There’s too much certainty in the world at the moment. Some people are certain they understand the facts of a case after reading a few headlines. Others are certain they disagree before they’ve even understood the argument. Still others are certain they understand the motivations of strangers based on pure guesswork. In my article, The Importance Of Being Wrong, I wrote about the importance of leaving room for doubt. Of asking ourselves whether we really know what we think we know. Of bearing in mind that what feels right is often not the same as what is right.
> "It's one of those things that keep being flogged because people want someone to blame. We have trouble accepting that it is most likely the result of our increasing incursion into wild spaces. ... But people are impatient and so come up with this emotionally satisfying theory then demand that people who doubt it prove a negative."
Which reflects a lack of self-reflection. The theme "it's the fault of humankind in general because we keep intruding on wild spaces" is exactly one of those emotionally satisfying theories, validating an existing narrative to which the speaker is often already attached.
Another tell is that when you say that you (and the WHO) wants more investigation before concluding the cause, that's paradoxically labeled as being "impatient" for somebody to blame. Treating it as already known to be zoonotic and blaming it on humankind's infringement on wild spaces is not "impatient".
--------
Regarding your latter point, there was a TED talk about how people handle dissenting opinions through three common attributions:
(1) Ignorance - they will agree with me if told the truth
if telling them fails, then
(2) Stupidity - they cannot comprehend the truth or
(3) Malevolence - they know the truth but have nefarious intentions
but leaving out:
(4) Difference - they may have a good faith different understanding of things, which could have elements of truth (ie: we might be at least partially wrong ourselves)
I've noticed how common things fit into that pattern of 1-3, and how important it is to keep #4 in mind, to have some humility - "I have reasonable confidence in my current opinion, but I _could_ still turn out to be wrong, to large or small degree".
1. Whatever you think you know is incomplete, and some of it is wrong!
2. You don’t know what you don’t know.
3. You don’t know how much you don’t know.
4. You don’t know what part of what you think you know is wrong.
Like everyone, I have opinions. They aren't necessarily important to this comment. But I will say that some conspiracy theories have merit, and if the argument against them is to brand them as conspiracy theories that have been debunked (by the FM 3-13.4 people), they are probably worth some consideration even though there is nothing we can do about them.
From FM 3–13.4 Army Support to Military Deception:
“1–30. Any deception aims to either increase or decrease the level of uncertainty, or ambiguity, in the mind of the deception target. This ambiguity has the potential to compel the target to mistakenly perceive friendly motives, intentions, capabilities, and vulnerabilities thereby altering the target’s assessment. Two generally recognized types of MILDEC exist:
Ambiguity-increasing. 1–31. Ambiguity-increasing deception provides the enemy with multiple plausible friendly COAs. Ambiguity-increasing deception is designed to generate confusion and cause mental conflict in the enemy decision maker.
Ambiguity-decreasing. 1–33. Ambiguity-decreasing deceptions manipulate and exploit an enemy decision maker’s pre-existing beliefs and bias through the intentional display of observables that reinforce and convince that decision maker that such pre-held beliefs are true. Ambiguity-decreasing deceptions cause the enemy decision maker to be especially certain and very wrong."
How can you be so incredibly right on all the time? I'm starting to think maybe I need to question you more because I'm so impressed with your calm logic that I might just be fooling myself! Excellent piece!
What a wild conversation - it's fascinating that someone who wants (or wants others) to "do some actual science" could be so incurious and resistant to inquiry, especially to questions that would, by definition, be settled if they pertain to a hypothesis that has been "debunked over and over by actual virologists." But hey, I suppose I'm preaching to the choir.
It's ironic because this Science fetishism (follow the "Science"), deference to authority, and suppression and outright censorship of contravening evidence is outright unscientific. I mean, at least we debunked the "lab leek hypothesis", that Covid-19 is spread via excessive use of green onion garnish on spicy food. But don't get me started on the Kennedy assassination...
Your quote from Richard Feynman made me smile. You share that mental capacity for thorough and exacting analysis of the point(s) in question while maintaining a quiet sense of humor. Staying true to the precepts of scientific investigation in highly controversial and emotionally charged issues is daunting. It's a challenge to keep up with you!
When I read your writing I often think of this quote from Thich Nat Hanh:
'Our only job is to remain open. Usually when we hear or read something new, we just compare it to our own ideas. If it is the same, we accept it and say that it is correct. If it is not, we say it is incorrect. In either case, we learn nothing.'
Following the links in your Medium article on the "trans" activists I read a lot of truly horrifying stuff. CPS taking children away from parents and allowing "gender-affirming" surgery on minors against parents' consent. Aside from the plain immorality and the compulsiveness of the gender claims, this is asking for trouble.
