On "Science" and Vaccines

 I intended to wait on this post until I was further along in the "Reasoning" posts, as it would have been a useful example later. It would probably have been less ranty, had I waited as wll, but, like the mathematician in the joke I shared a few posts ago, I seem to have hit my threshold.

"The Science" does NOT say a vaccine is safe and effective!

Politics says this!

Science does NOT declare a pharmaceutical "safe".

Science says: (Note, this is a made-up example. A real one would be considerably longer)

"Out of 1000 people who took this drug in a laboratory-controlled trial-

• 1 person died
• 5 people experience severe hair loss
• 20 people experienced temporary loss of bladder control
• an additional 10 people experienced permanent loss of bladder control
• 150 people experienced migraines which lasted up to 4 weeks after taking the medication.

Science does NOT declare a pharmaceutical effective.

Science says: (also, a made-up example)

"Out of 100 people in a double-blind, laboratory-controlled study, 58 experienced a reduction in symptoms, as opposed to only 48 in a similar study using a placebo."

(Note, if you consider that carefully, that means the above medication actually works for 10 out of every 100 people - 48 of them would have gotten better using anything which they naively believed would make them better. I have seen medications with even lower efficacy rates which are considered "effective")

You are NOT following the science when you arbitrarily force an entire population to take a medication.

You are NOT following the science by spending millions of dollars trying to coerce people into accepting your stance 

Spending that money to research what types of people are likely to experience the various side-effects, now THAT would be following the science. Then you would be able to have the medication safely and voluntarily utilized by a higher population, with fewer instances of fatalities or life changing injuries. You might not even have to create a special court in an attempt to protect pharmaceutical companies and manipulate public opinion.

You ARE following the science when you ensure the entire population has adequate access to accurate information regarding the efficacy and risks, so that they can individually make an informed decision based on their personal history. 

(But of course, to do that, the population- or at least the majority- would have to trust you, which would require that you behave in a trustworthy way...).

*End of rant.

Disclosure: I am emotionally invested in this subject- not just because I am a proponent of individual choice and accountability, but because I appear to be a recent victim of such policy. I had covid and have historically had a proclivity to side effects from medication, therefore I was disinclined to be vaccinated, based on my risk vs. benefit analysis. My employer opted to move quickly in support of the Biden mandate, and I was therefore compelled to be vaccinated. Shortly after taking the vaccine, a number of symptoms have manifest, including Tinnitus (A constant, maddening, high-pitched shriek in my ears), random joint and muscle pain, and potentially a return of chronic fatigue and reduced immune function (a bit early to tell on those, I really hope I am wrong.)

Certainly, it is fair to say I can't prove the vaccine was the cause. It COULD be absurdly coincidental timing. "I can't say for sure the gunshot caused the bleeding, but I wasn't bleeding until after I got shot".

Reasoning: A Math Parable

(This post is part of series of posts, beginning here. It is recommended they be read collectively, and in order.) 

Let's start this conversation on Reasoning with a parable, in mathematical form:

Let's assume we have two numbers - they could be any two numbers. We will call them 'a' and 'b'.

Now, for the purposes of this parable let's assume a=b

If we multiply both sides of this equation by a, we have axa=axb

which can also be written as a²=ab

now, let's add another a² to both sides: a²+a²=a²+ab

we can represent that more simply as 2a²=a²+ab

Now, subtract 2ab from both sides:   2a²-2ab=a²+ab-2ab

again, simplify: 2a²-2ab=a²-ab

and simplify further: 2(a²-ab)=a²-ab

Now you will notice we have a common term on both sides: a²-ab

So we can remove it, and we are left with 2=1.

And just like that, the world economy collapses, the universe is thrown into utter chaos and disappears in a puff of logic.

How can this be? What sort of devilry is this? Did I get one of those steps wrong? Add too many 2's or a's to one side of the equation?

No, it is nothing of the sort. Every step is written correctly. The problem is, while going through all those steps, through all that complexity, we forgot something important.

In the very beginning, we stated that a=b.

and so a²-ab is really the same as a²-a²

and a²-a²=0

so that last bit is 2x0=1x0

which is true, since anything multiplied by 0 is 0

And quite suddenly, we can see the whole equation was absurd. And the complexity of the equation- it's many steps, obscured the obvious.

