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.