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".
Yes! I saw this. It's so sad how questions get politicised so quickly today. And once everybody's decided what side they're on, they not only abandon curiosity and intellectual honesty, it becomes "right-wing" or "woke" or whatever term of the day is being used to avoid thinking.
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."
Thanks for this Dave, you really are a fountain of useful information! This is fascinating, and so well reflected in many of the culture war battles we're seeing today.
Factor in that even with easy sources like Wikipedia and Google to help them learn more, most people are too lazy to try.
I've been on a bunch of physics groups on social networks. They're loaded with blowhards who say things like "the Big Bang didn't happen" or "the universe is infinite" or other bull session level assertions. They respond to disagreement with hostility and mockery. The best of these groups eject anyone who mentions religion or the god of the gaps. Most of the others I end up leaving. If I post some actual facts they accuse me of copy-pasting; the idea that someone could actually have taken the trouble to learn is outside their comprehension.
Unmentioned in the lab leak belief is that the lab was working to increase the pathogenicity and communicability of COVID. For biological warfare. Hence Trump's "China virus" that got a lot of Asians killed by his mob.
Biological research is dual use which can be used for good (trying to control the harm of something like COVID) and/or biological warfare. Such things are controlled under EAR/ITAR. In this case, ECCN 1C351 & 1C352. I worked with such things (not biological) for years and when working with the Chinese I was under strict guidelines on what technical things I could share. The reason: it is a given that if they could put it to military use, they would. That is one of the reasons Congress banned it. Unfortunately, along can Anthony Fauci https://tinyurl.com/2rkj8w7k That was called a conspiracy theory, until it wasn't.
Fauci has not been prosecuted and there is the downside you mentioned. During the hysteria my Thai wife expressed concern that "someone might knock my head."
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!
We should always leave room for doubt, but obviously that doesn't extend to the truism that I'm always right.😁
In all seriousness though, as I was saying a while ago, I think it's kind of bizarre that I've gained a reputation as some sort of "heterodox" thinker. I think the vast majority of my opinions are actually pretty banal. Things that are obvious to pretty much any reasonable person.
The problem is that being reasonable is out of style. Reasonable voices are almost always drowned out by the louder, more alarmist/absolutist voices that dominate pretty much every issue today. So we're fooled into believing we're a minority. And whenever a reasonable voice *does* speak up, they're invariably attacked for doing so. Because nuance isn't as easy as outrage.
So, all that said, please *do* question me more often! One of the many things I love about this community is that you're fantastic at keeping me honest and offering perspectives that I hadn't thought of.
When you know a lot more than other people you tend to be right a lot more than they are. And when a great breadth of knowledge is coupled with well above-average intelligence you prevail in arguments so much that it's tempting to see yourself as infallible.
And when you can write articulately and persuasively, the temptation can be overwhelming.
PS I am using "you" here as the impersonal, e.g. "one" in English or "man" in German, not addressing Steve explicitly.
I underwent a great humbling when I took up physics as a reading hobby and discovered my limits, with tens of thousands of dollars of books I am unable to read. I intend to learn tensors soon and blast past what I have already managed, into quantum field theory and general relativity. To hell with limits.
“When you know a lot more than other people you tend to be right a lot more than they are.”
You might have already meant this when you said “knowledge”, but I think there’s also a lot to be said for understanding the opposing perspective. Not just factual knowledge, but an appreciation for people’s motivations.
I think a lot of discourse is broken because people so readily assume bad faith of everybody who disagrees with them.
To assume bad faith on nothing more than disagreement would be facile. To assume bad faith because of repeatedly demonstrated and eventually indisputable evidence of bad faith becomes prudent.
To still engage in the risk of sympathy for those of such terrible morals, given how much is now at stake, is folly.
As you have doubtless read before, when people tell you what they are (and what they intend), believe them.
“To still engage in the risk of sympathy for those of such terrible morals”
I’d argue very strongly that presuming your own moral superiority is far more foolish, and dangerous.
And, of course, the bigger question is who is the “they” in this scenario? White people? The Jews? Conservatives? Liberals? The exact same arguments have been made about each of these groups at one point in history or another.