The universe is a large and complex system, with many variables, and as such, we may be tempted to see complicated answers to every problem. It is critical however to examine such complex answers against the more simple, fundamental observations. Quite often, we add unnecessary complexity which obscures a much more obvious answer, and thus prevents us implementing a simple solution.

The Art of Reasoning

(This post is part of series of posts, beginning here. It is recommended they be read collectively, and in order.) 

I am not happy with this. I don't feel it says precisely what I wish it it to. But I have been staring at it on and of for months now, and making no progress in getting it where I want it. So rather than spend more time spinning my wheels, I am going to publish it now and press forward. Perhaps as I proceed with the other posts in the series, the right words and phrases will come, and I will re-write this post. Until then, here it is, such as it is:

I have written this post a few hundred times in my mind - or tried to. Each time I start, I go in a million different directions at once. I am still uncertain if it is really the right time for this post - there are several others floating around in my head which are quite similar to the prior posts in this series. I think they belong after this one however .

This post is a nexus - a point of focus for the other posts in this series. That said, before going further, I ask that you read the previous posts, as they set the stage. Given the passage of time between the prior posts and this post, it may be wise to review them, even if you read them previously.

 First - Language is unreliable, truth is elusive, perhaps unattainable, and experience is inconsistent

Second - You are not the sole master of your destiny. In fact your control of your path, your thoughts and even your beliefs may be tenuous at best.

Third - You lie. You lie to yourself. Even when you are trying to be honest, your very senses conspire against you, tangling you in an intricate web of perceptual deceit.

So how then does one safely navigate this mortal experience? How can one plot a course through life if one cannot see the path?  How can one safely maneuver through the pitfalls, if one doesn't understand the rules- if one cannot even be sure their hand is on the tiller, if one cannot trust anyone, even one's own self?

And now to introduce and attempt to define another word.

Reason:

Noun. 

1. A cause, explanation of justification for an action or event.

2. The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgement by a process of logic.

Verb.

1. To think, understand and form judgements by a process of logic.

-The oxford dictionary, by way of Bing (Sadly, the best definitions for 'logic' are all circular, relying on the word 'Reason').

25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

 - Ecclesiastes 7:25

 

 

The art of reasoning is the concerted, intentional effort to understand- to make sense of the the world, one's self and one's surroundings through observation, documentation, and the careful application of logic. (that was a mouthful!)

It is a a dedicated , individual and collective endeavor to to seek out and draw ever nearer to elusive Truth.

It is no small task, and it is not for the faint of heart.

It requires tremendous commitment, focus, perseverance, and courage. It requires considerable sacrifice.

It is quite perilous. One must personally face humankind's' greatest enemy - most probably in mortal combat.

Reasoning requires an understanding of not just "What" but also "How" and "Why".

Reasoning requires a willingness to recognize and acknowledge the constructs around us, many of which we often take for granted as being eternal, rather than ephemeral, and many of which we often cling to, and use as anchors for our security, our sense of being.

The Liar Within

 This post is a continuation of a thought exercise started in two prior posts.

I encourage you to read them in order.

1. Language, Truth, Perspective, Paradigm...

2. The Invictus Illusion

Now to address that bit about lying. Even the most honest of people is a liar.

Ignore for the moment that almost everyone justifies making dishonest statements on occasion, to spare someone's feelings ("Oh what a cute baby!", "That was delicious!", "Oh, I wish I could go with you, but I have something else going on then, maybe some other time though."...).

Ignore also the lies of omission - keeping our mouth shut about something we have information about, to avoid inconvenience or injury.

We lie to ourselves.

A lot.

And it isn't just the stream of negative lies we tell ourselves about ourselves (Usually some variation of "I'm not good enough...").

Nor is it just the positive lies we often unknowingly believe. (For example; most people think they are good at multitasking, but actual studies suggest less than 3% of the population actually is. Perhaps this helps explain why roughly 80% of people are in favor of laws prohibiting texting while driving, yet over 70% of people admit to texting and driving. Interestingly, it has been found that those people who are more confident in their multi-tasking abilities are often less capable at multitasking.)

