The great goal of the knowledge-seeker is practical certainty. Note the modifier: for most propositions in this universe of discourse, absolute certainty is unattainable. That’s in the nature of causal propositions. Only in completely formal systems such as mathematics can we be absolutely certain of anything.
This has critical implications for the sciences. The greatest of them is the Principle of Correspondence, which governs the replacement of an older theory of causation by a newer one. In layman’s terms, it goes like this: If Theory X is to be replaced by Theory Y, then Y must predict at least as well as X in all those domains to which X is relevant. However, if X out-predicts Y in any currently addressed domain, then Y must be rejected.
In the mundane world – i.e., that realm of activity in which non-scientists make their decisions – we often find ourselves groping for practical certainty with a relative paucity of hard, trustworthy information. We strain to amass data about the consequences of doing this versus doing that. We ponder the statements of “experts.” We consider sources and their established reliability. And those of us who’ve been taken for a ride once or twice question the motives of those who urge a particular course upon us.
Yes, this is about the “pandemic.” Consider the following stimulative graphic:
Those are rather troubling questions. At least, they should be.
Have a few links:
- Federal vaccine mandates coming?
- They’re preparing the epidemiological groundwork.
- Mask at home?
- Forcible vaccinations coming?
- Coercion versus “customer satisfaction.”
Everything in the above list points in the direction of an increased degree of coercion being levied upon Americans to compel us to accept “The Jab.” Yet the preceding graphic asks questions that many of us cannot answer with confidence. For of all the “signs” of an epidemic or pandemic, the strongest one is that the federal government says so — and that, given the record of mendacity already compiled by the Usurpers, is pretty damned weak.
The counter-evidence has been mounting:
- Falling rates of infection nationwide;
- Remarkably high infection rates among the vaccinated;
- The mass of evidence against the efficacy of face masking;
- Accumulating evidence of serious side effects from the vaccines;
- The inability of the PCR test to distinguish COVID-19 from common influenza;
- The success of “light touch” districts (e.g., Florida and Sweden) in coping with the Kung Flu;
…and so forth. The aggregate leaves the common citizen with quite a quandary.
Your humble Curmudgeon doesn’t claim to be a medical expert, but he can tell evidence from hand-waving and sound reasoning from nonsense. (He can also tell shit from Shinola, but that’s a story for another time.) When one side of an argument starts screaming and talking about forcing you to accept his thesis, put one hand on your wallet and the other on your gun. You’re under a crosshairs – a real one this time – and likely to need to defend yourself in the immediate future.
A final thought: Be particularly suspicious of anyone who claims “I’m trying to help you!” while simultaneously browbeating you – verbally or otherwise – to accept his representations. Very few people anywhere, in any era, are sincerely trying to “help” you unless there’s something in it for them — and those who won’t admit to it, and specify what it is, are almost certainly dishonest.
Verbum sat sapienti.
8 comments
Skip to comment form
What’s to become of the unvaccinated? Will they be herded into isolation camps, isolated from the general public and each other? I’m sure sleepy Joe and others in gov’t are salivating at the thought. And what are we to do with the illegals crossing the southern border? They’re getting a pass, aren’t they. It’s getting closer to the point where those of us, who are many, have no recourse but to start shooting. I, for one, don’t want to see that. Just want to mind my own damn business.
Me, neither. Nor am I an expert in climate science.*
That’s useful but not necessary.
All you need is to know people. Know about “follow the money”. Be able to distinguish between what they say and what they do. Be aware of the movement between positions in the administration and positions in the media, and more generally of “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.” I’d SWAG this approach as being 95-99% accurate.
And even that’s not really necessary. Just view the world through a lens of cheap cynicism, assume everyone in power is lying and is dipping into the money stream and you’ll be 90% right.
* By this point I’m pretty sure there’s no such thing as an expert in climate science. I’m not even sure that climate science exists. It seems that every aspect of climate is monstrously complex, beyond our knowledge and likely beyond our ability to comprehend. Climate science is at the stage of renaissance surgery and medicine: they know some things, don’t know more, and are unaware of the boundary.
That’s separate from the truism that science+politics=politics, and climate science has been nothing but politics for a decade or more.
And the Balkanization of America accelerates…One minor correction…it’s “PCR” test
Author
Thanks. My eyes have been misleading me lately.
A word to the wise may be lost on 95% of America at this point in time. This has nothing to do with medicine or climate but simply control . It’s a damn shame I’m Irish and not controllable.
1957 was the year of the “Asian” or “Asiatic flu” Funny how these epidemics/pandemics originate in China, isn’t it. In one major way it was worse than wuhan flu. It killed proportionately younger people overall. That includes pre-teen children, while wuhan is killing proportionately more elderly. I’m not saying it’s fine that the elderly are dying prematurely, just that what is the greater loss? The were no lockdowns, quarantines or isolation mandates either.
Remember that Uncle Joe said, if cases are reduced, they’ll tell us what we can and cannot do. The delta variant is a godsend to these people.
Having a robust immune system, even as a child, I survived my bout of Asian flu in 1957, as well as a nasty bug in 1960, which hospitalized me for a few days.
I also got Hong Kong flu in 1969. I remember watching the Elvis Presley special on a black & white portable while I was convalescing.
So, when I got a particularly bad respiratory infection in Nov. 2019, I soldiered on and got through it. Bad, but not so much that I couldn’t handle it at home. Took me 6 weeks to feel better.
Yeah, probably the Wu-Flu.
The thing is, although I did get the flu shots, I can’t say that they were the thing that kept me healthy – I’ve already shrugged off more pathogens than most people (measles, mumps, chicken pox, German measles, just to mention a few). I pity the bug that tries to take ME down!
In general, the natural immunities that occur when people are infected, but fight off the germs, are longer lasting, and better for the health of the individual. Stress makes the immune system strong.
Now, is Fran right to question whether the dreaded Wu-Flu is actually killing huge numbers of Americans? Probably. Doubt that we can PROVE it, but, yeah, probably.
Linda, I did have covid back in the first week of December 2020. Only symptom was alot of sneezing. Still did 10 days isolation. I think the reasons my symptom(s) were so mild are twofold. One, I maintained a daily regimen of 2000 mg vitamin C, 5000 i.u. of vitamin D, 50 mg zinc, 50 mg elderberry, and 100 mg vitamin B6. The other is the prayer of my cohorts in my church’s praise team.
One thing that puzzles me about covid is the fact that the symptoms are so varied. Some don’t even know they have it. Others end up being hospitalized.
Finally, I think UV lighting would help in containing this thing, since it’s a very effective disinfectant. But I’m only a dumb citizen and don’t work for the vaunted CDC.