Fermentation

[degringolade]

 

Republic of China (1912–1949) / Lin Fengmian/ Boats

Mike has been prolific of late.  Always a good thing.  But I am having a hard time digesting the output lately.  Not that his points aren’t valid.  He has a fairly good grasp on exactly the intellectual/moral problems inherent in his current bête noir, the Brownstone Institute.  But where he sees the self-serving and hypocritical nature of the alleged “Institute”, I see business as usual in the chattering classes.

I am working on my response now. but  things like this are complicated and, due to a very complex and unpleasant “extended family” drama, my time and attention span have been less than available of late.  But be assured that my response is in process.  It is just difficult to collect and effectively marshall thoughts that discuss the simple beliefs of others in relation to the complexity of the overall societal system.

So, I am trusting those of you with the poor time management skills required to drop by at my place here, here is Michael’s discussion of the obvious failings of the “Institute” and the screed published there.  My discussion will follow as soon as it makes sense to it’s author.

DR. ALEXANDER’S PROOF          

MICHAEL  11/21

 

According to the Brownstone Institute, an individual affected by a lockdown or a vaccine mandate, should believe that their right to liberty was violated. In fact, the institute was created to spread this message, for some reason.

Nothing said here will judge what anybody believes; the issue addressed is whether the world needs such an institution. It would seem that the last thing an independent-minded individual should need or want, is a Libertarian institution telling them what to think about something that happened – as if they as an individual had no ability to judge for themselves.

People who were oppressed should already know that their right to liberty was violated, based on what happened to them and their own beliefs and ideas. So, the foundation under the Brownstone Institute seems to be made of irony, and irony is often reinforced with bullshit, which might look like brownstone in a certain light. 

Everybody likes the word liberty and the idea of having what it means; but a good question is, what distinguishes a Libertarian from a non-Libertarian? Why is there something in the world called a Libertarian?

A Libertarian will say there are Libertarians because there is oppression in the world, and a Libertarian is a person who fights oppressive authority. In this respect, a Libertarian is a self-proclaimed hero – and they believe themselves, because they do not think about the real reason there is something called a Libertarian.

The explanation that Libertarians exist to fight oppressive authority sounds good, but the answer is not really an answer because oppression could be anything – literally. The reason there is something called a Libertarian, is not because there is oppression, because every law is some type of oppression, and Libertarians love certain laws.

What is oppression?

A slave might judge that the rule against running away is oppressive. How would the owner of the slave argue against that judgement? Easy, all they have to do is be a Libertarian. A Libertarian slave owner opposes an oppressive law against buying and selling slaves, because the law would interfere with an individual’s right to make a profit.

To see the Libertarian’s point, people need to remember that a Libertarian was put on earth to fight oppression, and oppression is that which prevents an individual from making a profit. Of course, there must be rules; but the purpose of a rule, is to prevent the oppression of an individual’s right to make a profit.

There is something called a Libertarian because a name was needed for somebody who thinks they should decide the definition of oppression that applies to everybody. Thus, there is no mystery when one discovers that Libertarianism is actually quite complicated with many schools. 

A Libertarian of course favors regulation in general; for example, a Libertarian will favor a law that oppresses people who might make a decent living by mugging Libertarians. All that a Libertarian expects of others, is that they obey the law and let the Libertarian define what oppression means for everybody. Fairness is not that hard to figure out; a law against sleeping under the bridges will always be applied equally to the rich and the poor.

Because this expectation sounds fishy and not very liberty-like, the words are changed so that a Libertarian fights for liberty, rather than their right to define what oppression means for everybody. So, when a Libertarian claims that their right to liberty has been eroded, their right to decide things for other people has been eroded.

If a law against slavery is passed, a slave might not show up for work the next day. If a virus lockdown is mandated, the same thing would happen. In the first case, the Libertarian owner decides that his right to a make a profit has been violated, and anything else is beside the point. In the second case, the Libertarian decides that the slaves right to move freely around the plantation has been violated, and the Libertarian springs forth to defend the rights of the oppressed slave.

 

*****

 

Why would a Libertarian Institution assign itself the irrational and ironic mission of telling other people what oppression is? If someone believes they have been oppressed, why do they need an Institution to tell them? Why should an independent-minded individual fear anything more than a collection of scholars who think they have a right to define oppression and liberty?

And most importantly, why should an independent-minded individual disregard the irony when a scholar tries to use science to prove something about oppression and liberty? A person who thinks for themselves might wonder if the Brownstone Institute is concerned about the erosion of profit rather than liberty.

