
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts - zdw
https://lemire.me/blog/2020/07/12/science-is-the-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts/
======
op03
Society has a long history of using the work of a scientist while persecuting,
dominating and discarding them. And it will continue thanks to the personality
trait distribution in the population. Not everyone cares about Science nor
will they. People who care about other things will either see Science as a
tool and use the Scientist, or see Science as a threat and take out the
Scientist.

It is better to teach kids (with a scientific bent) this fact and train them
how to defend against certain realities than to sell a story that if we just
train teachers better and improve the curriculum everyone will get interested
in Science and everyone will treat Scientists ignorance and shortcomings with
the patience of a grandmother.

They wont and they will continue to take advantage of the "ignorance of
experts" to sideline, control or bury them.

The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel.

~~~
luckylion
> The opposite happens only when the Scientist takes power. See Merkel.

I keep seeing this brought up. What specifically about Merkel's brand of
politics is because of her scientific training?

~~~
op03
I look at how Trump, Bolesanaro, Modi et al view Science. You don't see Merkel
saying the stuff they say. They see admitting ignorance as a weakness. They
don't do it as a rule. If you are a scientist and have to work in an
institution funded by such people how would you feel?

Plus there are these kind of articles as a reaction to what populist leaders
say every 2 days -
[https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/an...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/04/angela-
merkel-germany-coronavirus-pandemic/610225/)

And finally a close friend I have in Europe who had an option to move anywhere
choose to stay in Germany the past few years because he feels its much saner
and stable than anywhere else right now. I don't see that as an accident.

~~~
cycomanic
I think we should be careful with conflating being a "sane" politician with a
scientific education. I don't think Merkel seeming more "scientifically sane"
has anything to do with her scientific education. If anything it has to do
with the political system of the countries in question. In fact Merkel
certainly got into the position she is in, not by following scientific advise,
but by being an extremely talented "Machtpolitiker" (a politician who knows
how to play for power).

She was actually well known for never taking any clear position and it was
even a bit of a running gag, how she would never say anything that would
position her so that someone could attack that position. The 2016 refugee
crisis was the big exception. She is also a very strategic thinker and it is
known that advisers in the CDU essentially looked at the democraphics of
voters and showed that if the party does not take a more liberal position on
gay marriage, the environment etc., the party will be irrelevant within the
next 15 years.

~~~
marcus_holmes
so...she didn't have an opinion until the data was in, and then let the data
form her opinion?

That's almost the definition of a good scientist.

~~~
s1artibartfast
It is also a trait of any rational actor.

~~~
elbear
What's the difference between the two (genuine question)?

~~~
tanseydavid
I would think the difference is one of motivation (or maybe intent).

Relating the two terms in various ways helps me to see this more clearly: a
"good scientist" is necessarily a "rational actor" but a "rational actor" is
not necessarily a scientist.

------
js8
I completely agree with Feynman and the blog post. However, I want to point
out that today this sentiment is also used incorrectly, to bash the experts,
or their discussion.

For example, some people dismiss things like evolution, global warming or mask
wearing, under the guise of "we just want to have a debate" or "we just ask
questions". But they don't understand even the basics of the existing theory,
and don't want to understand it.

I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are humble
and you have done your homework. That is not to discourage anybody from asking
questions, as Feynman said, just understand the experts are at a different
place and probably asked these questions at some point as well.

And that's why there is value in expert consensus. Becoming expert is hard and
nobody can be expert in everything. So the expert consensus is a good first
heuristic for a layman.

~~~
invalidOrTaken
>I think you can only have a meaningful debate with an expert if you are
humble and you have done your homework.

Would the symmetrical statement, that you can only meaningfully _agree_ with
an expert if you are humble and have done your homework, be true?