First of all I don't say at all that public policy should bend at all to placating conservatives. They are all in on the culture wars now and cannot be soothed and I don't propose trying.
On the other hand I say the same for the gender activists and what I read in those links says that at least in some states, including the Washington I lived in for 35 years, capitulation to the "trans" activists has gotten completely out of hand. Those parents who had to move out of the state to prevent their child from being surgically altered ... it would not take too many cases like that to outrage people who are not even conservative to change their votes.
One of the big problems with the science-class is far too many are either atheist or agnostic and thus don't put as much time and attention into determining motivation. I'm currently studying how Biblical events are reflected in modern times. I recently wrote a paper on the Book of Jonah and in reponse to the question "What does these events tell us about todays world," I wrote the following:
---
The story of Jonah is very applicable to today’s world, and possibly one of the most relatable stories in the Bible. It is much deeper than the children’s tale of a disobedient Jonah in the belly of the fish. Nineveh is a city of uneducated people who are easily persuaded by both good and evil. God appears to have a view of the people of Nineveh equating them more as wayward children than dangerous idolators. It is likely Jonah was sent on this mission by God to teach him a lesson, rather than any actual intention to destroy Nineveh. Jonah is extremely selfish; where God sees a city of 120,000 child-like people, Jonah sees 120,000 people who are not worth risking his life for and is so afraid of them that he disobeys God and nearly brings ruin on an entire ship full of sailors in his disobedience. A telling part of the story is that we are left with a selfish Jonah being scolded by God. There is no redemption for Jonah, instead the point is that the welfare of the 120,000 citizens of Nineveh means more to God than the emotions of a man that God selected to be a prophet. Another important point is that Jonah did ultimately save the people of Nineveh because of his fear of God, reinforcing to us today that God’s will is greater than our own.
Since 2019 we have seen the inverse of this story occur with COVID-19. In November 2019, the Wuhan lab could have notified the CDC that a sample had possibly escaped, and two lab workers were hospitalized. This did not happen because the government of China demands that its citizens deny God and be devout atheists. The policy informing their decision making is purely selfish and not of God. Without God’s spirit to guide them, they acted selfishly to cover up the incident and illnesses.
An international journal about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) summarized the policies of the CCP and references Xi Jinping’s code of morality. Telling by their complete absence are the words “religion” and “God”. (Payette, 2019)
Finally, in late December 2019, an eye doctor who had treated the first patients of December 2019 let the world know about Covid-19. The Chinese government punished the eye doctor for speaking up and trying to save lives. The Chinese government covered up the outbreak and details about the virus as long as they could and on multiple occasions has impeded investigations into the origin of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, which has dramatically hampered international response to the virus; which created a world-wide panic that led to billions of people being locked down, millions of kids from going to school, and the emotional and physical scarring of people all over the world in addition to over six million people dying.
Had China been a country of freedom of religion and allowed people to act from an attitude of Godly morality, not just the selfish needs of the Chinese Communist Party, then the COVID-19 pandemic would likely have been much reduced in scope. Even a man such as Jonah could be motivated by God to save 120,000 people who he feared, but you first must be open to God to receive his message.
China also had responsibilities under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention which it joined in 1984. The NTWC demands members to not create or use biological technology with a dual civilian and military capability. Yet, they were cited repeatedly by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) for such activities, including bringing attention to the lab in Wuhan in 2014 where the outbreak likely originates. (NTI, 2014) “China continued to develop its biotechnology infrastructure, pursue scientific cooperation with entities of several countries, and engage in biological activities with potential dual-use applications.” (US Department of State, 2014) This willful disregard of their responsibilities and moral obligations in the name of Human Rights underscores the how in “How did we get here?” It is a complete absence of value for human life; present because of a complete absence of God in their lives that is on display in China’s leadership.
# Refrences
Bible, American Standard Version. (1901). Retrieved from VitalSource Bookshelf: vbk://P98lDgf5EINnqSvgXyrKkXS8j2xFplT45f-1t_PqJSc
Fox, Ph.D., M. (2011). Closer Look at Jeremiah 1:10 with Implications for (Re) Reading Jeremiah 1. Fort Worth.
US Department of State. (2014, July 31). Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. Retrieved from US Department of State: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2014/230047.htm#china
Yes, I too noticed:
> "It's one of those things that keep being flogged because people want someone to blame. We have trouble accepting that it is most likely the result of our increasing incursion into wild spaces. ... But people are impatient and so come up with this emotionally satisfying theory then demand that people who doubt it prove a negative."
Which reflects a lack of self-reflection. The theme "it's the fault of humankind in general because we keep intruding on wild spaces" is exactly one of those emotionally satisfying theories, validating an existing narrative to which the speaker is often already attached.