There is no rational way to support the idea that science has something to do with liberty. How can liberty not give an individual the right to reject another individual’s use of scientific data, when anybody can use scientific data?

Scientific data does not mean anything in itself; so, an argument is always about what people think scientific data means. Nobody should accept a conclusion just because somebody used scientific data. If the realm of liberty includes the right to criticize the use of scientific data, then a “scholar” should not attempt to use scientific data to indicate an erosion of liberty.

 

*****

 

Consider the following statement from a Dr. Alexander who is presented as a science expert by Brownstone Institute:

“It is and was the collateral harms of the ineffective lockdowns that did not stop transmission or reduce deaths, that caused more harms, death, and despair than the virus itself”

What is the essence of this statement from the perspective of a scientist?

The essence of the statement is that nothing it says could possibly be proved by science. This is not a debatable claim because science does not have data that applies to something that did not happen. Why would a scientist want to issue a bold statement that is not scientific?

How is harm and despair measured when something harms every individual differently? How does Dr. Alexander know the results of something that did not happen? In fact, Dr. Alexander does not know and nobody he might ask knows either. But the answer must be that he used scientific data because, believe it or not, Dr. Alexander attached over a hundred references to the above statement.

People who are not involved with science might tend to think that when a statement has 107 references attached to it, the statement must really be true – like 107 times true! But a statement requires a reference only because the statement is not self-evidently true. Thus, a statement of the type above becomes absurd when it requires 107 references, not more viable. It is not the same thing as proposing that one tree is taller than another and referencing all the people who agree.

A scientific statement gets its self-evidence from data produced by the set of conditions that that statement is about. If there is a lockdown, scientific data will apply to the conditions of the lockdown, and if the lockdown is 100% effective at stopping the virus, anything that causes a death, will cause more death than the virus. There is no scientific data that says how many deaths would have occurred if the lockdown did not happen, so science has nothing to say on the subject, period. Somebody who claims they have scientifically compared the results of having and not having a lockdown, is a science charlatan, and this is not a debatable accusation given the definition and purpose of science. 

A science charlatan wants people to believe that data from an experiment without a lockdown might mean something about the results of a different experiment someplace else. Anybody can suppose this, but somebody who claims that their conclusion is scientific, is a science charlatan. Science was invented to distinguish the claim of a scientist from the claim of a charlatan. Data from either experiment is “scientific” precisely because the data applies nowhere else. Anybody who claims to have scientifically established a claim that involves something that did not happen, is a science charlatan. If somebody is searching for truth, this is true.

Data has no meaning in itself. A person decides what data means, not the data. Data is not scientific when Dr. Alexander says it means something about a different experiment. When somebody does this, they transition from science itself, to the project of using scientific data for some purpose. The problem for science, is that when somebody does this, and they say their conclusion is scientific, the public might believe them.

The transition from science to predicting requires presupposing that all the differences between the conditions of two experiments, make no difference and can be disregarded. If data from one experiment is claimed to have meaning that applies to a different experiment, somebody checking the claim might have the impossible task of investigating the validity of thousands of interconnected presuppositions that must be true for every reference – because the experiment is not the experiment that the data belongs with. 

The understanding that scientists and the public have about a virus, changes with time, so a conclusion based on the presupposition that a difference in time between two sets of data makes no difference, could be invalid, and if any presupposition from any reference is false, the statement is invalidated - which is why references should not be added unless they are needed.

What is collateral harm? How does a lockdown cause a death? One way is to cause despair because despair causes suicides and maybe other things like drug and alcohol abuse that leads to spousal abuse that causes suicides, overdose deaths, murders, accidents, etc. A prisoner serving a thirty-day sentence is not allowed to keep their belt for a good reason; but maybe they could keep their belt if they could have drugs or alcohol too; but nobody wants to do the experiment, so who knows?

But when any of these cases are counted, the presupposition is that something that did not happen, would be better than what happened. This means that there must be thousands of significant additional presuppositions related to predicting what would have happened if the lockdown did not happen. And all this is beside the point with regard to liberty because science has nothing to do with liberty, and science does not get involved in rating harm and despair. Who knows what would have happened if the lockdown did not happen? Somebody who counts an individual’s death for a purpose must.

There is nothing in Dr. Alexanders statement that has been established scientifically, and nothing that could be, and this is not a debatable claim.

Why would a scientist want to issue a bold statement that is not scientific? What is Dr. Alexander trying to prove?

Regardless of what he is trying to prove, a scientist who issues the above statement with 107 references can hope to prove only one thing – that people do not understand what science is.