I don't generally get the sense that "skeptics" of whatever color are less
informed than the orthodox. To take myself as an example---I don't _really_
know how vaccines work. I know the broad strokes---the immune system reacts to
the dead pathogens and is better-prepared when I actually get infected---but
that's just, like something someone told me, I'd have no idea how to verify
that specific mechanism of T-cells and B-cells, oh my. If I were to argue with
an anti-vaxxer, I would be "right," and they would be "wrong," but it wouldn't
be because I was pro- _science_ , but because I was pro-expert.

~~~
comex
I'd say that believing experts is more an act of philosophy than an act of
science. In an area where you're not an expert, you can't meaningfully _agree_
with the experts – but you can meaningfully understand the limits of your own
knowledge, take notice of the track record of science in general, and conclude
that, in the absence of more specific knowledge, _believing_ the experts is a
good Bayesian prior.

And the same applies in the other direction. In the absence of knowledge, you
can't meaningfully _disagree_ with the experts, but occasionally there are
enough warning signs that you can meaningfully choose to be skeptical. (For
example, a lack of rigor in the field.)

~~~
ysavir
>I'd say that believing experts is more an act of philosophy than an act of
science.

Not philosophy. Faith.

~~~
dtech
Faith implies there is no mathematically sound reasoning underlying the
belief, at least a little

The hypothesis "Expert consensus is more likely to be correct" is falsifiable
and thus not purely blind faith

~~~
learc83
>Expert consensus is more likely to be correct" is falsifiable

That's one of those things that sounds like it should be falsifiable, but in
practice it's not. The statement is far too broad to conduct reasonable
experiments, and if you narrow the scope to the point where you can conduct
experiments, then your experiments won't support a conclusion that's broad
enough to be a sound foundation for "expert consensus is more likely to be
correct".

I happen to think expert consensus is generally useful, but there's still an
element of faith in my opinion.

~~~
dtech
Of course it's not 100% black and wide and there is an element of faith.

The consolidated statement is way to wide, but if you take consensus to mean
"a large majority like 66%+ portion of the scientific literature within the
field(s) relevant to that specific instance" that becomes a lot more testable
for an individual issue.

~~~
learc83
> there is an element of faith

That's exactly my point.

>if you take consensus to mean "a large majority like 66%+ portion of the
scientific literature within the field(s) relevant to that specific instance"
that becomes a lot more testable for an individual issue.

Yeah we can say that for some specific issue like choosing what time of year
to plant tomatoes, expert consensus is useful, but that doesn't generalize,
which was also my point.

------
DoreenMichele
_The peer-reviewed article is like a sacred text._

Peer review came about in a certain context and that context no longer exists.
Our current peer review process is flawed.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280372](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23280372)

 _The fundamental defining characteristic of science, the one that Feynman
explicitly identifies, is that we do not decide whether something is true or
false based on authority but rather based on experience._

Science never decides that anything is "true." Science is defined by the
exploration of ideas which can be falsified. They can be tested to check if
they are untrue.

What we call _science_ is our current best understanding, which can be
overturned if new evidence comes to light. To claim that this is something
"True" is a fundamental misunderstanding of science.

This is why religion is outside of science: You cannot prove God does not
exist.

There is a huge body of mental models and philosophy developed by scientists
who were Christian and trying to explain to the world why their belief in God
does not contradict their role as a scientist. We use these mental models a
lot, often without understanding the actual origin of the rule. We use them
because they have become generally useful mental models and the origin story
that some Monk or the like who was also a scientist was trying to argue "My
belief in God is irrelevant. I can believe in God and also be a scientist."
gets forgotten.

Science is not about what we know to be true. It is about what we cannot yet
manage to prove is untrue, though we have tried. Our failure to prove it
untrue -- so far -- makes it the best mental model we have for the moment.

------
nabla9
> He is credited with identifying the cause of the Space Shuttle Challenger
> disaster.

Feynman demonstrated it. Feynman didn't identify the cause himself.

Morton Thiokol engineers[1] had been saying that NASA should not be flying on
those conditions, because O-ring problem was not solved. Sally Ride (member of
commission) informed USAF Gen Donald Kutyna (also member of commission) about
the O-ring problem. Kutuna invited Feynman for a dinner and pointed it out to
Feynman so that he could bring it up.

Everyone knew how politically sensitive the issue was and how there could be
whitewashing attempt. Kutuna figured out that Feynman was the best person to
bring it up. And he did so brilliantly.

