Well, at the very least, we must credit Pope Francis for his courage in speaking out. What a controversial position he is taking! How brave. I am glad when religious leaders use their position of authority to parrot government propaganda and talking points. (Part of the reason I was relieved to see the Dalai Lama and Sadhguru pushing Covid vaccination. It would be devastating if a spiritual leader were to demonstrate profound wisdom and prescience.)
Why are you assuming that literally any of the actual scientists asserting these measures actually believe in their efficacy and have not simply been acting to seize power or save their jobs from the beginning?
Here's an explanation that I think is at least as parsimonious as "brilliant scientists suddenly forget fundamental principles they've known and acted under for years": Oh, shit, this thing is happening. Politicians want to do SOMEthing. What's a good, demonstrative thing we can say they should do that probably won't do a distinguishable amount of harm against a pandemic that's happening anyway, that will get us spotlight and also keep us on the good side of the people using the situation to seize power?
Yes, it's probably an assumption that I need to revisit.
The place where I was working before heading back to the UK is a case in point. Going against the government line there could land you in serious trouble, not to mention summary dismissal. So, yes, we didn't speak out except anonymously - but whilst opinion was divided I would say the majority of us in the maths/physics side of things thought the covid measures were stupid.
I had hoped or assumed, I suppose, that in places where criticizing official policy was more acceptable and less subject to punitive action we might see more of a pushback. I've not read more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the papers that have been published on covid, but my impression is one of 'uniformity of narrative' - with a few exceptions.
I think I have too much optimism and faith in my fellow scientists and don't properly factor in things I know. I knew that a fair few of the people I worked with, for example, simply could not afford to put their families in jeopardy by losing their jobs, or freedom, or having to pay a punitive fine - or all three. It's one thing for me, at the end of a career and with almost no family commitments to speak out, quite another for those in different circumstances to do so - and I find it hard to be too critical of them.
The same thing is happening with all the 'woke' nonsense - we've seen lots of examples now where an academic who speaks out against it gets hounded out of their jobs and finds it difficult to get another appointment. We might criticize the reluctance of many to speak out as a lack of courage to stand up for their principles - and in some respects this is true - but the flip side is that some of these people have families who would suffer for those principles. So it's definitely not an easy thing.
These are good questions to which I don't have any good answers.
I don't think I could set out, a priori, a list of 'conditions' because everyone's situation is going to be different. It might be OK to take a principled stand if you could just walk into another job, for example - but that's not the case for some.
I wrote a bit about Sabatini the other day. Now this guy is good, very good. But it looks like he's effectively unemployable in his home country now despite being at the top of his field.
Your corollary there has a bit of a flavour of sacrifice for the greater good - and that's the line trotted out in support of the covid theatre.
But I'm gonna have to cogitate a bit more - because this is all wrapped up in 'free speech' issues - which isn't just about legislation but also about all of the pressures, societal and financial etc, that come into play.
The Galileo affair is one of the most misunderstood events in history. Laurence Princip, a professor at John's Hopkins, devotes a lecture of his "Great Courses" series to destroying the ignorance and bigotry surrounding this drama in his course "Science and Religion."
Science is most certainly not on a fearless quest for truth. It never was. Scientists shackle themselves and prohibit investigation into uncomfortable, politically incorrect topics.
Science, in an abstract sense, is on quest for the truth - but as this process is 'operated' by scientists, who are human beings, it's definitely not fearless - or without a whole ton of subjective pressures. Things like having to publish, get grant funding, keep your job, and avoid being burned at the stake will all factor in.
Humans can think only in systems, no matter how primitive those systems (cognitive models) tend to be most of the time.
A system cannot be built, unless there is a fundamental premise that must be believed without questioning. After that, there is no turning back, except for starting over with a different premise.
It is a good idea to prioritize among one's cognitive models in order to pick the most applicable model for addressing a problem or a situation.
