History teaches us that each and every empire has collapsed. Usually under it’s own weight. Pareto has given us a valid explanation – each structure which doesn’t have to ‘refresh’ itself tends to become clogged with self serving individuals, near-sighted enough to ‘forget’ that none of them (none of us, actually) is able to survive ‘outside’. Yet each ’emperor’ allows themselves to believe that this time is different. I’m better than all my predecessors. And their followers allow this to happen, just as Pareto had taught us.
‘They is a rational operator hence they must have a reasonable objective’. That’s how people raised/educated in a reasonable environment think/interpret the actions of other people. This being the reason for democratically groomed leaders having such a hard time when they need to understand how dictators operate. This being the reason for democratically groomed political operators having such a hard time when it comes to identify skillful would be dictators.
Let us imagine, for a moment – or longer, than among the already innumerable objects circling the Earth is yet another surveillance satellite. One operated by aliens…
What would they think of the current developments?
One of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council – the topmost watchdog pretending to guard the ‘normalcy’ on Earth, brazenly attacks its neighbor. Both the aggressor and the victim are members of the organization watched over by the Security Council. But the aggressor has veto power over the Council. And, of course, uses that power whenever it sees fit. Another of the “five permanent members” of the Council chooses to abstain from voting. When the Council is discussing the aggression perpetrated by one of the permanent members of the Council against another fully recognized member of the ‘international community’.
Would the alien observers be laughing their heads off? Would they keep us isolated from the rest of the Universe? Lest we spread our suicidal behavior ‘among the stars’…? Both at the same time?!?
Quite a lot of people around the Internet are considering that ‘Ukraine is of little interest for the US’. Even some of the Europeans are considering that isolating Putin’s Russia from ‘SWIFT’ is a too steep price to be paid, by them, for Ukraine’s independence.
I remind them, all of them, of what Martin Niemoeller had to say on this subject.
I’ve trained to be an engineer. And practiced being one. Then I felt the need to understand. And studied sociology. That’s how I learned, the hard way, the difference between ‘hard’ science and ‘soft’ science. Between ‘bona fide’ science and ‘bogus’ science…
Those of us still convinced that soft science is bogus have yet to grasp the whole meaning of ‘science’. A collection of ‘special’ data, a ‘special’ method of gathering data and a ‘special’ state of mind.
We all know what ‘scientific data’ and ‘scientific method’ mean. But there is almost no talk about ‘scientific state of mind’. Most people consider that ‘scientific thinking’ is solelly about applying the scientific method when dealing with the ‘reality’. With what happens ‘outside’ of us. Outside of our individual consciences…
Historically, science – the concept of science, had sprung up in the minds of people concerned primarily with physics and chemistry. Hence the subsidiary concept of ‘consistency’. Data can be considered to be scientific only if it had been gathered in a ‘consistent’ manner. If by applying the same method, in the same circumstances, the end results will be the same – regardless of who had happened to be at the helm of the experiment. And a method can be considered to be scientific only if it produces the same data whenever it is applyed, in the same circumstances, by no matter whom.
I’m sure that, by now, at least some of you have figured out what I’m driving at. The main difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ science is, of course, related to the relative inconsistency of the data yielded by the ‘soft’ sciences. This being the reason for which some people cannot even accept the ‘scientific’ nature of the soft sciences…
Hence the need to discuss about the ‘scientific’ ‘state of mind’… Let me start by pointing out the fact that we, people, are rationalizers. We pretend to be rational, true, but in reality we are nothing but very astute rationalizers. So astute that we are not even aware of the fact. We are so convinced of our rational nature that we are fooling ourselves.
Accepting that we are deep enough into rationalization that we need to pay special attention when trying to be objective is the first step towards attaining a scientific state of mind. The second, and just as important, step being the respect we need to extend towards our peers. Towards our fellow experimenters.
Changing tack – and approaching ‘scientific state of mind’ from another angle, I might try to describe it as a ‘work in progress’. A never ending attempt at self improvement made by someone fully aware of the fact that they’ll never get there. Yet still striving towards that goal. A never ending attempt made by somebody who knows they’ll never get ‘there’ yet they continue to encourage others to go further and further up that road. A never ending attempt made by people who know they’ll never get there yet they respectfully help each-other towards their common goal.