\---

[1] Allan McDonald (director for Morton Thiokol) refused to sign the launch
recommendation over safety concerns
[https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_...](https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/researchernews/rn_Colloquium1012.html)

------
cycomanic
I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the irony of using Feynman as an
"expert opinion" to make the case that you should question authority and don't
"just believe the experts". I'm pretty certain Feynman would have gleefully
pointed this out himself.

------
foxes
I agree with the blog that science is about doubt/falsification.

But if we want to be pedantic, we should make some distinction between
scientific models/theories and the scientific process. A model is some
description of reality. The scientific process is making a model,
experimentation, falsification. Statements like "science says x" are referring
to models or theories -- the best knowledge at the moment (but people shorten
the language?). Learning "facts" are learning useful models which are accurate
to some degree.

If you are studying some sort of science like physics, you have to build some
intuitions. You need to start somewhere. So you need to learn the various
models, but they should be treated as various approximations. Doing science
applied to understanding reality, is the formal process of taking some limit
in the category of scientific models I guess.

It turns out reality is even stranger than our every day experiences.
QFT/relativity are useful models. They seem to capture a lot of information
about how the universe works. They are not the end of the game but you need to
build familiarity, because you definitely do not start with some deep
intuition about how these things work. You can be skeptical but you need to do
experimentation. I'm sure the same can be said about ideas in
biology/chemistry.

I then wonder what the point of this post is because they gloss over that
aspect, and they want to emphasise being skeptical. I feel like this appeals
to the pseudo intellectual "rationalist" crowd which if you unfold it, is
really just some subtle attempt at dogwhistling.

------
sandworm101
Telling people that they can verify science themselves is dangerous. I
understand the need for peer review and critical thinking but I keep thinking
of the flat earth lady with the ruler at the beach. She thinks that she can
prove the horizon is flat because someone taught her literally _anyone_ is
qualified do debunk _all_ science due to a widespread "ignorance of experts".
Part of science, the important part, is accepting that others know more than
you. It is possible for something to be true despite you yourself not
understanding why.

~~~
hamilyon2
You actually can tell if earth is curved with compass, automobile, stick,
ruler, and maybe a clock.

And math, of course. You need a little bit of trigonometry to do that.

There is nothing dangerous telling people they can verify things themselves.
That is how next generation of scientists is born. It is dangerous to tell it
is dangerous.

------
arethuza
I love Jacob Bronowski's take on this from _The Ascent of Man_ :

 _" Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of
the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in
science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to
what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by
Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you
may be mistaken."_

NB My parents had me watch _The Ascent of Man_ when it was first broadcast
when I was ~8, it left a deep impression even though I clearly didn't
understand much of it!

~~~
dijksterhuis
This has been on my to watch list for a while! Saw the first couple of
episodes. Wholly different pace to documentaries today!

~~~
arethuza
That particular scene, which I vividly remember after over 40 years, is on
Youtube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY)

~~~
dijksterhuis
I WISH THERE WAS MORE TV LIKE THIS TODAY /screaming

------
rukittenme
Anti-intellectualism no doubt has been given a bad name by its adherents. By
its very nature it attracts the ignorant and opportunistic. But anti-
intellectualism, in and of itself, is a positive good for our society.
Ironically, we just need more intellectuals to embrace it and to give it more
rigorous foundations.

Science is a process not a body of knowledge. A scientist, outside of the
scientific process, is just a hobbyist. An interested layman. I can't tell you
how many "science-denial" stories start and end with "such and such said so
and so in an interview -- this is wrong according to this research paper". And
of course, the "science-denier" is correct. But the problem in this situation
isn't science. Its the belief that doing science gives you credibility outside
the narrow scope of the science you actually do. Even if the topics are
related.

I know enough scientists to know they are human. They make mistakes. Science
as a process helps correct that. Science as a belief system turns them into
false prophets.

The belief in the "expert" needs to die. "Experts say [...]" is such a common
refrain in American media its become a cliche. Experts can write a peer-
reviewed paper under all the rigors of the scientific method and then they may
summarize it for broader consumption. But to extend that ethos any further
than the recitation of knowledge already produced is to do a disservice to
science and the progress of humanity.

------
gadders
I think there is a case for (for want of a better word) "practical wisdom" in
assessing scientific claims as well.