I do not particularly like Pope Francis, but I deem use of Galilei as example a bit unfair. Yes, Galilei was mostly right but the whole struggle with the church took place in an epistemological arena. He went from hypothesis to theory without sufficient evidence, and the church wanted further discussion under the hypothesis umbrella. And he was fully vindicated by the church. Yes, that was hundreds of years later, but what is an appropriate reaction time for an institution that has managed to survive for 2000 years? Regarding Darwin, the whole process went much faster.
I think that, by now, the biggest danger for the church is the attempt to keep up with an exponentially changing world.
Yes, the Galileo "incident" is more complex - but the long and short of it is that his views were deemed heretical by the church. He was placed under house arrest until his death for those problematic views of his.
Fairly clear cut case of the establishment promoting a party line and woe-betide anyone who strays from it. 400 years later and we have the same kind of authoritarianism with regard to covid.
I suppose we can be thankful they didn't burn him at the stake.
I don't really see any reading of the Galileo incident that paints the church as the "good guys" here - despite some modern interpretations appearing to veer that way.
No, the church were not the "good guys" but they were the powerful guys - maybe much more powerful, in terms of relative difference between them and the people, than today's Western governments. In this light, Galilei's punishment (individual lockdown with home office but without annoying Zoom meetings, basically) seems quite light to me.
In some ways religion is a science, a science in how to get people to behave. When the Greeks came up with the Pentateuch (for those outraged at such a suggestion please note the Greek name) many years ago (exactly how many is lost in the fog of MONKey business with fake epochs) their stated aim was to 'create a new man'. Did they succeed? I'm not sure that they did, religion was often forced on people at the end of a sword and once forced then became subject to local variations. But there was still quite some effort to change all those Greek stories and history to a new version, one that would supposedly help the Greeks of the time to run an Empire. And later the Romans who added Christianity to the mix after much experimentation with other religions.
I used to be fascinated by religions and spent quite a bit of time reading about the 'big 3' of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I grew up in a Catholic environment, went to Catholic schools, and I was intrigued by the history of it all and how certain things came to be believed. I came out of that process more impressed by Judaism than the other 2 and knowing that certain things I had been taught to believe were essentially 'spin', or more akin to a propagandizing distortion of the truth.
I'm not going to judge the religions that came out of this experiment. They were all attempts by empire, Greek, Roman, Persian. But I prefer the older Greek religion as it had female and male gods and connections with the biosphere (i.e. the elements, food, wine) and I think this would have been better kept.
Religion is a form of ideology, serving to secure the established order. After all, the masses need something convincing and comforting towards succumbing to their fates ("They deserve to suck d*, but it's okay, because as Obama used to say, "help is coming"; well, as always, you need quite a bit of imagination to see the "help" materialized).
In the Middle Ages, monks/nuns were "hired hands" for prayers. Monasteries also served as depositories for the nobles' lower-ranking sons and daughters without much dowry.
The world could use prayers today, too.
St. Thomas Aquinas merged Theology with Aristotelian logic, but I consider the very effort a fallacy (unless the Pascalian "road to God" is discounted, but Pascal had personal experiences, too, which were considered Protestantism at the time, so Jansenism was wiped out in 1711), because it wants to address an existential question (Do I want to live in a world without a benign Creator?) with logic. Atheism is plain dumb; there is obviously a Creator, but the question is, whether "it" means well or is only engaged in a stupid computer game at a higher elevation of existence. That question cannot be answered with logic, so the answer enters the realms of emotions, intuitions and, ultimately, of the person's existential needs.
Considering the self-destructive nature of humanity, it has reached global levels. Previously, empires were graciously allowed to fall to someone else to carry on, but this time, nobody will have been left to start over.
Sometimes I wonder if "the Pope" has been a double from the beginning or just part of the pure evil that is still being installed and institutionalized by the monsters.
Well, at the very least, we must credit Pope Francis for his courage in speaking out. What a controversial position he is taking! How brave. I am glad when religious leaders use their position of authority to parrot government propaganda and talking points. (Part of the reason I was relieved to see the Dalai Lama and Sadhguru pushing Covid vaccination. It would be devastating if a spiritual leader were to demonstrate profound wisdom and prescience.)