No group of people can have their beliefs simplified down to “they operate in bad faith so assuming bad faith is prudent.”
"No group of people can have their beliefs simplified down to “they operate in bad faith so assuming bad faith is prudent.”"
Who's being absolutist now?
This is one point where you and I diverge. I will not keep my mind open to the possibility of mitigating explanations forever. If someone is holding a gun to my head then it really doesn't matter what trauma or grievance lies at the root of his malice and understanding it will not save my life.
In the world today the cost of failure is simply unacceptably great. Since 1970 more than half the world's wildlife has disappeared and more species become extinct literally every day. The cost of conservative triumph is not just vast human suffering but in the of of all life on earth except maybe at the hydrothermal vents
The numbers on that side who can be reached through understanding is simply too small.
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...
"it's fascinating that someone who wants (or wants others) to "do some actual science" could be so incurious and resistant to inquiry,"
Yep, "science" has just become a form of appeal to authority for some people. They "trust the science" until it conflicts with something they feel deep down inside. And then, suddenly, we should only trust the science that feels right to them.
Leaving room for doubt is the bedrock principle of all scientific research.
😁I did have a chuckle at "lab leek", but given the number of typos I make in comments I didn't feel like I had any right to point it out.
"Yep, "science" has just become a form of appeal to authority for some people. "
More than anywhere else, in economics, which is far, far short of a science. Consider that universities give tenure to economists whose beliefs are in systems with an unbroken record of failure.
Note that capitalism is following exactly the path that Marx forecast so long ago yet Marx is anathema and capitalism remains revered.
"Leaving room for doubt is the bedrock principle of all scientific research."
Keep an eye out for people who talk about "proof" or "proven" in science. And ignore them, because they know nothing about science. Science seeks evidence, corroboration, not proof.
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
Motivation is a matter of philosophy, rather than one of science. I am curious as to why you opine that atheists or agnostics don't consider such things? Who's motivation about what? I don't think that my STEM education suffered because it was lacking philosophical or religious content. I was and am free to study or consider such things in their proper realm.
Thank you for making my point. I doubt you read the rest of what I wrote, but I go on to explain that the Marxist agenda is explicitly anti-human-rights, and that is a conscious philosophical decision by Xi Jinping and his idol, Chairman Mao--a man who intentionally murdered 70,000,000 Chinese citizens because they backed the wrong Marxist dictator. This is an indisputable fact. Their only priority is to do what they believe is best for the Chinese Communist Party, even if that includes destroying entire populations who will not succumb to their agenda.
It's undeniable that acts of unspeakable cruelty have been carried out by people who didn't believe in God. But it's also undeniable that acts of at least equal cruelty have been carried to by people who did, no?
I think that's why Dave (and I) is struggling to understand why you say that a lack of faith in God is the key difference.
To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels. They did everything they could to "selfishly cover up the incidents" and avoid consequences until it became impossible to continue hiding. Even now, there's been very little transparency about what is being done to rectify the problem.
I think the problem you're pointing to, which don't get me wrong is a very real problem, is more one of how power corrupts than of whether religion reliably makes societies or individuals more moral.
"To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels."
Weak tea compared to the Crusades; lopping off children's heads with swords while singing hymns.
Or the Inquisition; unspeakably cruel tortures as punishment for doctrinal minutiae.
Yeah believing in an invisible spirit has been so good for the world.
The highest estimates for deaths during the Crusades is 9M, most believe 3M. That was over 700 years ago. the Marxists are racking up far larger tallies in the last 100 years. So far over 6M since 2019. And if you want to compare atrocities, the CCP removes the organa of political prisoners and sells the to people needing a transplant. Today, in this time.
I don't think that anyone commenting is defending the CCP. That misses the point.
Create a table of groups that have committed atrocities and/or other great evils, both conflating political ideology and religion as you have done and separating them in discrete groups. A jumbo statistical table of evil. Where would the Christian group be? How about other religions that have gods, but a different one from yours? Are they atheists if they have the wrong god?