No, our deceitfulness goes much deeper.

First, take a look at this picture (drew it myself, can you tell?), which tree is closer to you, 1 or 2?

The correct answer is: They are both the exact same distance away from you. I drew the first tree. then I copied it, pasted it, and enlarged it to create tree number 2. I then drew a triangle, cut the top off, drew a horizontal line near the top of the page and added some color to it.

But none of that changes the fact that it was drawn on a flat screen. Your brain adds a third dimension to the image, but this is a two-dimensional drawing. Your brain lies to you.

Your eyeballs see two dimensionally. Light reflects off stuff, enters your eye, and hits a series of sensors in the back of your eyeball, nerves transmit information about the intensity and color of that light from each sensor to your brain. since you have two eyeballs, the brain gets information from two slightly different angles. Your brain then interprets that information and "creates an image" Since my two dimensional image above has colors, lines and size differences which your brain customarily "sees" as a horizon, and a road going off into the distance, it interprets the image as having depth, even though there is no depth in reality.

Furthermore, your brain interprets the sensory inputs it receives differently than other people's brains do. There are people who are color blind, for instance, and there are a number of disorders which inhibit depth perception.

Your eyes aren't the only sense with this problem. When I was young, there was a prank which involved touching someone's bare skin with a small, dry, circular piece of  ice in a room full of smokers. The person would be utterly convinced someone had just poked them with a lit cigarette. Given the environmental cues, they couldn't correctly distinguish hot from cold.

So right off, the sensory information you receive may be distorted, often in ways that would be difficult or impossible to detect (what if everyone saw the color green as a different color? How would we know? If I saw green as what you knew to be purple, we would still look at the grass and agree that it was green...).

And then there is the brain's desire to find patterns. From the Rubin Vase optical illusion (is it a vase, or two faces?), to religious figures appearing on toast or pizza or buildings, to satanic messages played backwards in popular music (I found one once that I would let people listen to- a brief clip where the singer says something about "eating a Tuna". Except I didn't actually play the clip backwards, it was forward, and the song is in Norwegian. Look up "Ankomst" by the band Leaves Eyes - right around 2:10 into the song you will hear it- if you are a native English speaker. If you speak Norwegian, you most probably won't catch it), our brains are determined to give meaning to everything, even if it means concocting an alligator in Logan, Utah.

Ever heard the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?

Then it shouldn't surprise you that your memory is just as untrustworthy. As an example- in the 1990's when DNA testing became a thing, an evaluation was made of 239 convictions which were overturned based on DNA evidence. It was found that nearly 80% of those convictions came about due to eye witness testimony.

It has also been determined that in some cases, false memories can be created by suggestion. In a study performed in 1995, a group of people we given a list of  four memories from their childhood. Three were actual events from their childhood and the fourth was fictional. They were then asked to write down details they remembered from those experiences, or to note if they had no recollection of the event. One-fourth of the people in the study related memories they had of the fictional event.

The input is unreliable. The output is untrustworthy. imagine how much worse it gets when it is us making a poor interpretation of someone else's poor interpretation? In an entirely different context (i.e. historical analysis).

Not matter how much effort you put toward being honest, You still lie like crazy.

 

 

The Invictus Illusion

Out of the night that covers me,   

  Black as the Pit from pole to pole,   

I thank whatever gods may be   

  For my unconquerable soul.   

In the fell clutch of circumstance 

  I have not winced nor cried aloud.   

Under the bludgeonings of chance   

  My head is bloody, but unbowed.   

Beyond this place of wrath and tears   

  Looms but the Horror of the shade, 

And yet the menace of the years   

  Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.   

It matters not how strait the gate,   

  How charged with punishments the scroll,   

I am the master of my fate:

  I am the captain of my soul. 

The poem is Invictus, by William Earnst Henry.

It  is also, to some extent an illusion.

Before reading further, I suggest to review my prior post on Truth etc... This post is meant to continue that thought exercise. I have a few more that go with it as well. I have been struggling to put them into words, and I have been struggling to work out the correct order. I think it matters....

We generally like to think we are in control of our choices, that we (generally) make them based on sound reasoning, careful thought, and through the lens of our moral principles.

There are a number of holes in that theory however.