Another tell is that when you say that you (and the WHO) wants more investigation before concluding the cause, that's paradoxically labeled as being "impatient" for somebody to blame. Treating it as already known to be zoonotic and blaming it on humankind's infringement on wild spaces is not "impatient".
--------
Regarding your latter point, there was a TED talk about how people handle dissenting opinions through three common attributions:
(1) Ignorance - they will agree with me if told the truth
if telling them fails, then
(2) Stupidity - they cannot comprehend the truth or
(3) Malevolence - they know the truth but have nefarious intentions
but leaving out:
(4) Difference - they may have a good faith different understanding of things, which could have elements of truth (ie: we might be at least partially wrong ourselves)
I've noticed how common things fit into that pattern of 1-3, and how important it is to keep #4 in mind, to have some humility - "I have reasonable confidence in my current opinion, but I _could_ still turn out to be wrong, to large or small degree".
This tidbit got amazingly little coverage: https://twitter.com/uniofoxford/status/1402235212478791687?lang=en
It doesn't prove the lab leak hypoethesis but it certainly casts doubt on the wet market hypothesis IMO.
"𝘞𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰𝘶𝘣𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨."
1. Whatever you think you know is incomplete, and some of it is wrong!
2. You don’t know what you don’t know.
3. You don’t know how much you don’t know.
4. You don’t know what part of what you think you know is wrong.
Like everyone, I have opinions. They aren't necessarily important to this comment. But I will say that some conspiracy theories have merit, and if the argument against them is to brand them as conspiracy theories that have been debunked (by the FM 3-13.4 people), they are probably worth some consideration even though there is nothing we can do about them.
From FM 3–13.4 Army Support to Military Deception:
“1–30. Any deception aims to either increase or decrease the level of uncertainty, or ambiguity, in the mind of the deception target. This ambiguity has the potential to compel the target to mistakenly perceive friendly motives, intentions, capabilities, and vulnerabilities thereby altering the target’s assessment. Two generally recognized types of MILDEC exist:
Ambiguity-increasing. 1–31. Ambiguity-increasing deception provides the enemy with multiple plausible friendly COAs. Ambiguity-increasing deception is designed to generate confusion and cause mental conflict in the enemy decision maker.
Ambiguity-decreasing. 1–33. Ambiguity-decreasing deceptions manipulate and exploit an enemy decision maker’s pre-existing beliefs and bias through the intentional display of observables that reinforce and convince that decision maker that such pre-held beliefs are true. Ambiguity-decreasing deceptions cause the enemy decision maker to be especially certain and very wrong."
Don't be too sure of your ideas.
How can you be so incredibly right on all the time? I'm starting to think maybe I need to question you more because I'm so impressed with your calm logic that I might just be fooling myself! Excellent piece!
What a wild conversation - it's fascinating that someone who wants (or wants others) to "do some actual science" could be so incurious and resistant to inquiry, especially to questions that would, by definition, be settled if they pertain to a hypothesis that has been "debunked over and over by actual virologists." But hey, I suppose I'm preaching to the choir.
It's ironic because this Science fetishism (follow the "Science"), deference to authority, and suppression and outright censorship of contravening evidence is outright unscientific. I mean, at least we debunked the "lab leek hypothesis", that Covid-19 is spread via excessive use of green onion garnish on spicy food. But don't get me started on the Kennedy assassination...
Your quote from Richard Feynman made me smile. You share that mental capacity for thorough and exacting analysis of the point(s) in question while maintaining a quiet sense of humor. Staying true to the precepts of scientific investigation in highly controversial and emotionally charged issues is daunting. It's a challenge to keep up with you!
When I read your writing I often think of this quote from Thich Nat Hanh:
'Our only job is to remain open. Usually when we hear or read something new, we just compare it to our own ideas. If it is the same, we accept it and say that it is correct. If it is not, we say it is incorrect. In either case, we learn nothing.'
Following the links in your Medium article on the "trans" activists I read a lot of truly horrifying stuff. CPS taking children away from parents and allowing "gender-affirming" surgery on minors against parents' consent. Aside from the plain immorality and the compulsiveness of the gender claims, this is asking for trouble.
First of all I don't say at all that public policy should bend at all to placating conservatives. They are all in on the culture wars now and cannot be soothed and I don't propose trying.
On the other hand I say the same for the gender activists and what I read in those links says that at least in some states, including the Washington I lived in for 35 years, capitulation to the "trans" activists has gotten completely out of hand. Those parents who had to move out of the state to prevent their child from being surgically altered ... it would not take too many cases like that to outrage people who are not even conservative to change their votes.