Could you draw a line anywhere on the chart and say that one side of the line is evil and the other not? If you are a Christian, you could not because every line falls short of righteousness in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, to what end does such a ranking serve?
That is the difficulty with your premise. You wrote that the problem is with the atheists, agnostics and I would venture to guess the religions with what you might call false gods. But your believers are on that table too, and I would venture to opine that they are not the bottom line, as if that mattered from a religious (Christian?) standpoint.
This commentary is about "People wanting someone to blame" which you are doing while being absolutely convinced that their view is the correct one. I understand that revealed religions demand certainty. That is the relevance of your stated opinion to the conversation, I guess. Can you see why that gives some people pause?
The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians, and few countries are politically tied to it. Religions of this world basically fall into three groups, Abrahamic, Polytheistic from India, and Confusionism/Budhism. Each hold a far higher standard of value on lives (at least those of their followers). None are perfect. But a complete lack of such a moral compass is a major detriment to any society and Marxist regimes have proven this over and over again.
“The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians”
I mean, that’s debatable, but hopefully we can agree that they should be a prime example of people who derive their moral compass from God. And while we have to speculate about the motivation for the actions of people like Stalin and Mao, the evil carried out in the name of religion was unequivocally motivated by a belief that it was Gods will.
I’m not saying this to attack religion. Evil is a human condition, not a specifically religious one. But your claim that religion is a protection against this condition doesn’t seem to bear much scrutiny.
This information took me less than ten seconds to find. I think it safe to assume that the rest of the data you post, with its abundance of right wing tropes, is similarly accurate, and you are similarly disinterested in actual facts.
Your repeated statement that atheists lack morals is as valuable as an overflowing septic tank. Show me a believer whose faith moves him to oppose an injustice and I will show you a thousand who believe with absolute conviction that the injustice is the will of their imaginary playmate.
50.1% is no more a majority than 49.9% because there is not Christian government that they all vote in. The majority of Catholics are in poor countries with little influence in Latin America.
I doubt this is real. I doubt it very much. Seventy million? Even with their currently obscene population that would hardly go unnoticed.
There is nothing in Marxism that is explicitly opposed to human rights, only against some of the more selfish American extensions of the idea of freedom. Your phrase "Marxist agenda" is a tell. I would bet money you have never read any actual sources, only half-educated detractors.
Wingnuts are constantly saying that Stalin murdered 100,000,000 Russians without even noting how absurd that is.
Atheism is a denial of the most broadly-held beliefs in the supernatural. Supernatural thinking has no place in science. Yes some scientists believe in gods but if they don't partition those beliefs from their work them they're not good at their work.
I have no idea what you mean by atheism thwarting motivation. Atheists have been disproportionately involved in most of society's social advances, because religious people are so flexible in using the moral immunity of their faith to justify their bigotry.
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.
Yes! I saw this. It's so sad how questions get politicised so quickly today. And once everybody's decided what side they're on, they not only abandon curiosity and intellectual honesty, it becomes "right-wing" or "woke" or whatever term of the day is being used to avoid thinking.
Right? When did political ideology become a package deal? I reserve my right to order off the a la carte menu.
Congratulations on your intellectual independence.
Not many share it.
"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.
All the edits are because I can't figure out why this keeps being cut out of the above comment:
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN15310-FM_3-13.4-000-WEB-2.pdf
Thanks for this Dave, you really are a fountain of useful information! This is fascinating, and so well reflected in many of the culture war battles we're seeing today.
Factor in that even with easy sources like Wikipedia and Google to help them learn more, most people are too lazy to try.
I've been on a bunch of physics groups on social networks. They're loaded with blowhards who say things like "the Big Bang didn't happen" or "the universe is infinite" or other bull session level assertions. They respond to disagreement with hostility and mockery. The best of these groups eject anyone who mentions religion or the god of the gaps. Most of the others I end up leaving. If I post some actual facts they accuse me of copy-pasting; the idea that someone could actually have taken the trouble to learn is outside their comprehension.
