Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Hysteria, Science, and Certitude. Oh, my!
I work in technology. I currently spend most of my days creating tools to make the observed performance of super computers more explainable. Explainability is a long-standing problem in complex systems of all kinds. It’s a huge problem in machine learning in addition to super computers, which are themselves often comprised of thousands of distinctly different compute engines, each performing only a fragment of the total calculation. The more complex the system, the more critical it is to begin one’s investigation with humility. Humility is like some kind of magical elixir of extreme curiosity: if you think you already know a lot, you are unmotivated to explore. Which, I guess, is a rubber-meets-the-road existence proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Also probably why high self-esteem can be the enemy of achievement. One of the very best data scientists I know, when asked what he does for a living, has been known to reply, “I’m a data scientist, but none of us really knows what we’re doing.”
Which brings me to Covid. When faced with the uncertainty caused by complexity, there is a very human eagerness to get past that pesky uncertainty and move on to a point of comfortable certitude. That way you feel when you’re trying to get past the homeless guy on your way into Starbucks.
We are living through very uncertain times, and it seems to me that much of the social upheaval between all sides of the Covid-response wars represents a kind of hysteria rooted in a maniacal need to feel as if we have sufficient answers. Many of us are eager to race past the open questions (e.g. “masks now and forevermore”) and adopt a posture of certitude. Everyone, of course, claims “science” as the mascot of their Covid response doctrine.
Most of us are unqualified to thoroughly evaluate the science, but who wants to be unscientific? So we’re faced with one of two choices: believe the authorities, or believe our own lyin’ eyes. Some people, let’s call them “faucists,” are actually eager to trust the authorities. They trust that bureaucrats who have grown fat at the federal trough nevertheless have the citizen’s best interests at heart. Maybe they do – “no one knows the heart of man” (St. Paul). But I am harassed by doubts. The faucists, though, banish all such doubts and would even dearly love to banish other people who have doubts, especially if those doubts are regarding the altruism of government-made gazillionaires. The faucists have found certitude, but it is certitude borrowed from the authorities. They have embraced a bureaucrat’s certitude as their own.
On the other hand, some people want to develop their own certitude about Covid, let’s call them “roganists.” Usually unwilling to consider even the possibility of confirmation bias, roganists draw their conclusions from a multitude of assembled anecdotes regarding people who have actually recovered. Anecdotes are not data, of course, but that does not impede the determination of the roganists to find certitude in anecdotal evidence. And it is important to note, by the way, that anecdotes are evidence and don’t have to be ignored merely because they did not meet the fastidious standards of the biotech community or their bureaucratic allies in the government. Nevertheless, I suspect the certitude of the roganists suffers from the same problem as that of the faucists, which is that the trustworthiness of their source of certitude is essentially unknown.
The thorny problem we have is that, in the current complex environment, there’s no way to rush the acquisition of certainty. That means two things if we’re going to live as fully human. First, we’re going to have to find it within ourselves to recalibrate our notion of acceptable risk – a tiny notch higher. Still far below what most of our ancestors lived with – especially those before antibiotics. But it’s a teeny bit higher and we need to live fully anyway. Second, we’re going to have to be patient and allow for the passage of time to develop a more fully informed understanding.
Some things just–take–time.
In the meantime, we need to recognize that, however much we’d like to cling to a faux sort of certainty, we can’t yet really have actual certainty. So graciousness is called for. And liberty. And tenderness.
And by all means, we need to mock the self-serving pretense of certainty offered up by government bureaucrats. And we need to sympathize with the fears of our neighbors who have understandably lost faith in the authorities. Most of them are just trying to find their way to safety.
Even though I believe none of us has the certainty we would like to think we have, it’s still ok, if we’re so inclined, to join together in giving a hearty Bronx cheer to the multi-millionaire patron saint of the faucists.
Published in General
Great post. It reminds me of a phrase from Buddhism, “don’t-know mind,” which doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything, but we benefit many times from simply saying to ourselves, “I don’t know.” Most people will latch onto certainty about just about anything, rather than live in uncertainty. But trying to maintain that mindset is very difficult; real life tends to remind us that certainty rarely exists. It’s taken a while, but I try to practice “don’t-know mind,” so that if the time comes when we begin to approach certainty, I’ll recognize it. Even then, I won’t know for certain!
I really like this post — and not only because it begins with an entirely too brief synopsis of what must be a fascinating job. If you want to write more about that, the handful of computer nerds here (quickly raises hand) would be interested in hearing about it.
I think you may perhaps be a little too gracious in your characterization of the COVID hawk position, as I think a substantial part of the extremism has to do with a Karenesque obsession with compliance as a good in itself. But your main point, about the need for a bit of humility at both extremes, is, I think, spot on.
And this I very much liked:
Absolutely.
Great post, Keith.
The Leftists. One of the practical things our scientific endeavors seek is to establish knowledge of what works. As a civil society we look to make sure what we find from science works in a social context. Leftists have proven they don’t subscribe to this process since no matter how many time the collective societal approach has proven not to work, they keep trying.
I’m old enough to have a good memory of life before we had polio vaccines. Of course, that was right after we had prevailed in World War II so I’m sure attitudes were different.
And Fauci knows better, too.
Just briefly, when people in the business,– doctors, researchers, MD government advisors, and MD statisticians — start saying “This isn’t how it’s done, something doesn’t add up,” maybe it’s time to listen to them.