And now, that I’ve done my best to explain what I mean by ‘scientific state of mind’ let me delve in the main subject. The real difference between soft and hard science.
By their very nature, hard sciences are defined by the fact that an explanation constitutes a very good prediction. If you are capable of explaining the Earth rotation around the Sun you are also able to compute where the Earth will be 10 seconds from now. As well as ten centuries from now… If you are capable of explaining radio-activity you are also able to build an atomic bomb. By understanding how DNA works we have been able to come up with a mRNA vaccine against the SarsCOV-2 virus. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
The problem with soft sciences being that in their case, explanations – no matter how precise, cannot predict much. We know why a maniac behaves like one – because …, but we don’t know what a maniac will actually do. Nor when… We know that a free market works better than a monopoly but we cannot agree upon how free a market should be. Nor can we agree upon what a ‘free market’ really looks like… We know what will eventually happen to an empire – it will fall, because of ‘negative selection’, but we never know exactly when and how that will happen… nor what will occur between the establishment of the empire and its eventual demise.
Now, that Putin had recognized Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states, I keep hearing that ‘if NATO hadn’t integrated the former socialist states in the Eastern Europe, Russia wouldn’t have occupied Crimea nor encouraged the ‘freedom fighters’ in Luhansk and Donetsk’.
NATO, and UE, are not perfect. Far from it. Yet the former USSR had been even less perfect.
What drove me to this conclusion? Well, both NATO and the EU are thriving. People and countries flock to join in. The very present conflict in and around Ukraine had been sparked by Putin’s ‘unhappiness’ with the Ukrainian people insisting in joining both NATO and the EU. Meanwhile, the USSR is no longer with us. Had collapsed, under its own weight, some 30 years ago.
The second difference between these supranational entities – NATO and the EU on one side and USSR on the other, is the ‘small’ matter of how a member got to join the club.
In NATO’s case – valid also for the EU, a prospective member state has to ask for it first and then wait to be accepted. The USSR had been organized under the ‘invitation only’ principle. If you were invited, you had to join. Regardless…
CSI, the Community of ‘Independent’ States, is organized under the same principle!
Btw 1. Did I mention that the USSR had crumbled under its own weight? By allowing self serving callous political operators to grab too much power? Too much power for their own selves as well for their country’s well being?
Could we attribute the demise of the USSR on the fact that the bolsheviks were ‘house broken’ into ‘toeing the line’ while here, in the West, some people still dare to speak up their minds?
In the sense that for that person, ratings – a.k.a. ‘money’ – are far more important than presenting an as accurate as possible version of reality…
Hence the public belief that ‘media are not to be trusted’.
A reality created by the greed with which we, as a cultured species, attempt to transform everything into money…., power…, or any other kind of ‘influence’/relevance we happen to covet….
Well, at that time Rogan had just moved his podcast – from September 1, 2020, on Spotify. After receiving $100 million for a “multi-year licensing” deal.
If you don’t know, we’re still in the middle of a pandemic. Caused by SARS Cov2, an airborne virus which kills people. 5,682,971 worldwide when I last checked.
Joe Rogan, the comedian, thought he had to cover the subject. So he had invited a controversial figure, Dr. Robert Malone, for an interview. The interview had become viral. But the ‘information’ being peddled by Dr.Malone had provoked the indignation of his fellow physicians.
As usual in this kind of circumstances, the netizens have taken sides. Some manifest their indignation against the capitalists who make money by spreading false information. Others manifest their indignation against the ‘cancel culture’ which limits the freedom of expression of those who contradict the opinions held by the intransigent majority.
As usual in this kind of circumstances, I try to explore alternative venues of looking at what’s going on. Let me remind those of you who are not familiar with the Romanian language that ‘Nici-chiar-asa’ means ‘not so fast’ (or ‘don’t over do it’) in my native language.
So. Why would a huge number of people – the Malone interview went “viral”, attempt to get information about a raging pandemic by watching a stand-up comedy show? Hosted by a “comedian” who recently had to issue an apology for things which he had said in one of his shows… Those people had been mesmerized by the ‘past experience’ of Dr. Malone? “Who touts himself as one of the architects of mRNA technology”…. Maybe… but those people shouldn’t have googled Dr. Malone’s name before sharing the interview? To their like minded brethren? Before making it viral? They would have learned that Dr. Malone had already been banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation…
‘Those people do not believe that media venues should restrict the freedom of people speaking up their minds’…
Then whatever preventive measure are put in place by the likes of Spotify will amount to exactly nothing!