The first is genetics. We come into being as a result of a mix of combined genetic material from our mother and father. That genetic material determines, or at least shapes many of our physical characteristics. Including how the operation of various hormone producing factories - which influence our mood, among other things.

It isn't quite that simple though. More recent research indicates sections of this genetic material can be effectively turned on or off.  Some of  our DNA is wrapped around histones, which effectively turns off those genes. These histones can be activated or deactivated chemically. There are also chemical groups which can be inserted into the DNA at specific points, which will turn sections of Genes on or off.

This suggests that environment - The foods we eat, the air we breathe, the chemicals we come in contact with -  can, to some degree alter our genes. There have been some studies which indicate that these alterations can be passed on  to our offspring. There are also several studies including this one, showing a potential link between lead exposure in violence.

But it isn't just environment, it is also experiences. There is at least one study which observed an increased mortality rate in the male offspring of Civil War POW's, born after their POW experience. In another study, rats were exposed to cherry blossom scent at the same time a mild electric shock was administered. This led to an automatic fear response to the scent. Their first and second generation offspring both exhibited the same automatic fear response. Genetic memory appears to be a thing.

So, many of your decisions and reactions in life may very well have been shaped, not just by your experiences, but also by your diet, the compounds and minerals in your drinking water, and the quality of the air you breathe. Further more it may have been shaped by the environment, diet, and experiences of your parents, and your grandparents and... Perhaps the biblical references to "The sins of the fathers." (Exodus 34:7, for instance) were  meant as literal warnings.

But even setting aside these genetic-based influences, you are likely far less in control of you than you think.

In the previous post I mentioned the adage "You are the  product of your five closest friends," Citing the specific anecdote I have witnessed, of people completely reversing their political position (liberal to conservative and vice versa), after a major move change their circle of friends. It is actually a bit more complicated than "The five closest" of course. The circle of influence is larger than that. It really is more about what you are surrounded by, and frequently, consistently exposed to. 

"For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:"

-Proverbs 23:7 

Which is why companies spend so much money putting advertisements for their products in front you you. everywhere you go. And why normally rational people can become so irrationally attached to absurd ideas.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes accepted as truth"

-Joseph Goebbels 

And you lie to yourself all the time. (More on that later).

Of course some try to argue that deep down inside, their soul remains - at least mostly - in control.

Many instances of significant personality change after severe, traumatic brain injury would suggest otherwise. I have also seen and personally experienced the personality altering effects some medications can have. And of course there is also Dissociative Identity Disorder, and scripturally, the experience of possession. 

Even passage of time and number of decisions you have made in that time affects you according to this article on parole hearings. If your soul is in control, it is arbitrary and cruel...

Some have gone so far as to say you aren't really in control at all. You are just running your piece of the program that was set in motion eons ago.

I'm not quite that fatalistic, I think that I do have at least some ability to influence who I become and what I do. maybe not so much as moving the rudder on the back of a boat, perhaps more like holding a stick in the water on one side...

So the question then is, how much of what we say and do is truly our intentional exercise of self-will, and how much is us just executing the universe's program?

I think we can be more in control, perhaps, when we are more present, and when we are less dishonest (again, more on that later). 

Language, Truth, Perspective, Paradigm...

This post is a prequel to another post (or three) I have rattling around in my brain. Before I can get to that, It is necessary to precisely (as possible) define a few words. Level-set, if you will.

Language really is an amazing thing, is it not? We humans emit a wide range of sounds. We arrange, combine and modulate all those hums, whistles, clicks, hisses, 'oooh's, 'aaah's, etc... And we assign meaning to them.

It isn't natural or  inherent, if you will. Babies don't come into the world able to speak. They have to learn to make the various sounds sound by imitation, trial and error. They have to learn from others the meaning of each particular set of sounds. And it is entirely arbitrary. A "Dog" is a Dog, only because somewhere in the past a group of people agreed to it, and we continue to accept and use that convention. But only certain of us do.

Somewhere in the distant past of the people we designate as "Germans", they agreed on "Hund". For the Croatians it was "Pas".

Oh, and yeah, not only did we agree on combinations of sounds and assign them meaning, we also agreed on combinations of drawings - lines and curves, and assigned them meaning as well. "狗" for instance is Chinese for Dog. Some people say entire words with a single symbol. Others, assign sounds to the symbols so we can combine them to make the words.