Why are you assuming that literally any of the actual scientists asserting these measures actually believe in their efficacy and have not simply been acting to seize power or save their jobs from the beginning?
Here's an explanation that I think is at least as parsimonious as "brilliant scientists suddenly forget fundamental principles they've known and acted under for years": Oh, shit, this thing is happening. Politicians want to do SOMEthing. What's a good, demonstrative thing we can say they should do that probably won't do a distinguishable amount of harm against a pandemic that's happening anyway, that will get us spotlight and also keep us on the good side of the people using the situation to seize power?
Yes, it's probably an assumption that I need to revisit.
The place where I was working before heading back to the UK is a case in point. Going against the government line there could land you in serious trouble, not to mention summary dismissal. So, yes, we didn't speak out except anonymously - but whilst opinion was divided I would say the majority of us in the maths/physics side of things thought the covid measures were stupid.
I had hoped or assumed, I suppose, that in places where criticizing official policy was more acceptable and less subject to punitive action we might see more of a pushback. I've not read more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the papers that have been published on covid, but my impression is one of 'uniformity of narrative' - with a few exceptions.
I think I have too much optimism and faith in my fellow scientists and don't properly factor in things I know. I knew that a fair few of the people I worked with, for example, simply could not afford to put their families in jeopardy by losing their jobs, or freedom, or having to pay a punitive fine - or all three. It's one thing for me, at the end of a career and with almost no family commitments to speak out, quite another for those in different circumstances to do so - and I find it hard to be too critical of them.
The same thing is happening with all the 'woke' nonsense - we've seen lots of examples now where an academic who speaks out against it gets hounded out of their jobs and finds it difficult to get another appointment. We might criticize the reluctance of many to speak out as a lack of courage to stand up for their principles - and in some respects this is true - but the flip side is that some of these people have families who would suffer for those principles. So it's definitely not an easy thing.
Serious question.
What conditions would, in your mind, not justify acquiescence for the sake of "needing to support one's family?"
Corollary. How should the people who can no longer support their families feel when their destruction was facilitated by silence?
These are good questions to which I don't have any good answers.
I don't think I could set out, a priori, a list of 'conditions' because everyone's situation is going to be different. It might be OK to take a principled stand if you could just walk into another job, for example - but that's not the case for some.
I wrote a bit about Sabatini the other day. Now this guy is good, very good. But it looks like he's effectively unemployable in his home country now despite being at the top of his field.
Your corollary there has a bit of a flavour of sacrifice for the greater good - and that's the line trotted out in support of the covid theatre.
But I'm gonna have to cogitate a bit more - because this is all wrapped up in 'free speech' issues - which isn't just about legislation but also about all of the pressures, societal and financial etc, that come into play.
Insert "first they came for the..." poem here.
Slanderman
I've just removed this last comment of yours
It was too offensive in my view
I'll let your other comments stand for now - even though I haven't the faintest idea what you're blathering on about - or even what planet you're on
The Galileo affair is one of the most misunderstood events in history. Laurence Princip, a professor at John's Hopkins, devotes a lecture of his "Great Courses" series to destroying the ignorance and bigotry surrounding this drama in his course "Science and Religion."
Science is most certainly not on a fearless quest for truth. It never was. Scientists shackle themselves and prohibit investigation into uncomfortable, politically incorrect topics.
Science, in an abstract sense, is on quest for the truth - but as this process is 'operated' by scientists, who are human beings, it's definitely not fearless - or without a whole ton of subjective pressures. Things like having to publish, get grant funding, keep your job, and avoid being burned at the stake will all factor in.
Humans can think only in systems, no matter how primitive those systems (cognitive models) tend to be most of the time.
A system cannot be built, unless there is a fundamental premise that must be believed without questioning. After that, there is no turning back, except for starting over with a different premise.