 

*****

 

If the Brownstone Institute thinks like a Libertarian, the Institute will want two things; 1) the right to define oppression and harm, and 2) regulation that allows them to define oppression and harm.

On the science front, Dr. Alexander is hoping that people will believe he proved that one form of oppression is better than another, and on the business front, the Brownstone Institute is hoping that Dr. Alexander will be a success and prove that people do not understand what science is.

Next to Dr. Alexander’s science article, another scholar proposes that the segment of society that supports a vaccine mandate, should be called the frightened class from now on. Maybe not - the only rational reason to refuse a free vaccine, is to be frightened of the vaccine; so, either people are crazy, or this scholar has a faulty fright meter. There might be good reason to fear a vaccine; but why assume a right to tell others what to fear?

On the brighter side, in the same article the scholar expresses concern for the workers in meat packing plants because they were subjected a vaccine mandate. If a worker in a meat packing plant somewhere did not want a free vaccine, then this scholar gets credit for expressing concern for a poverty-level worker. This is an area where some heroic Libertarian action could solve a vaccine mandate problem that is listed somewhere around number one million on the list of things that matter to a worker in a meat packing plant. 

There is simply no way to avoid being a hero, once an individual who thinks for themselves becomes a Libertarian - and all anybody has to do, is pick a school, and start thinking like a Libertarian.

 

*****

 

The top two things that somebody can decide for themselves without the help of an institution, are 1) whether they are frightened, and 2) whether they are oppressed. If somebody wants to decide things for themselves, then they obviously should avoid any school of Libertarianism, not to mention institutions and charlatans.

But if everybody were to decide these things for themselves, who will be a Libertarian?

In fact, people have always decided these things for themselves; so, the Libertarian will be the same as always – the one who decides whether others decide correctly or not.

 

*****

 

Everybody faces the same problem that a scientist does, by having no means to know what would have resulted if something had not happened. Perhaps something that distinguishes Homo sapiens from other animals, is that having no way to know, does not stop a human from wanting and trying to know. Having no way to know seems to fire up the imagination of a human for some reason. Having no way to know seems to produce an abundance of institutions and guesses explained in great detail. A reference that supports this theory, is religion.

Starting from having no way to know, human imagination can move step by step toward an impossible goal of knowing, by presupposing things, and the best way for a person to maintain their certainty as they move into less and less certain territory, is to forget and disregard all the presuppositions that must be true for them to be where they are. A good example would be listing 107 references without listing the thousands of significant interconnected presuppositions that must all be valid.

Nothing said here is a defense of anything that has happened. Nothing here says that people do not have a right to be upset; the question is, what is a right to be upset?

One segment of a population might be upset because they were not protected by a vaccine mandate, and a different segment might be upset because they were exposed to risk (of being harmed by a vaccine) due to a mandate. What gives either group a right to be upset? What must they believe?

A right to be upset, is a right to believe that the results of something that did not happen, would be better than what happened.

So, a right to be upset, is the right of an individual to believe they know the results of something that did not happen, and if everybody has a right to be upset, then everybody must have their own catalog of imaginary experiments that scientifically prove all the things they believe. This might explain why Dr. Alexander is so upset – like maybe over a hundred times normal.

 

*****

 

Now the problem facing science comes into focus. Each segment of the population wants to find a scientist who supports the presupposition that must be true for the group to have a right to be upset. The problem is that people look to science for certainty, and science has no way to know what either group wants to be certain about.

The presupposition for the first group is that the vaccine is safe and effective. The presupposition for the second group is that the presupposition of the first segment is not valid. The second group rejects the presupposition of the first group, because somebody like Dr. Alexander can use scientific data to make a case for just about anything.

So, there is a big problem because science itself cannot validate the presupposition of either segment of the population. Science does not know what an individual considers safe or effective or oppressive or harmful. Somebody who knows what all these things are, is called a Libertarian, which is why there are many schools of Libertarianism.

Consider the first sentence of the Brownstone Institute mission statement:

“The mission of Brownstone Institute is constructively to come to terms with what happened, understand why, and how to prevent such events from happening again.”

It must be admitted that this sentence does not suggest a quest for liberty as much as a quest for regulation. Certainly, there are many individuals who are pleased with some aspect of what happened; so why should they be pleased about it never happening again? To understand why, they need to understand Libertarianism.

The way to prevent something from happening, to some degree, is to pass a law against it. For example, the way to prevent a vaccine mandate from being used with future viruses, which in the language of science and mathematics are called unknowns, is to pass a law against vaccine mandates.