But there are two glaring problems:

1. We sometime re-use symbols - entire symbol sets and sound arrangement.

"Done.", "Dun."

Clearly different when written, not so when spoken.

"Wind."

Did I just wind a clock, or is the wind blowing?

2.  We can arbitrarily reassign meaning. At any time.

"You sly dog!"

Clearly I'm not a "Dog". When and how did this alternate meaning come to be?

And that is a word which is assigned to a physical, tangible object. Imagine the difficulty in assigning and retaining precise meaning for words which describe intangibles, such as emotions, feelings, ideas...

It thus becomes necessary to use more words in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the words we just said.

Words are hard!

 That being said, I now intend to attempt to define a few words (using words- it all seems somewhat futile when you think about it...).


Truth - I need this word to have a very precise meaning for my future post(/s). Rather humorously, most dictionary definitions of truth say something to the effect of "that which is true". And then one definition of True is "Truth".

For my purposes I will start my definition with the phrase "Things as they really are."

Now a few thoughts to try and visually add some tangible boundaries to that.

First, imagine you can only see two dimensions.

What would you say this object is?




A circle?

But this is just a two-dimensional projection of a three dimensional object.
It could in fact be a sphere

or a Cone

a cylinder



Or perhaps something even more complex.

But if you only experienced the world in two dimensions, you likely wouldn't even be able to comprehend those shapes, it would likely be utterly beyond your grasp. 

A few more observations to help flesh this out:

--

Imagine for a moment the shape in question was a cylinder, and a friend of yours saw it from one of the sides. He would be completely confused as to why you were calling it a circle when it was obviously a rectangle! You would be equally alarmed by your friends seeming blindness to the obvious.

--
Science does not discover truth. Science creates models, which attempt to approximate truth, based on our observations from within the system.

--
A person can speak truthfully, and yet not speak truth. (In the above example, you called the cylinder a circle. while your friend called it a rectangle. You and your friend both spoke truthfully. You did not intend, nor wish to be dishonest. And yet, what you said was untrue.

--
There is no "My truth" and "Your truth". There is only "The truth." Which due to our limited vision, our limited perspective, may be beyond our ability to grasp.


And that is the second word...

Perspective - Perspective is the position from which you look at something. This is why you saw a circle, while your friend saw a rectangle in the example above. Each of you saw the object from a different perspective. Perspectives are not fixed. They can be changed by our current mood,

Tying that back to truth, let's add a contextual definition to the word...

Observation - This is the fragment of The truth which we see from our particular perspective. We habitually think of this as The truth, it isn't.

Finally, one more word..

Paradigm - Paradigm is a particular world-view. A system of beliefs, ideas, and experiences which define our perspective. If perspective determines what you saw, paradigm determines why.

Our paradigm is created by our genes, by our environment, by the people we interact with, and the things we do. They can change over time, as we expand our knowledge, or increase our experience. They can even change as our friendships change. As an example, I have had friends who were very liberal in their political views, who moved to areas which were predominately conservative. As time passed and they integrated into their new environment, making new friends, I observed their views shift quite dramatically from liberal to conservative. Similarly, I have had friends who were very conservative, who shifted to liberal upon moving to a predominately liberal city. "You are the sum of your five closest friends," as the saying goes.

People can have different paradigms. They can have different perspectives. They can't have different truths.





-- Claim:

For a given system, truth can only be observed from outside of the system. In other words, we can't observe truth.  We can make educated guesses about what is true. But they are only guesses.


-- Religious Corollary I:

Assuming the existence of a Deity, and assuming the above claim is valid. If said deity is omniscient - the source of all truth, then it holds that said deity must exist outside of the system, thus sees the system in its entirety, as it really is.

-- Religious Corollary II:

Communication with Deity does not bestow upon the communicating individual, any claim to truth. Said individual remains within the system, is still bounded by the constraints of their (albeit expanded) paradigm and thus said individual must still interpret the communicated truth via their limited perspective. Furthermore, their attempts to communicate said truth to another individual incur the added difficulty of being filtered through the other individuals paradigm.