For instance, if a scientist's every finding matches their political views,
that's a "smell". Or a track record of their previous predictions. Or how
viciously they attack people who disagree with their conclusions. Or whether
they lie about being a nobel prize winner.

------
Barrin92
I actually don't agree with this and I think Feynman had a very personal feud
with authority that dominate a lot of his philosophical takes.

For the layperson, but even for the average scientist, science is never just,
or even primarily, the unmediated experience between some individual and some
experiment. This is because the domain of knowledge or even the domain of
methods has become so large, that not even the most zealous scientifically
minded person can understand or participate in all the science going on.

This necessitates hierarchies and social networks that don't primarily rely on
experience, this has some issues of course but it enables science to take
place at a level of complexity that no individual can achieve.

I think doubt, in particular untrained doubt is not a virtue. The motto of
QAnon is "question everything". The stereotypical conspiracy theorist is not a
blind believer but someone who asks "why, why, why" over and over again like a
child. Of course a sceptical mindset can be healthy, but taken too far it's
not englightening at all. Today if anything the world has a bigger issue with
virulent sceptics than it has with too much trust.

Experts make mistakes and the separation of concerns can lead to science being
done incorrectly, but collectively it's still a system worth placing trust in.
And that's not a technical trust but a social one that we should not get rid
of.

~~~
christophilus
> taken too far it's not englightening at all

That statement is almost universally true, no matter the subject. But in
general, if you’re going to err, erring on the side of skepticism seems
reasonable, given the alternatives.

~~~
cycomanic
Interesting comment, I would also add that this in general is a very
scientific mindset. My partner pointed when we first met pointed out her
observation, that myself and my other science friends/colleagues (I'm a
physicist) ask a lot of why questions when we talk, on one hand to better
understand things, but also out of scepticism. Generally as scientists we are
trained to first look for flaws in any theory (which can also be quite
annoying for someone you're talking to).

------
haecceity
The phrase "science teaches us such and such" is funny in the same way
Zoidberg saying "I'll have one art" is funny.

------
shmageggy
> _Then I asked “how do the scientists know this?”_

Plug for the wonderfully entertaining _A Short History of Nearly Everything_
by Bill Bryson, which he wrote just to answer this question and fill in the
gaps that education misses.

------
akvadrako
This is one of my favorite quotes. I personally take it to heart and interpret
it to mean someone being an expert only earns them the right to be listened
to. It’s the arguments that matter - they still need to make a good case if
they want me to believe them.

Often though, scientists never make convincing arguments to the public - you
need to find specialist forums and blogs where they argue amongst each other.

So it’s no wonder we have such an issue with the public’s lack of trust.

~~~
rorykoehler
Most of the public is unable to understand scientific arguments and discern
science from bullshit. I also think it's unrealistic to expect all scientists
to also be professional PR gurus. I would like to see a publishing industry
sub-sector emerge that deals with translating papers into articles. Any
article must be edited and signed off by the papers original authors. Any
derivative article would have to link to both the approved article and the
original paper. This would solve a lot of issues.

~~~
akvadrako
The point of the quote and science in general is that "you", a member of the
public, need to treat scientists as ignorant, because they are. An argument
you can't follow is useless; they need to be made at a level you can
understand.

This is possible with many things - for example vaccines. There is very little
evidence for harm and overwhelming evidence for large numbers of lives saved.
There is no need to get too technical.