Unmentioned in the lab leak belief is that the lab was working to increase the pathogenicity and communicability of COVID. For biological warfare. Hence Trump's "China virus" that got a lot of Asians killed by his mob.
Biological research is dual use which can be used for good (trying to control the harm of something like COVID) and/or biological warfare. Such things are controlled under EAR/ITAR. In this case, ECCN 1C351 & 1C352. I worked with such things (not biological) for years and when working with the Chinese I was under strict guidelines on what technical things I could share. The reason: it is a given that if they could put it to military use, they would. That is one of the reasons Congress banned it. Unfortunately, along can Anthony Fauci https://tinyurl.com/2rkj8w7k That was called a conspiracy theory, until it wasn't.
Fauci has not been prosecuted and there is the downside you mentioned. During the hysteria my Thai wife expressed concern that "someone might knock my head."
How fortunate that pathogens only infect people on the other side.
I didn't mean to say that whatever lab COVID supposedly escaped from was doing biowarfare research, just that this is part of the conspiracy theory.
I think the reason we are getting more and more plagues is because there are eight billion laboratories.
They may well have been doing legitimate medical research. My point was that the military arm of all governments is a strong arm that gets all data that it considers to be useful which is a reason other than it is dangerous and people screw up. Like this https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/us-military-missing-six-nuclear-weapons-180032
How unlike me, but I have a sweet tooth for this kind of candor.
Thanks.
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!
We should always leave room for doubt, but obviously that doesn't extend to the truism that I'm always right.😁
In all seriousness though, as I was saying a while ago, I think it's kind of bizarre that I've gained a reputation as some sort of "heterodox" thinker. I think the vast majority of my opinions are actually pretty banal. Things that are obvious to pretty much any reasonable person.
The problem is that being reasonable is out of style. Reasonable voices are almost always drowned out by the louder, more alarmist/absolutist voices that dominate pretty much every issue today. So we're fooled into believing we're a minority. And whenever a reasonable voice *does* speak up, they're invariably attacked for doing so. Because nuance isn't as easy as outrage.
So, all that said, please *do* question me more often! One of the many things I love about this community is that you're fantastic at keeping me honest and offering perspectives that I hadn't thought of.
When you know a lot more than other people you tend to be right a lot more than they are. And when a great breadth of knowledge is coupled with well above-average intelligence you prevail in arguments so much that it's tempting to see yourself as infallible.
And when you can write articulately and persuasively, the temptation can be overwhelming.
PS I am using "you" here as the impersonal, e.g. "one" in English or "man" in German, not addressing Steve explicitly.
I underwent a great humbling when I took up physics as a reading hobby and discovered my limits, with tens of thousands of dollars of books I am unable to read. I intend to learn tensors soon and blast past what I have already managed, into quantum field theory and general relativity. To hell with limits.
“When you know a lot more than other people you tend to be right a lot more than they are.”
You might have already meant this when you said “knowledge”, but I think there’s also a lot to be said for understanding the opposing perspective. Not just factual knowledge, but an appreciation for people’s motivations.
I think a lot of discourse is broken because people so readily assume bad faith of everybody who disagrees with them.
To assume bad faith on nothing more than disagreement would be facile. To assume bad faith because of repeatedly demonstrated and eventually indisputable evidence of bad faith becomes prudent.
To still engage in the risk of sympathy for those of such terrible morals, given how much is now at stake, is folly.
As you have doubtless read before, when people tell you what they are (and what they intend), believe them.
“To still engage in the risk of sympathy for those of such terrible morals”
I’d argue very strongly that presuming your own moral superiority is far more foolish, and dangerous.
And, of course, the bigger question is who is the “they” in this scenario? White people? The Jews? Conservatives? Liberals? The exact same arguments have been made about each of these groups at one point in history or another.
No group of people can have their beliefs simplified down to “they operate in bad faith so assuming bad faith is prudent.”
"No group of people can have their beliefs simplified down to “they operate in bad faith so assuming bad faith is prudent.”"
Who's being absolutist now?
