On Facts, Evidence, and Value

One of the issues I continually face when discussing the vaxx/Covid/political theater that is our current circumstance is that it’s almost impossible to get some folks to agree on what constitutes evidence, what a fact is, or that there is value in seeking truth versus just believing anything that happens to jive with one’s biases.

Simply put, no amount of evidence-based argument for the value of facts and data will matter to someone who doesn’t value a take on reality based on data and fact. If they don’t see the value in evidence-based veracity (no matter how they might feel about that veracity once arrived at), then there’s no point in arguing the merits of the tools one uses to determine veracity.

This is all part of a deficient, almost childlike, coping strategy. When one becomes overloaded with “too much” conflicting information, and one lacks a razor with which to parse truth from fiction (or perhaps the more “probable” true facts/interpretation of fact), one can opt to simply shut down, choose a tribe, and then stick to the tribe’s dogma regardless of how provably inane or untrue it is. I believe this is why humanity goes through periods of witch burning or tulip bulb speculation or genocidal embracing of “the noble lie” required to achieve some touted end. It’s easier to go along to get along than to live in a world where everything is subject to rigorous questioning and nothing can be assumed to be true. Nobody likes the idea that powerful forces connive 24/7 to achieve their psycopathic ends, and that these forces have spent decades, if not centuries, undermining and co-opting every instrument designed to protect society from them. Far more comforting is that a sonorous figure in a suit or uniform or ceremonial garb is protecting us from evil, so to many, that possibility is the preferred truth no matter how it conflicts with objective reality (as an example, you have a clear paper trail that Fauci funded the gain of function research that resulted in COVID, and has lied about it at every turn, and yet is the official narrative’s authority figure who must be believed regardless of this inconvenient/ugly set of verifiable facts).

Bluntly, arguing facts or data with many is a pointless endeavor. Nobody will thank you later when it turns out you were correct. Nobody will admit they were mistaken a year or two after sufficient data has accumulated to arrive at a determination. Nobody wants to have been duped. And nobody wants to have made a mistake so catastrophic that it has radically shortened their life, and the lives of those they love.

For this reason, pointing out data like massive adverse events and deaths and mounting evidence of long term immune system devastation by the shots is often met with either anger, or a blank stare, or “whataboutism,” where the subject is changed to a different question than the one you’re seeking to answer or explain. “Are you saying you think they’re trying to kill us” is substituted for the reasonable question of “how many deaths and injuries are reasonable to expect in a shot designed to protect us from a bug with a 99.9%+ survival rate?” It is a typical bait and switch the likes of which became ubiquitous after 9-11 in the American psyche, and remains firmly rooted to this day. It is a kind of anti-intellectual tribalism, where there can only be this, or that, and nothing possible in-between. Nuanced examination, understanding how cherry picking data or facts to fit a narrative are obvious signs of a lack of veracity, refusing to accept censorship of the inconvenient facts that show the lie (or expert opinion that conflicts with the narrative), all of these are jettisoned in favor of “defending” a point of view that is the only “acceptable one,” rather than determining the truth.

A society that stops caring about the truth is a doomed one. Lacking a barometer rooted in fact, that society can be convinced of virtually anything - no absurdity is too unbalanced. And unbalanced societies have historically been murderous ones. That is the end result of turning one’s back on veracity in favor of comforting fallacies.

I believe that the “West” has been socially engineered over at least 5 generations to be apathetic, incapable of rational examination or logical reasoning, morally untethered, intellectually dishonest and accepting of such as inevitable - all quite deliberately, via the education system, the media, political agendas where traditional coherence models are destroyed and replaced by deficient, self-destructive examples, by moral relativism…all to achieve a return to a feudal system humanity broke free of post-enlightenment.

Old habits die hard, and it’s seductive to believe “we” are better equipped to make decisions than “them,” by virtue of our wit or wealth or accomplishments or willingness to do the unthinkable or our narcissistic delusions of grandeur. And once we believe that, it’s obvious that most aren’t our equals, and thus would be better served being controlled by us rathan than dictating terms to us. As one wag said recently, “we’re all for democracy until the rubes vote the ‘wrong’ way.”

If you can get a society to sever its moorings from the values that ensured it could prosper, then you can control it. I believe that’s what we have seen, certainly during my lifetime. Hypocrisy is institutionalized, corruption is accepted as inevitable, inequality is a certainty, and you can’t fight city hall so there’s no point in even trying.

I’m a pragmatic optimist, and the rebellion from Canadian truckers and French and Australian protestors is optimistic. Not so much are the draconian authoritarian tactics being used to crush them. It’s looking more and more like there is a very real war being waged now, with those who value freedom and self-determination on one side, and those who will use the full force of the state’s monopoly on violence on the other. Whomever prevails will largely depend on which faction the majority supports, including by simply choosing not to take a side.

Enter the state-engineered apathy and its usefulness in controlling the masses.

If you can so throw a population off balance that it can’t determine the basics, you own them. If there is no such thing as objective, verifiable fact, then whatever you say is interchangeable with fact, and will be treated by the mob as such. I fear that’s where we are, and it isn’t looking good for those who value reason for separating truth from falsehood. Worse, the majority doesn’t seem to even care what is true or what isn’t.

Scary times indeed.