If the only available arguments are too complex to follow, there might be
someone you can trust who is more technical and can follow them. But you
shouldn't trust a stranger just because they say they're an expert.

~~~
rorykoehler
I don't treat scientists as either ignorant or knowledgeable when discussing
ideas through a science lens. I remove the person from the equation completely
as who did the research is mostly irrelevant unless they have a track record
of fraud. Science is about explaining and replicating real world phenomenon.
It's purposefully technical and if I have a vested interest in a topic I'll
read the papers and make up my own mind. I know most people don't operate like
that which is why I suggested what I did.

------
kunfuu
I was researching this topic once and found that two related keywords in
epistemology are "epistemic peers" and "peer disagreement", although arguably
having a different focus. I guess some may be interested, so I'll just leave a
comment here.

I don't know if there are other discussions on similar topics in other fields.
Finding the right keywords is always hard for outsiders.

------
netcan
There is science the method, epistemology, etc. There is science, the human
institution. The epistemology of science is pretty solid, but in our
interaction and understanding of science as people we tend to struggle keeping
these separate.

For example: science_the_epsitomologist can only make statements about the
scientific nature of a theory, experiment or such. An untestable theory is
unscientific. Many experiments can be unscientific.

IRL we want to make wider judgements. Is economics a science? That's not
something the Science can properly comment on. A field is not a unit that is
scientific or unscientific, strictly. Only specific things economists do or
say can get that designation.

This isn't just people being stupid. Scientists are experts, and scientific
expertise has gained prestige for a reason. A scientist's unscientific opinion
(a more generic form of expertise) carries weight, because science is
respected. That respect doesn't conform to the narrow Popperian definition of
science. It applies to individual, institutions, etc.

We also sometimes need to make decisions when we need to make them, not when
science has a breakthrough. The economy is in recession, what to do? At the
point were are in now, it's hard to do anything if you don't claim or imply a
scientific merit to your decision. This is another reason why pseudoscience
proliferates.

We tend to think of pseudoscience relative to real science. Intelligent design
instead of darwinian evolution. Head-on disputes with science. IRL
pseudoscience is most prevalent in areas where science doesn't have good
answers. The human mind, history, etc. Pseudoscience fills an empty space we
can't/haven't filled with science. We abhor those empty spaces, it's how our
mind works. Since science is both required and absent, pseudoscience is the
outcome.

------
benjohnson1707
Seems to be the physics way of looking at the world. Don't trust potentially
accidental empirical observations, because they might fail you in a
relativistic universe in which there isn't even such a thing as simultaneity
(all swans are white until one isn't).

Only trust fundamental truths / laws of nature, as they govern what works /
doesn't and prescribe fubdamental constraints on how the world works - most
likely anytime, anywhere and independent of a particular context.

So the expert looks at the world and says: everyone is doing agile, so what
you have to do is agile. Replies the scientist... It depends!

------
decasteve
The key word in Science is _Observation_. Making close observations and
communicating the results. Use tools to help the observation and mathematics
to hone and sharpen the description.

If you want to teach science, start by teaching careful observation.
Otherwise, in my opinion, it's not science being taught but awareness _of_
science. Knowing what came before, learning about the observations and science
made to build up to what we have today, is important, but should not be
mistaken as the central point of being a careful observer.

~~~
pulse7
When you observe, you will discover (and not invent). It is interesting that
corporations want to patent new discoveries (things which they didn't invent,
but just observed)...

------
ukj
Underdetermination is the idea that evidence available to us at a given time
may be insufficient to determine what beliefs we should hold in response to
it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underdetermination)

This is closely related to the is-ought gap - now that I know the facts, what
am I supposed to do with them?

------
mcnamaratw
Science is engaging with the data, engaging with the experts, understanding
and addressing what that all really says, while keeping in mind that the
experts are ignorant and I am ignorant.

Just sitting in my basement grumping about how the experts are ignorant is not
science. People did that long before science became influential, and they will
continue to do it long after science dies out (god forbid).

------
dcanelhas
"The peer-reviewed article is like a sacred text"

Not sure at what level of education he is claiming this to be the case but
from M.Sc.and up, my experience is that students and researchers regard
articles as containing claims with varying degrees of supporting evidence to
substantiate them, rather than as facts.

~~~
cycomanic
I would go even further, the more scientific education one has the more
sceptical one regards scientic articles and often we try to find flaws even in
published articles, leading to attempts to, for example reproduce results.
Unfortunately there is no reward for reproducing others results.

------
WhompingWindows
Science is not a "belief", science is a process, which conists of generating
testable hypotheses about how the world works, then using objective
observations and real-world data to modify or change these hypotheses.

Science does incorporate the ignorance of experts, but that's also conflating
ignorance with acknowledgement of uncertainty. Scientists are usually the
first ones in the room to hedge their statements, saying "Well, this is not my
area of expertise, however..." or "...not my area of research...". Does this
make them ignorant? Well, in the reductionist sense, yes, everyone is ignorant
of things about which only 3 people are experts.

So, stating "Science is belief" is an extremely over-simplistic view of
science, which may play straight into the non-materialistic, non-expertise
loving right-wing which has taken over the US and led to anti-vaxx, anti-mask,
denial of basic facts, etc.

So, those opposed to science are people who believe very dangerous and
negative things for society, and now we're calling science the mere belief in
ignorance of experts? That's just bad strategy, science is so much more
nuanced and rich than a belief in expert ignorance.