From USA Today, the most liberal newspaper in America. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/05/05/karl-marx-communism-death-column/578000002/ Over 100M deaths attributed to Communism, 27M for Stalin and 70M for Mao themselves alone.
That a lack of morality by those who think they know best leads to people who refuse to consider they may have the wrong perspective.
One of the big problems with the science-class is far too many are either atheist or agnostic and thus don't put as much time and attention into determining motivation. I'm currently studying how Biblical events are reflected in modern times. I recently wrote a paper on the Book of Jonah and in reponse to the question "What does these events tell us about todays world," I wrote the following:
---
The story of Jonah is very applicable to today’s world, and possibly one of the most relatable stories in the Bible. It is much deeper than the children’s tale of a disobedient Jonah in the belly of the fish. Nineveh is a city of uneducated people who are easily persuaded by both good and evil. God appears to have a view of the people of Nineveh equating them more as wayward children than dangerous idolators. It is likely Jonah was sent on this mission by God to teach him a lesson, rather than any actual intention to destroy Nineveh. Jonah is extremely selfish; where God sees a city of 120,000 child-like people, Jonah sees 120,000 people who are not worth risking his life for and is so afraid of them that he disobeys God and nearly brings ruin on an entire ship full of sailors in his disobedience. A telling part of the story is that we are left with a selfish Jonah being scolded by God. There is no redemption for Jonah, instead the point is that the welfare of the 120,000 citizens of Nineveh means more to God than the emotions of a man that God selected to be a prophet. Another important point is that Jonah did ultimately save the people of Nineveh because of his fear of God, reinforcing to us today that God’s will is greater than our own.
Since 2019 we have seen the inverse of this story occur with COVID-19. In November 2019, the Wuhan lab could have notified the CDC that a sample had possibly escaped, and two lab workers were hospitalized. This did not happen because the government of China demands that its citizens deny God and be devout atheists. The policy informing their decision making is purely selfish and not of God. Without God’s spirit to guide them, they acted selfishly to cover up the incident and illnesses.
An international journal about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) summarized the policies of the CCP and references Xi Jinping’s code of morality. Telling by their complete absence are the words “religion” and “God”. (Payette, 2019)
Finally, in late December 2019, an eye doctor who had treated the first patients of December 2019 let the world know about Covid-19. The Chinese government punished the eye doctor for speaking up and trying to save lives. The Chinese government covered up the outbreak and details about the virus as long as they could and on multiple occasions has impeded investigations into the origin of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, which has dramatically hampered international response to the virus; which created a world-wide panic that led to billions of people being locked down, millions of kids from going to school, and the emotional and physical scarring of people all over the world in addition to over six million people dying.
Had China been a country of freedom of religion and allowed people to act from an attitude of Godly morality, not just the selfish needs of the Chinese Communist Party, then the COVID-19 pandemic would likely have been much reduced in scope. Even a man such as Jonah could be motivated by God to save 120,000 people who he feared, but you first must be open to God to receive his message.
China also had responsibilities under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention which it joined in 1984. The NTWC demands members to not create or use biological technology with a dual civilian and military capability. Yet, they were cited repeatedly by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) for such activities, including bringing attention to the lab in Wuhan in 2014 where the outbreak likely originates. (NTI, 2014) “China continued to develop its biotechnology infrastructure, pursue scientific cooperation with entities of several countries, and engage in biological activities with potential dual-use applications.” (US Department of State, 2014) This willful disregard of their responsibilities and moral obligations in the name of Human Rights underscores the how in “How did we get here?” It is a complete absence of value for human life; present because of a complete absence of God in their lives that is on display in China’s leadership.
# Refrences
Bible, American Standard Version. (1901). Retrieved from VitalSource Bookshelf: vbk://P98lDgf5EINnqSvgXyrKkXS8j2xFplT45f-1t_PqJSc
Fox, Ph.D., M. (2011). Closer Look at Jeremiah 1:10 with Implications for (Re) Reading Jeremiah 1. Fort Worth.
NTI. (2014, November 3). China Biological Overview. Retrieved from Nuclear Threat Initiative: https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-biological/
Payette, A. (2019, December). Reviewing the Fourth Plenum: Governance and Morality in the Era of Xi Jinping. Contemporary Chinese Political Economy and Strategic Relations: An International Journal, 5(3), 949-962. Retrieved from https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/61640339/CCPS53-Payette20191230-120988-17tzf8l-libre.pdf?1577735146=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DReviewing_the_Fourth_Plenum_Governance.pdf&Expires=1656794892&Signature=J3G02XKeEDMI3pHIlkRfmj~6yx
US Department of State. (2014, July 31). Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments. Retrieved from US Department of State: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2014/230047.htm#china