So, what does the first sentence of the mission statement say? It seems to suggest that an institute is calling for regulation on the basis of experiments that never happened - which brings up the question of why someone who is leery of regulation should want new regulation that has no better basis than that.

To answer that question, the Brownstone Institute has found a remarkable scientist with a range of skills that allows him to know all the results that an experiment would produce, if the experiment were to be conducted.

 

*****

 

Right above the Brownstone Institute mission statement, is this: 

“The name Brownstone is from the malleable but long-lasting building stone (also called “Freestone”) used so commonly in 19th-century American cities, preferred for its beauty, practicality, and strength.”

Why do Libertarian writers tend to use such dramatic language? People already like brownstone; at least they did.

Speaking of Freestone, if thirty percent of a civilization has free time to enjoy life because the other seventy percent does all the physical labor, the Libertarian relishes his freedom, and he claims it is his fundamental right to be free. This is a romantic description of an imaginary right that is based on the expectation that the same seventy percent should keep doing all the labor.

“The name Bullshit is from the malleable but long-lasting material (also called “Horseshit”) used so commonly by charlatans and Libertarians in America, preferred for its beauty by those who know what true beauty is.”

 

*****

 

If somebody proposes that Homo sapiens is the most rational of all animals, how many references should they attach to the statement?

An individual who thinks for themselves might recognize that rationality is not an abstractable characteristic; meaning, it is not a subject for scientific analysis; meaning, the proposition itself is not rational.

What has anybody seen a wild animal do, that is not rational? If somebody has an answer, how do they know what the animal is trying to accomplish? The fact is they cannot know, and rationality is therefore not a characteristic that should be compared between species.

The Pope is probably an example of a pretty smart human. What has anybody seen the Pope do, that is not rational?

Why does one group think that everything the Pope does is irrational, and another group think that nothing the Pope does is irrational? If Homo sapiens is rational, it does not mean that one group must be irrational; in fact, if everything the Pope does is rational, then somebody has built themselves a complicated structure of beliefs, and nobody can prove they are wrong, because the structure of their beliefs is rational, not to mention clever and possibly devious.

If references are attached to the nonsensical claim that Homo sapiens is the most rational animal, do any of the references refer to other animals doing irrational things? If so, they are invalid references, and the proposition becomes invalid. If there is no such reference, then who says Homo sapiens won? The answer is, somebody who decided and then started attaching references.

 

*****

 

If a group is upset, there is a presupposition that must be true for them to have a right to be upset. When two groups are upset, and their presuppositions are incompatible, it may seem rational to let science decide who is right; but this is where everything goes wrong, and Dr. Alexander’s proof is relevant.

Science itself cannot validate the presupposition of either group because science does not know. Science cannot say how the vaccine will be judged twenty years from now, and the last thing science knows, is how the next virus should be dealt with.

But what are the chances that the two groups will find common ground by accepting this fact – and the fact that liberty and oppression cannot be defined by science? A good guess would be zero, as long as Dr. Alexander’s proof applies.

The hopeful thing about human rationality is that it theoretically can be reined in. At some level, possibly close to the level of human nature, there must be some rational conclusion that every adult human arrives at, that might serve as the last resort in a search for common ground.

To end on a positive note, consider this: almost every adult human on earth knows that the mission statement of an Institution is bullshit.

From this common understanding, what might be the next step toward a peaceful coexistence?

The next step is a big one, but it is necessary going forward - as they say in the business world.

Consider this: every human is full of shit – even the person who wrote this, which some people will already know at this point.

It seems that Homo sapiens has lived with science long enough that a relentless input from science has affected the way humans think. Every person has stored in their imagination, a collection of imaginary experiments that have proved scientifically all the things they believe, which are things that will never be proven scientifically, and for this reason alone, every human is full of shit.

This is one reason, and given what it is, there are probably more.

 

*****

 

How is this ending on a positive note?

Possibly because it is funny.

The Brownstone Institute probably thinks that it is not funny at all. It is not funny because the matter is serious.

What is possibly funny, is the corollary to Dr. Alexander’s proof, which states that the more serious a person gets about defending what they believe, the more full of shit they get.

A person can ask themselves this question: as I get more and more serious about defending what I believe … will I eventually get to a point where I am full of shit? The corollary to Dr. Alexander’s proof says, yes you will.

This is why real scientists make calm, boring statements that nobody cares about. They are calm because they are talking about data and they are saying something that anybody might see for themselves, because the data is scientific.

The way that somebody can avoid getting uncomfortably serious about something, is to remember the corollary to Dr. Alexander’s proof, and stop before imaginary experiments are required to carry on.