~~~
xeyownt
Totally agree. Science is about knowledge of experimentally verifiable,
repeatable and objective facts. Beliefs are neither objective nor verifiable.

I never went to India. I never went into Space. I never saw a human or a blood
cell in a microscope. Still I _know_ India exists, that Earth is not flat and
that vaccines work. This is because I've been taught so many different facts
and theories that all fit nicely together in a way I understand and that I can
verify myself, and that are continuously and regularly confirmed by all the
echoes I received from reality.

As for scientific mistakes, this is very well incorporated in the scientific
process, new theories and facts replacing previous ones. However, as science
progresses in a domain, new theories and facts are usually less and less
groundbreaking than the previous ones. If you think Earth is a sphere, you're
wrong, but much more right if you'd think it's flat.

------
scotty79
I prefer to think that science is the method to avoid lying to yourself about
reality.

------
lordnacho
He's right about science education. Way too much of it is about learning facts
and calculating numbers from equations. Basically, things that are easily
examinable.

I've found the most enlightening science courses have been the ones where you
get a story like this:

1) Someone was wondering what shape DNA has, because this might answer
questions about how it is copied, how proteins are eventually made from its
code, and so on.

2) One way to look at is through x-ray patterns. And this can be as shallow or
as deep as you like, there's certainly enough math here if you want to go that
way. You can also look at other historical attempts to uncover the structure,
ones that failed but nonetheless were considered a reasonable thing to
investigate. Plus auxilliary experiments like where it was discovered that
phosphoros was part of it.

3) We looked at the x-rays and someone figured out that it is consistent with
a double helix, because (evidence).

4) Further questions arising from this double helix hypothesis seem to confirm
the structure, and opened up new questions, which we can look at in the same
way.

I like the Bill Bryson way of explaining things. He mixes in the people along
with the existing ideas, evidence that needed explanation, the breakthrough,
and so on.

But my main point is science teaching shouldn't be about the subject so much.
You benefit more from understanding how the Krebs cycle was discovered than
from memorizing all the parts of it.

For most people by far, the point of learning science it to learn how to apply
that style of thinking to all your judgements (should I vaccinate my kids?
What do I think of modern monetary theory? How safe is my car?), rather than
learning specific things that were discovered in scientific fields.

If you learn how to think the way the article says, you will also be better
able to judge how certain you should be about various claims. You'll be asking
more what evidence the claims rest on than what are the claims themselves.

~~~
harry-wood
My high school experience (in the UK three decades ago) doesn't really fit
with this blog. We were taught quite a _lot_ about scientific methods to the
point where we often wanted the science teacher to just stop with meta-
teaching and throw some science facts at us! Maybe it means they didn't really
succeed in getting the point across :-/

------
DarkWiiPlayer
See also: Argumentum ab Auctoritate

A very useful word to know as it can quickly shut down people using this very
common fallacy

------
known
m.twitter.com/ProfFeynman

------
AlexTWithBeard
At some points in history, communism, racism, bloodletting and alchemy all
were scientific theories.

I wonder what our descendants will be laughing about when looking back at 21st
century?

------
cwhiz
There are way too much politics and partisans in science, and that is the
leading driver behind people ignoring science and scientific evidence.

Just consider why a conservative or skeptical person would not trust Covid
information. Fauci and the US Surgeon General knowingly lied about the
efficacy masks and then now they are treating people who don't wear masks as
pathetic morons. Health care policy "experts" chastise people for attending
rallies, protests, or gatherings... but then come out and say anti-racism
protests are okay. Apparently Covid-19 will not infect you if you are at a
"correct" rally... but if you are at a Trump or conservative rally then you
better watch out. Come on.

That's not science. Get politics and partisanship out of science.