Having no previous intel about this guy, my ‘jerked’ reaction was simple.
‘Leaving aside any principle, a society which cuts ‘fallopian’ tubes will have a lower birth rate while that which vaccinates its children will notice a decrease in healthcare costs. And a lower mortality across the entire age spectrum!’
OK, let’s calm down and google. To find out who was this Oliver Wendell Holmes, after all.
“In that long span of (30) years on the Supreme Court he became acknowledged as one of the most notable jurists of the age—in the opinion of many the foremost. Often he has been called The Great Dissenter because of the brilliance of his dissenting opinions, but the phrase gives a falsely negative emphasis, and his penetration and originality are seen as fully in the opinions in which he expressed or concurred in the majority view of the court as in those in which he was in dissent.”
“Perhaps his best-known phrase is from Schenck v. United States, where he introduced the ‘clear-and-present-danger’ test as a means of limiting the power of the state to restrict speech and illustrated it by reference to a person’s ‘falsely shouting fire in a theater.’ His later development of this test, coupled with his emphasis on a basically unregulated ‘marketplace of ideas,’ was seminal for the development of modern free-speech law. His retirement in 1932 was a national event, and he has remained, along with John Marshall, among the best known of all those who have served on the Supreme Court.”
“Few American jurists are as revered as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. A United States Supreme Court justice for close to 30 years, Holmes wrote seminal opinions that were clear and clever and elegantly phrased. It was Holmes who defined the limits of free speech in 1919 by noting that the law did not protect someone “falsely shouting fire in a theater.” And it was Holmes who thoughtfully amended those words a decade later by writing that nothing in the Constitution was more sacred than “the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” By most accounts, Holmes, an upper-crust Bostonian, served the nobler instincts of America’s privileged classes. That is why his reckless majority opinion supporting forced sterilization in a 1927 case remains an enigma. Was it an isolated misstep or something more: an indictment of Justice Holmes and the Progressive movement he appeared to embrace?”
“We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.“ . . .
Perhaps worst of all, Carrie Buck was not an imbecile. Both she and her mother were deemed “social undesirables” due to a perception of promiscuity which, in Carrie’s case, partially resulted from an illegitimate child who was the product of incestuous rape. This was fairly typical. The linked article describes how “people as young as 10 in North Carolina were sterilized for not getting along with schoolmates, being promiscuous or running afoul of local social workers or doctors.”
In all, more than 60,000 people—including 7,600 in North Carolina—were forcibly sterilized in the United States in the name of “progress.” Progressives of the time lauded the decision in Buck. Individual rights, they firmly believed, should not be allowed to stand in the way of collective progress. Justice Brandeis called Buck an example of properly allowing states the freedom to “meet modern conditions by regulations which a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive.””
So. Who was the ‘real’ Oliver Wendell Holmes? That one whose teachings we choose to put forward, of course! Exactly as Justice Holmes had done himself. And why is it our responsibility to choose? Simple. It’s us, and our children, who will bear the consequences. Who will have to live in the environment shaped by those choices.
Cassandra by Evelyn De Morgan (1898, London); Cassandra in front of the burning city of Troy
“Oh God, please make it so that my prophecies won’t come to life!” “I’m sorry Cassandra, that’s what I made Man for. Now, it’s Their job to heed to your warnings!”
The larger your ‘skull’ is, the more ideas – sometimes conflicting ones, you are able to ‘harbor’.
This guy, a 31 years old father of two, is looking forward for a heart transplant.
Meaning that he, and his family, trust the doctors who are going to perform the surgery. Who are going to open up his chest, take his failing heart out, sew the ‘re-cycled’ one in and patch him up again. Doctors who need to hook him up to various machines and to pump him full of chemicals in order to maintain him alive – but unconscious, during the procedure. And who are going to closely monitor him – and, again, administer him a lot of vital drugs, during the rest of his life.
Meanwhile he, and his family, don’t trust the doctors who tell him he needs to get a Covid jab first.
