Intellectual Humility

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, via Wikimedia Commons

Am I being too harsh in what I say about Robert F Kennedy Jr? I’ve mentioned him several times, and it might appear as if I don’t feel much sympathy for him.

And that’s correct. My opinion of him is that he is a liar, a grifter, has already contributed to many deaths (though his decades-long dissemination of anti-vax rhetoric and disinformation), and is contributing to many more, both now and in the future, through his actions as HHS Secretary.

In my opinion, he bears a significant degree of responsibility for the millions of deaths which will very likely result from increased spread of diseases such as measles, seasonal flu, COVID-19, and the widely-anticipated “next flu pandemic”, stemming from Kennedy’s actions in cutting research funding, spreading disinformation, damaging the overall credibility of HHS, and other things like replacing all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) with people including anti-vaxxers, people with unexplored potential conflicts of interest, and people who are simply unqualified.

But again, am I being uncharitable in my treatment? I think my claims about his actions and their probable results are well-found and well-evidenced, but I wonder about my characterizations of him as a liar and grifter.

This self-reflection is entirely the fault of Michael Marshall and Cecil Cicirello, the hosts of the (excellent!) Know Rogan Experience podcast. I have been listening to both Marsh (The Skeptic Podcast, Skeptics with a K, Be Reasonable, and others) and Cecil (Cognitive Dissonance and Citation Needed) for a number of years, and have a great deal of respect for their dedication to nuanced discussion and to patiently trying to understand and empathize with the positions being taken by people with whom they disagree. (They’re both also extremely funny!)

In their recent review of Rogan’s discussion with RFK Jr, they acknowledged that his conclusions are false and that his actions are causing enormous harm, but they were much more charitable in their position regarding his motivations.

While acknowledging the obvious financial motivations, they describe Kennedy as someone who is unable to listen objectively to arguments because he is too confident in his ability to “eyeball the science” or “read the vibe” in order to figure out whether or not something is true.

Kennedy describes reading the abstracts of a number of studies, deciding that there was a “delta” (a very odd choice of words, suggesting that he’s either a scientist discussing things in technical terms, or a non-scientist trying to enhance his perceived credibility by using “sciency” words), then reaching out to a number of public officials (using his identity as “a Kennedy” to gain access) to ask them about the details of these studies.

As many of these public officials are not scientific experts, they would not be expected to be familiar with the technical details of specific studies, so they (entirely appropriately) referred Kennedy to an expert, specifically Dr. Paul Offit, who is a highly-respected pediatrician and infectious disease doctor, as well as (unsurprisingly) one of the top targets of the anti-vax movement.

Kennedy characterized Dr. Offit as “a vaccine developer who made a $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine” and then said:

“...it was odd to me that government regulators were saying ‘you should talk to someone in the industry.’ It’s like, if I, you know – I used to talk to EPA people all the time, asking what does this provision mean in the permit, why did you put it in there? And if they said to me ‘I don’t know. Why don’t you go talk to the coal industry? Or this lobbyist from the coal industry, and he will tell you what we’re doing.’ I would have been very, you know, puzzled and indignant. It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me ‘Go talk to someone who’s an industry insider ‘cause we don’t understand the science.”

RFK Jr, excerpt from Know Rogan Experience podcast, episode 26

He is drawing a comparison between a public health official referring a detailed scientific question to a scientific expert, and an environmental official referring a policy question to an industry lobbyist because they don’t understand the policy. This is wildly misleading and logically incoherent, which suggests either a profound level of motivated reasoning and lack of critical thinking, or dishonesty.

The technical term for this sort of argument is “false equivalence”.

A public health official is expected to be an expert in public health policy, so referring a detailed question about a specific scientific study to an expert is quite reasonable. Even if the official is a scientist, they may not be expert in the specific area covered by the study, or may not be familiar with the study in question. But the comparison is with a policy person saying they don’t understand policy, which is exactly where they should be expected to be expert.

Ultimately, Marsh and Cecil appear to reach the conclusion that Kennedy’s actions are an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, and are the result of Kennedy having an inflated opinion of his own expertise and his own ability to evaluate evidence outside of his area of expertise. This is supported by a comment Kennedy makes about his childhood desire to be a scientist and a comment suggesting that he believes his extensive experience in reading scientific studies has given him a level of knowledge equivalent to a PhD.

But, while I highly respect the opinions of Marsh and Cecil, and fully support the principle of charity, I must respectfully disagree with their assessment.

Kennedy has spent decades “studying” this area, and as “a Kennedy” has virtually unlimited access to world experts in almost any field he might wish. He has also had many people try to explain these topics to him specifically, and for something with such an enormous impact on the lives of so many people, can anyone be so set in their ways that they are honestly unable to imagine the possibility that they might be wrong, and so arrogant that they really think that they can understand such a complex field, without training, simply from reading studies?

While I acknowledge the possibility that my position may be considered an argument from incredulity, I still only see two plausible explanations.

The first is that Kennedy’s convictions are ideological, rather than intellectual, and that his positions are driven by fanaticism, leaving him incapable of even hearing arguments which contradict them. I find this argument somewhat compelling, but the fluidity of Kennedy’s position (for example, saying that he is not anti-vax, while also saying that there are no safe vaccines, and that he supports parental choice – all depending on who asks him) seem inconsistent with that degree of fanaticism. I’d find that argument more compelling if his position were clear and unambiguous and he simply ignored anything contradicting him.

The second, and one that I keep coming back to, is that he is simply lying. This can be explained by greed, arrogance, and an utter disregard for others. I’d argue that Occam’s razor supports this position.

In spite of my disagreement with their (admittedly far more charitable) position, I found the episode extremely interesting and informative, and consider the Know Rogan Experience an excellent podcast, and another great contribution by both Marsh and Cecil. If you have even a passing interest in Joe Rogan’s influence, I’d highly recommend this podcast, and praise their sacrifice in listening to Joe Rogan so people like me don’t have to.

But, if we consider Kennedy’s motivation, and whether he believes what he says or is simply lying, there’s still an outstanding question in my mind.

Does it matter?

I struggle with that one a bit as well. As a general rule, I try to be sympathetic and charitable to people with whom I disagree, but my sympathy is tempered by the degree of harm they do, and by the consistency of their positions. Or maybe it’s better to talk about the (apparent) honesty of their position.

If you imagine a group with an extreme position, that clearly states their position and accepts all of the implications of that position, and doesn’t break the law, I can respect that. The problem is that most groups with extreme positions often seem to be full of hypocrisy and lies. (Take the frequency of sexual abuse cases in Southern Baptist churches as an example.)

In Kennedy’s case, I simply cannot see a through-line that is internally consistent or coherent, and his rhetoric shifts in response to his audience, so I keep coming back to the conclusion that he is a liar and I think he should be face both civil suits for wrongful death and criminal charges for negligent homicide for the deaths (both past and future) caused by his actions, policies, and rhetoric. His actions have the potential to lead to MILLIONS of deaths, globally, as measles and other diseases come roaring back due to dropping vaccination rates, damage to the credibility of healthcare officials, shutdown of research programs, firing of healthcare workers, and interference in vaccination programs that have directly prevented millions of deaths.

Most of the time, I try to be charitable, but in Kennedy’s case I make an exception. In my opinion, he is a liar, a grifter, and shares responsibility for easily-preventable deaths past, present, and future.

I can live with that.

Cheers!