This is one point where you and I diverge. I will not keep my mind open to the possibility of mitigating explanations forever. If someone is holding a gun to my head then it really doesn't matter what trauma or grievance lies at the root of his malice and understanding it will not save my life.
In the world today the cost of failure is simply unacceptably great. Since 1970 more than half the world's wildlife has disappeared and more species become extinct literally every day. The cost of conservative triumph is not just vast human suffering but in the of of all life on earth except maybe at the hydrothermal vents
The numbers on that side who can be reached through understanding is simply too small.
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...
"it's fascinating that someone who wants (or wants others) to "do some actual science" could be so incurious and resistant to inquiry,"
Yep, "science" has just become a form of appeal to authority for some people. They "trust the science" until it conflicts with something they feel deep down inside. And then, suddenly, we should only trust the science that feels right to them.
Leaving room for doubt is the bedrock principle of all scientific research.
😁I did have a chuckle at "lab leek", but given the number of typos I make in comments I didn't feel like I had any right to point it out.
"Yep, "science" has just become a form of appeal to authority for some people. "
More than anywhere else, in economics, which is far, far short of a science. Consider that universities give tenure to economists whose beliefs are in systems with an unbroken record of failure.
Note that capitalism is following exactly the path that Marx forecast so long ago yet Marx is anathema and capitalism remains revered.
"Leaving room for doubt is the bedrock principle of all scientific research."
Keep an eye out for people who talk about "proof" or "proven" in science. And ignore them, because they know nothing about science. Science seeks evidence, corroboration, not proof.
Reminder: atoms are still a "theory."
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.'
Thank you Ruth. I try my best. And thanks for the quote! I love it. I'll definitely be slipping that into an article at some point.😁
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.
Yes, and before the scourge of Marxism these countries were all shining examples of morality and humanity.
McPaper is the most liberal newspaper in Jesusland.
Marxist agenda, Marxist regimes, blah blah blah.
China is China and its repressive and cruelly hierarchical society was no different before “Communism.”
You deal in simpleminded right wing tropes,
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
"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."
Motivation is a matter of philosophy, rather than one of science. I am curious as to why you opine that atheists or agnostics don't consider such things? Who's motivation about what? I don't think that my STEM education suffered because it was lacking philosophical or religious content. I was and am free to study or consider such things in their proper realm.
Thank you for making my point. I doubt you read the rest of what I wrote, but I go on to explain that the Marxist agenda is explicitly anti-human-rights, and that is a conscious philosophical decision by Xi Jinping and his idol, Chairman Mao--a man who intentionally murdered 70,000,000 Chinese citizens because they backed the wrong Marxist dictator. This is an indisputable fact. Their only priority is to do what they believe is best for the Chinese Communist Party, even if that includes destroying entire populations who will not succumb to their agenda.
It's undeniable that acts of unspeakable cruelty have been carried out by people who didn't believe in God. But it's also undeniable that acts of at least equal cruelty have been carried to by people who did, no?
I think that's why Dave (and I) is struggling to understand why you say that a lack of faith in God is the key difference.
To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels. They did everything they could to "selfishly cover up the incidents" and avoid consequences until it became impossible to continue hiding. Even now, there's been very little transparency about what is being done to rectify the problem.
I think the problem you're pointing to, which don't get me wrong is a very real problem, is more one of how power corrupts than of whether religion reliably makes societies or individuals more moral.
"To take an especially pertinent example, the Catholic Church has, for decades, been embroiled in a pedophilia scandal that was known right up to the highest levels."
Weak tea compared to the Crusades; lopping off children's heads with swords while singing hymns.
Or the Inquisition; unspeakably cruel tortures as punishment for doctrinal minutiae.
Yeah believing in an invisible spirit has been so good for the world.
The highest estimates for deaths during the Crusades is 9M, most believe 3M. That was over 700 years ago. the Marxists are racking up far larger tallies in the last 100 years. So far over 6M since 2019. And if you want to compare atrocities, the CCP removes the organa of political prisoners and sells the to people needing a transplant. Today, in this time.
Marxist agenda, Marxist regimes, Marxist atrocities. And believing in God guarantees morality.
