Read on Twitter
1. So I have a few thoughts on Richard A. Epstein, shoddy contrarian arguments about coronavirus pandemic, the anti-empiricism of Austrian economics, the popularity of dubious neo-Larmarckian biology among conservatives, John Lukacs, & the science fiction of Gene Wolfe.
1. This @IChotiner interview -- really a disembowlment -- of coronavirus contrarian Richard A. Epstein is, quite justifiably, getting a lot of attention. I wanted to give some historical context to explain Epstein's dingbat theories. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/the-contrarian-coronavirus-theory-that-informed-the-trump-administration
3. Epstein is of course a familiar type: a know-it-all law contrarian who thinks he knows better than the experts (he's also a climate change minimizer). His contrarianism is all the more dangerous because it has roots in an influential intellectual tradition, Austrian economics
4. Epstein doesn't doubt mainstream epidemiology -- he has his own alternative biology based on the idea (derived from theoretical speculation & not empirical observation) that all viruses evolve to get less virulent over time. This idea is comforting but also false.
5. You might ask yourself, "how the hell does a law professor have the nerve to have his own alternative theory of viral evolution?" It's in large part because Epstein's approach to policy & science derives from the libertarian social theorist F.A. Hayek.
6. Austrian economics, in the mold of Hayek & von Mises, has an extreme anti-empirical bias (regarding truth as a matter more of logic than evidence). This gave Hayek, the confidence to indulge in extreme speculation, as in his attempts to ground economics in Darwinian biology
7. Social Darwinism is of course old hat. What made Hayek's late works (Law, Legislation and Liberty etc) interesting was his attempt to revive ideas of Lamarck about inheritability of acquired traits, which Hayek thought offered a model for social evolution.
8. Hayek's interest in Lamarck shouldn't be confused with the actual neo-Lamarckian revival in biology (based on evidence that trauma can leave lasting marks on genes that are passed on). Rather, Hayek used Lamarck as a licence for speculative just-so stories.
9. Hayek's interest in reviving Lamarck was shared by others on the right in 1960s/1970s (the conservative historian John Lukacs, the science fiction writer Gene Wolfe). I think Lamarck appeal is he allows for human will and direction in evolution (as against Darwinian chance).
10. Epstein's belief that viruses evolve quickly and in benign direction derives from the crackpot neo-Lamarckism and social Darwinism he acquired from Hayek. It's what he meant when he said he's offering the "standard economic-evolutionary theory out of Darwin."
11. It's also what Epstein meant when he said, "I’m not an empiricist." In the Austrian tradition, he believes theoretical approach of Hayek has more explanatory power than mere evidence-based models of epidemiologists.
12. Epstein is not just a lone crackpot whose paper got widely read in GOP circles. Epstein has had an impact because he's squarely in influential overlapping intellectual networks: Austrian economics, Chicago economics, Federalist Society, Hoover Institution, etc.
13. More thoughts on Epstein's intellectual network here: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/epstein-trump-coronavirus-crackpot/
14. Final point: we need a reckoning not just with Epstein but all the institutions that made Epstein possible. They claim to serve the public interest but have helped deranged pseudoscience spread (and not just in this pandemic).