The problem for a Libertarian, is that heroes are not allowed to do this, which explains a lot. The problem for everybody else, is that the Libertarian uses imaginary experiments to produce imaginary conclusions that always align with an imaginary right they have.

A Libertarian might argue that a right is not imaginary because it is written in words for all to see. But a slave could argue that the thought “all men are created equal” is imaginary because it was put into words. If the idea was not put into words, a slave would probably never imagine the idea was on the mind of any Libertarian they had encountered.

The Libertarian starts with the answer – which is an imaginary right they have. From there, working backwards to any question that might touch on the imaginary right, every thought a Libertarian has, is constructed of bullshit; so, it is no wonder they have to be serious enough to spoil the reputation of a building stone that was minding its own business.

 

*****

 

When the time has come for a Libertarian to rise up and fight for their rights, it means that their bullshit is not working like it used to, which is the most serious problem that a Libertarian can have.

At the moment, problems abound. People are frightened of the wrong things, and upset about the wrong things, in ways that interfere with the maximization of profit. Fortunately for an institution, there is politics, and politicians who can capitalize on what Dr. Alexander might prove.

When somebody is told they have nothing to worry about, they have something to worry about.

How many references does this bit of wisdom require?

None; the statement is effective because the truth it contains is self-evident – it says something that everyone knows from their own experience. So, when an entity like the Brownstone Institute claims to be non-political, everybody can conclude with confidence that the claim is bullshit. 

This is significant because people who are politicians of one form or another can use scientific data to maintain divisions within society, when the divisions benefit them and people who give them money.

Who might think it is a good idea to suggest that a large segment of society deserves to be humiliated and called the frightened class? A good guess would be a politician who is worried about maintaining profits.

This would be one plan, but another would be to find an amazing scientist who can prove that people are frightened and upset about the wrong things.

So, it is not unreasonable to wonder, if this might be how the torturous journey to Dr. Alexander’s proof began.

 

*****

 

Somebody might think that all this is unfair because the other side does the same thing. No surprise: people are people, and profits are profits. But the point is, when there is a dispute to settle, it helps to know going in that both groups are full of shit. It helps because the better plan is to stop, not get more full of shit.

Somebody who is told that the results of something that did not happen, would be better than what happened, is not being told by science. Thus, anytime a person refers in their own mind to what they have been told, they should realize that the reference is not from science. If an independent minded individual is searching for the truth, this is true.

How does a person become a non-Libertarian? 

A non-Libertarian is somebody who wants to decide for themselves whether something that did not happen, would be better than what happened. A non-Libertarian can still like brownstone, even though Libertarians apparently love it, and the first thing that a non-Libertarian should know when they see a statement like Dr. Alexander’s, is that somebody is seriously full of shit. And to stay on the positive side, seriousness can be funny, because nobody gets very serious about something obvious. 

Comments

[mschmidt]

Regarding my fairness in evaluating the Institute: I admitted that I was full of shit, so what more can I do? It is better to start from there and possibly have somebody say, “no, that part was ok”, than have somebody say, “no that part was full of shit”.

I might find things I agree with in articles posted by the Brownstone Institute, but the problem with this particular institute is that whatever the fault is, the institute will commit the same offense they complain about, only worse – meaning more flagrantly. And with much drama.

For example, one could agree that a privledged segment of society is fearful of certain things and does weird things as a result; but nobody should use the example of the vaccine mandate as evidence of irrational fear IMO. Why? Because the only rational reason to refuse a vaccine is to be frightened of the vaccine; so, the author must be frightened too, obviously. The way the institute turns the reality upside down, is the same way that a group on the other side might - they use charlatan science.

My point is that none of this is productive except from the perspective of politics and greed. Who says that a rational individual could not make an intelligent decision either way on a vaccine mandate under the circumstances with this virus? But the decision involves consideration of the community too - so what does the institute promote? They suggest that the reasoning of a segment of society on a vaccine mandate should be disregarded because those people are too fearful to make a good decision. I guess we are supposed to believe the author is the brave Libertarian hero. So, the author’s issue is the irrational fear of some group, and he makes his point from a position that must include the same type of fear. Brilliant!

If somebody wants to argue that Dr. Alexander’s statement has been established scientifically, then I give up, and I see no point in arguing about that.

Which brings up the main point; when people are deciding things for themselves and they look to science for information, it is vital to be skeptical and remember what science itself IS – the limitations of what the science itself says.

The observation is that science itself rarely tells us all that people think it does, and the main reason might be that people are routinely misled by science charlatans. These days, if you can convince someone that something has been verified by science, it is hard for them to not come along with the next step.