Keep up with current events? Six Catholics just guaranteed the deaths of many thousands of women and the birth of many deformed children.
No, I’m not interested in comparing atrocities. I believe that republicans will do the exact same thing given the chance.
I don’t know where you read this stuff but I think your notion that Marxism is the root of all evil is simpleminded.
I don't think that anyone commenting is defending the CCP. That misses the point.
Create a table of groups that have committed atrocities and/or other great evils, both conflating political ideology and religion as you have done and separating them in discrete groups. A jumbo statistical table of evil. Where would the Christian group be? How about other religions that have gods, but a different one from yours? Are they atheists if they have the wrong god?
Could you draw a line anywhere on the chart and say that one side of the line is evil and the other not? If you are a Christian, you could not because every line falls short of righteousness in the eyes of the Lord. Therefore, to what end does such a ranking serve?
That is the difficulty with your premise. You wrote that the problem is with the atheists, agnostics and I would venture to guess the religions with what you might call false gods. But your believers are on that table too, and I would venture to opine that they are not the bottom line, as if that mattered from a religious (Christian?) standpoint.
This commentary is about "People wanting someone to blame" which you are doing while being absolutely convinced that their view is the correct one. I understand that revealed religions demand certainty. That is the relevance of your stated opinion to the conversation, I guess. Can you see why that gives some people pause?
https://youtu.be/5y2FuDY6Q4M
The oldest Dylan is the best Dylan
The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians, and few countries are politically tied to it. Religions of this world basically fall into three groups, Abrahamic, Polytheistic from India, and Confusionism/Budhism. Each hold a far higher standard of value on lives (at least those of their followers). None are perfect. But a complete lack of such a moral compass is a major detriment to any society and Marxist regimes have proven this over and over again.
“The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians”
I mean, that’s debatable, but hopefully we can agree that they should be a prime example of people who derive their moral compass from God. And while we have to speculate about the motivation for the actions of people like Stalin and Mao, the evil carried out in the name of religion was unequivocally motivated by a belief that it was Gods will.
I’m not saying this to attack religion. Evil is a human condition, not a specifically religious one. But your claim that religion is a protection against this condition doesn’t seem to bear much scrutiny.
"The Catholic church does not represent a majority of Christians"
In a stunning and wholly unexpected turn of events, you are wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Catholics: 50.1%
Protestants: 36.7%
This information took me less than ten seconds to find. I think it safe to assume that the rest of the data you post, with its abundance of right wing tropes, is similarly accurate, and you are similarly disinterested in actual facts.
Your repeated statement that atheists lack morals is as valuable as an overflowing septic tank. Show me a believer whose faith moves him to oppose an injustice and I will show you a thousand who believe with absolute conviction that the injustice is the will of their imaginary playmate.
50.1% is no more a majority than 49.9% because there is not Christian government that they all vote in. The majority of Catholics are in poor countries with little influence in Latin America.
Yeah Denmark is a slaughterhouse, right?
"Thank you for making my point. "
He didn't make your point, he clearly and effectively contradicted you. This unsubstantiated claim of triumph is one of the earmarks of a troll.
I doubt this is real. I doubt it very much. Seventy million? Even with their currently obscene population that would hardly go unnoticed.
There is nothing in Marxism that is explicitly opposed to human rights, only against some of the more selfish American extensions of the idea of freedom. Your phrase "Marxist agenda" is a tell. I would bet money you have never read any actual sources, only half-educated detractors.
Wingnuts are constantly saying that Stalin murdered 100,000,000 Russians without even noting how absurd that is.
What point of yours do you think I made?
Atheism is a denial of the most broadly-held beliefs in the supernatural. Supernatural thinking has no place in science. Yes some scientists believe in gods but if they don't partition those beliefs from their work them they're not good at their work.
I have no idea what you mean by atheism thwarting motivation. Atheists have been disproportionately involved in most of society's social advances, because religious people are so flexible in using the moral immunity of their faith to justify their bigotry.
You clearly know absolutely nothing about religion in this part of the world.
Nothing at all.