It is a good idea to prioritize among one's cognitive models in order to pick the most applicable model for addressing a problem or a situation.
I do not particularly like Pope Francis, but I deem use of Galilei as example a bit unfair. Yes, Galilei was mostly right but the whole struggle with the church took place in an epistemological arena. He went from hypothesis to theory without sufficient evidence, and the church wanted further discussion under the hypothesis umbrella. And he was fully vindicated by the church. Yes, that was hundreds of years later, but what is an appropriate reaction time for an institution that has managed to survive for 2000 years? Regarding Darwin, the whole process went much faster.
I think that, by now, the biggest danger for the church is the attempt to keep up with an exponentially changing world.
Yes, the Galileo "incident" is more complex - but the long and short of it is that his views were deemed heretical by the church. He was placed under house arrest until his death for those problematic views of his.
Fairly clear cut case of the establishment promoting a party line and woe-betide anyone who strays from it. 400 years later and we have the same kind of authoritarianism with regard to covid.
I suppose we can be thankful they didn't burn him at the stake.
I don't really see any reading of the Galileo incident that paints the church as the "good guys" here - despite some modern interpretations appearing to veer that way.
No, the church were not the "good guys" but they were the powerful guys - maybe much more powerful, in terms of relative difference between them and the people, than today's Western governments. In this light, Galilei's punishment (individual lockdown with home office but without annoying Zoom meetings, basically) seems quite light to me.
In some ways religion is a science, a science in how to get people to behave. When the Greeks came up with the Pentateuch (for those outraged at such a suggestion please note the Greek name) many years ago (exactly how many is lost in the fog of MONKey business with fake epochs) their stated aim was to 'create a new man'. Did they succeed? I'm not sure that they did, religion was often forced on people at the end of a sword and once forced then became subject to local variations. But there was still quite some effort to change all those Greek stories and history to a new version, one that would supposedly help the Greeks of the time to run an Empire. And later the Romans who added Christianity to the mix after much experimentation with other religions.
I used to be fascinated by religions and spent quite a bit of time reading about the 'big 3' of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I grew up in a Catholic environment, went to Catholic schools, and I was intrigued by the history of it all and how certain things came to be believed. I came out of that process more impressed by Judaism than the other 2 and knowing that certain things I had been taught to believe were essentially 'spin', or more akin to a propagandizing distortion of the truth.
I'm not going to judge the religions that came out of this experiment. They were all attempts by empire, Greek, Roman, Persian. But I prefer the older Greek religion as it had female and male gods and connections with the biosphere (i.e. the elements, food, wine) and I think this would have been better kept.
Religion is a form of ideology, serving to secure the established order. After all, the masses need something convincing and comforting towards succumbing to their fates ("They deserve to suck d*, but it's okay, because as Obama used to say, "help is coming"; well, as always, you need quite a bit of imagination to see the "help" materialized).
In the Middle Ages, monks/nuns were "hired hands" for prayers. Monasteries also served as depositories for the nobles' lower-ranking sons and daughters without much dowry.
The world could use prayers today, too.
St. Thomas Aquinas merged Theology with Aristotelian logic, but I consider the very effort a fallacy (unless the Pascalian "road to God" is discounted, but Pascal had personal experiences, too, which were considered Protestantism at the time, so Jansenism was wiped out in 1711), because it wants to address an existential question (Do I want to live in a world without a benign Creator?) with logic. Atheism is plain dumb; there is obviously a Creator, but the question is, whether "it" means well or is only engaged in a stupid computer game at a higher elevation of existence. That question cannot be answered with logic, so the answer enters the realms of emotions, intuitions and, ultimately, of the person's existential needs.
Considering the self-destructive nature of humanity, it has reached global levels. Previously, empires were graciously allowed to fall to someone else to carry on, but this time, nobody will have been left to start over.
Sometimes I wonder if "the Pope" has been a double from the beginning or just part of the pure evil that is still being installed and institutionalized by the monsters.