects or body of facts is a distinction most people cannot make. Think of how many times you hear the word, "theory," used to disparage rather than elevate. Bluntly, most people know very little about science.
Add to that a more general skepticism about science derived from anti-intellectualism, and the countervailing force is the belief that those who don't change their minds are the steadfast and reliable people. Notice how that construction doesn't even introduce evidence into the question. That's rather the point. To the scientifically illiterate, evidence is not the point. So, either you are steadfast, or you are not. The steadfast are to be trusted, and the flip-floppers are not. When evidence isn't even a consideration, you don't ask why someone changes positions, and you don't ask why the Keynes quote comes about. Scientific illiteracy gets ever more pernicious when one attaches moral and ethical weight to steadfastness, oblivious to the concept of evidence.
To a true scientist, there is something glorious about changing your mind. It means you learned something, and there is nothing more joyful than learning. There is nothing more joyful than realizing that scales have dropped from your eyes, and while scientific inquiry is too slow and plodding to count as satori most of the time, every once in a while, you get that moment. For those of us who crunch numbers, sometimes it is looking at STATA output, when the model says something completely unexpected. One model is never enough for a conclusion, so I'm still not going to accept this as a single moment of satori, but every true scientist has gone through the process of data analysis and said, "wow, was I wrong?! COOL! THIS IS SO COOL!"
We, scientists, are an alien species. We not only change our minds, but enjoy being confronted with the data that will force us to do so. I am, of course, excluding the hacks and other associated lesser practitioners who refuse to learn, yet try to claim the mantle of "scientist." Perhaps they outnumber those of us willing to do what Keynes advised, but that's not my point for today. The point is about those like Fauci. Who changed his mind, publicly. For the sake of public health. For those of us who do change our minds when confronted with data, attempting to communicate with those who view the process of changing one's mind in response to new data as a form of moral weakness...
Well, that was a rather elitist rant, even by my standards. Don't make me the public face of science. I'm Don Rickles without the racism. Or... wit. Then again, blogspot is obscure enough that it barely counts as "public."
As a side note, amazingly enough, Navarro and Keynes nominally share a discipline.
Anyway, I'll end at that. I got's plans for tomorrow, and let's take an unrelated moment to remember John Lewis. Dude was such a hero he was an actual, literal comic book superhero. For real.
Anthony Fauci. Interesting fellow. I am motivated this morning by that oppo-research and Navarro piece that the White House put out to discredit him, and I'll take the example that he changed his mind on the necessity of wearing face masks. He changed his mind as the data presented a clearer case for the necessity of masks.
As John Maynard Keynes said, "when the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
As I remind my students at every opportunity possible, science is never about "proving" anything. In mathematics, we can prove a theorem, yet that theorem is merely the logical deduction from a set of assumptions, existing in a hypothetical netherworld. Philosophers may argue that they can prove within the realm of their own ever-more-abstract abstractions, yet they also argue about the concept of the proof, and the concept of concepts, and how many concepts can dance on the end of a piece of lint into which they gaze amid their navels.
Except Harry Frankfurt. He rules.
Anyway, we scientists-- and yes, social science is science-- never prove anything. We make observations, we hypothesize, we test those hypotheses, and we build "theories" in the technical meaning of the word as well-tested explanations for broad sets of observations, but we never prove anything. Every statement we make is subject to the possibility of refutation should new data become available to challenge our existing beliefs.
We are ever skeptical. Ever skeptical of our own observations and beliefs. At least, that's what makes for a good scientist. Good scientists change their minds. Not in the "we have always been at war with Eastasia" way, but in the "OK, that's new" way.
You may have noticed, in my July 4 post, that I made some uncharacteristically optimistic comments about the potential future of the country. Short version: as the GOP begins to accept the narrative that Trump may be toast in 2020, it will be more difficult, although not impossible, for them to back his efforts when he engages in both legal and illegal actions to hold onto the presidency in the face of a legitimate electoral loss under the auspices of "voter fraud" claims. That doesn't mean they won't or can't, but the odds are changing. Trump will never concede, or permit a normal transition of power, because he's Trump, but without the rest of the party establishment backing him, he could actually get thrown to the curb, taking away the worst of the nightmare scenarios. I'm... changing my mind on this. New data. Watch me incorporate new data into my analysis.
Scientists change their minds. When I see people who never change their minds, I know they aren't thinking. My level of respect for such people is rather low. What do you do, sir? Or, choose your honorific.
Several things are at play, though. First, we have a very low level of scientific literacy among the populace. Even the idea that science is a method rather than a set of subjects or body of facts is a distinction most people cannot make. Think of how many times you hear the word, "theory," used to disparage rather than elevate. Bluntly, most people know very little about science.
Add to that a more general skepticism about science derived from anti-intellectualism, and the countervailing force is the belief that those who don't change their minds are the steadfast and reliable people. Notice how that construction doesn't even introduce evidence into the question. That's rather the point. To the scientifically illiterate, evidence is not the point. So, either you are steadfast, or you are not. The steadfast are to be trusted, and the flip-floppers are not. When evidence isn't even a consideration, you don't ask why someone changes positions, and you don't ask why the Keynes quote comes about. Scientific illiteracy gets ever more pernicious when one attaches moral and ethical weight to steadfastness, oblivious to the concept of evidence.
To a true scientist, there is something glorious about changing your mind. It means you learned something, and there is nothing more joyful than learning. There is nothing more joyful than realizing that scales have dropped from your eyes, and while scientific inquiry is too slow and plodding to count as satori most of the time, every once in a while, you get that moment. For those of us who crunch numbers, sometimes it is looking at STATA output, when the model says something completely unexpected. One model is never enough for a conclusion, so I'm still not going to accept this as a single moment of satori, but every true scientist has gone through the process of data analysis and said, "wow, was I wrong?! COOL! THIS IS SO COOL!"
We, scientists, are an alien species. We not only change our minds, but enjoy being confronted with the data that will force us to do so. I am, of course, excluding the hacks and other associated lesser practitioners who refuse to learn, yet try to claim the mantle of "scientist." Perhaps they outnumber those of us willing to do what Keynes advised, but that's not my point for today. The point is about those like Fauci. Who changed his mind, publicly. For the sake of public health. For those of us who do change our minds when confronted with data, attempting to communicate with those who view the process of changing one's mind in response to new data as a form of moral weakness...
Well, that was a rather elitist rant, even by my standards. Don't make me the public face of science. I'm Don Rickles without the racism. Or... wit. Then again, blogspot is obscure enough that it barely counts as "public."
As a side note, amazingly enough, Navarro and Keynes nominally share a discipline.
Anyway, I'll end at that. I got's plans for tomorrow, and let's take an unrelated moment to remember John Lewis. Dude was such a hero he was an actual, literal comic book superhero. For real.
Comments
Post a Comment