Quiz Time
We are being tested all the time, whether we realize it or not.
OK, kids, it’s time for a surprise multiple choice quiz. The good news is, there’s only one question:
Which of these does not belong?
A. Law
B. Politics
C. Science
D. Journalism
The correct answer, of course, is science. If you did not immediately recognize that, let me explain. Science is the one discipline that does not take sides. At least, it’s not supposed to.
Let’s review:
Law--The making of law by legislatures is supposed to consider the interests of all parties, and most especially consider the constitution. But it ends there. When there are disputes, the two ‘sides’ bring in the lawyers, and they have at it. In courts, there is the prosecution (or plaintiff), the defense, a judge who referees, and a jury that decides a verdict based on what the two sides have presented and on how the judge has instructed them. It is simplistic beyond measure to presume that justice is invariably served with this system. For better or worse, the Law is intended to be adversarial. The truth, perhaps, comes from that. Perhaps not.
Politics—Does politics take sides? Of course. Is that for the best? Probably not. You could say that politics is like a jury trial, except that there is no judge, and the jury is the voters. One clear example of how poorly the system works is abortion. The overwhelming majority of voters are for some extent of rights to abortion, but not absolute right. Voters are mostly in the middle. Yet our political parties work from the extremes, implying that ‘those other people’ in that ‘other party’ are extremists, wanting to outlaw all abortions, according the propagandists of the one party, or permit all abortion, according to the propagandists of the other party. The actual beliefs of the vast majority of the voters are ignored. The approach makes for great politics, but terrible government. Small wonder, isn’t it? that most Americans are disgusted with both parties.
Journalism— (We’ll come back to science shortly) The media have been shilling the idea that they are impartial purveyors of truth and information. Few believe it anymore, if they ever did. Propaganda dressed up as news is nothing new. I’ve thought about Ben Franklin. He is one of America’s first newspaper publishers. What are the chances that he gave even-handed, neutral reports on conflicts with the British, such as the Boston Tea Party and Bunker Hill? That’s right; no chance.
There’s an old journalism expression, so old that no one knows when it originated, “When the facts contradict the legend, print the legend.” It’s always been that way, but something has changed: The media no longer control communication and reporting. We now have the internet. Now, when they lie, the lies are immediately exposed. The lying is the same as always, it’s the impossibility of hiding the lies that is new. Some media have yet to figure that out.
We now have concerted efforts to inhibit the distribution of ‘misinformation’. What exactly is ‘misinformation’? It is anything that contradicts the media narrative. Do you really think that media want truth over control? No, they want us to believe what they want us to believe. Whatever gets in the way of that is ‘misinformation’.
Oh, wait. It’s the politicians who scream ‘misinformation’! No, no, it’s the lawyers! Really, it’s all of them. And they are largely all the same people. There is no line, not even a fuzzy one, between lawyers, politicians and journalists. When you get down to it, they’re all the same people. Respect for the facts and for truth among these people is, shall we say, lacking.
OK, now let’s examine science. There is a thing called the scientific method. If you take everything I’ve said about Law, Politics and Journalism, and do exactly the opposite, that would be a fairly good approximation of the scientific method. In science, you start with questions, rather than answers. You doubt your hypothesis, rather than doubt the people who question it. You are making no case for ‘your side’ you are making a case for the truth.
I like it that way. I don’t need or want to have ‘the courage of my convictions’. Franky, that’s just plain stupid. If someone can show where my thinking is flawed, I want to know, so I can fix it. If I am lacking in essential information, I want that information. Compare that to Law, Politics, and Journalism, all of which are just different forms proselytizing and manipulation. None of it is designed to, or capable of, finding the truth.
I’ve said repeatedly that the more sure you are that you are right, the more likely you are to be wrong. Those who are sure, do not review, reexamine, contemplate, or otherwise consider other possibilities. Today, we have lawyers, politicians and journalists attempting to commandeer science, to hollow it out form the inside. They hollow it out and then climb in and use their ‘science’ as wolf’s clothing to lend credence to their bullshit.
They are lying. They are the ‘disinformation.”
Observations? Comments? Please let me know.
Like this, Radical! Your voiceover sounds good!