And when researchers change their story — especially after getting millions of dollars donated to their universities — maybe something’s up. And when companies and researchers are allied with organizations that have a history of abusing populations, maybe it’s time to stop believing the industry and government statements.
And when the media start censoring views opposed to the industry and government statements, maybe they’re truly hiding something.
And when the whole pandemic — including dealing with protests — are planned out mere months before the start of the pandemic, for the same pathogen that shows up, maybe the whole pandemic is planned.
Yes. There are a lot of well-established professionals in medicine, statistics, and scientific research opposing various parts of what the government is feeding to the people and we have never had anything like that before in my memory. There is no great incentive for these established professionals to be doing this which really fortifies their position with the people.
I just saw someone on youtube yesterday who says he’s been saying the same thing for a year now: that there are five basic ways to deal with obstreperous scientists.
1 — Counterfeit some science
2 — Harass scientists; censor, intimidate, threaten, fire, create false background stories and motivations, ridicule and question their sanity
3 — Manufacture uncertainty and divert conversation from the topics that run contrary to their PR
4 — Buy credibility by allying with academia and professional orgs, and
5 — Manipulate government offices and scientists to peddle their influence to the public.
Also attack studies by calling them
1 — insufficient
2 — low quality
3 — weak, and
4 — fraudulent.
Where have we seen this before?
I disagree. I think it is fair to conclude that our government and Big Pharma has been purposefully innumerate in their management of this pandemic. After two years and trillions of dollars spent, we know less than we started with. In 2019, we knew that masks were not effective for public use against a respiratory virus. We knew that viruses mutate and become more infectious and less dangerous. We also knew about anti-viral medicines, because we tested them against SARS1 for 15 years in the lab. We also new that PCR tests with a cycle count >25 had garbage results. …. 100 years of virology was forgotten in 2020 and decades of planning was discarded in favor of “lockdowns” and contact tracing. Epidemiology and serology were tossed aside as we let CNN run our metrics and public education. Public health management was so bad that it had to be on purpose.
What’s your definition of fair?
You can’t make so many mistakes and ignore so much basic information without it being deliberate.
Did Trump know this, and was unable to stop it, or was he part of the plan to shovel money to the vaccine companies?
Are you saying the anti-covid-vaxxers are being deliberately wrong? I’ve always suspected that about some of them, but I’ve never been sure which ones.
@henryracette rightly observes that the world includes, shall we say, “karenistas” in addition to the faucists and roganists I referred to in this post. While he is right about this, it may be that karenistas are merely a subset of the faucist sect. Hard to tell. The roganists, for their part, curiously remind me of vegans. We all knew karenistas as the bossy girl in our kindergarten class who grew up to be a mean girl in junior high. I have no idea why that is, and I confess I am afflicted by a deplorable lack of curiosity on the matter.
Flannery O’Connor spoke of the propensity of writers to be entirely misunderstood in what they wrote. In her essay “The Grotesque In Southern Fiction”, she wrote the following (and made me laugh):
Notwithstanding some of the comments on this post, what the government and big pharma may have done or not done vis-a-vis Covid is not at all what this post was about. My intention was to offer a thought or two on the anxiety people feel due to their lack of certainty regarding how to move forward, and where they look for certitude. Anything the government might have done or not done is incidental to this tale. I take a back seat to no one in embracing the view that, at best, the government is benignly incompetent and very often sinister. But I was not writing about the government here.
My point about needing more time is entirely related to learning the true course of the virus and its long term effects. What the government has done or not done will not tell us that. Nor will some secret sanctum of data from big pharma. There is simply no way to hurry this along but, while we’re waiting, we should continue to live fully human lives, even if the karenistas don’t want us to.
I commented in #4 and what I was getting at is this is all basically fake and manufactured by the Left, with the help of the government, and there is no need for any lapse of time to get over something that is made up.
The reason I don’t get involved in most of the Ricochet posts about movies and fiction (including scifi) is I have better things to do with my time than get involved with things that are made up. It’s not a strict rule, though.
The only problem here is that much of this fiction imposed on Americans is taking place in the real world. The tragic part is having the perpetrators of this fiction backed up by government authority and having critical participants in executing the real parts of the fiction controlled by the government participants.
I don’t know how much Trump was aware of. I tend to think he eventually knew he a being duped, and brought in Atlas, but by then the wheels were long in motion.
You mean anti-covid vaxxers? Or anti covid-vaxxers?
Anti covid-vaxxers.
Couldn’t see the play, got duped, never made the case publicly at the time, pushed for the vaccine that the Deep State wanted as part of its new-normal ID regimen, and hasn’t blown the whistle now that he’s free and unencumbered by the responsibilities of the office? Who’d vote for that guy again?
*sigh*
@henryracette
I’ll try to explain more about what I do at some point. I’ve seen you refer, here and there, to your own work in technology, and I’ve been curious to know more about what you yourself do. No doubt the rest of the Ricochet nerd club would too.
On a different subject, I very much enjoy your posts in general. Always happy when I log on to Ricochet and discover you’ve been up to something.
@bobthompson
I agree with you on this although my own comment was meant to be a little tongue-in-cheek. A probably-too-subtle back of the hand to scientism, by which I mean a religious commitment to the view that the only sources of truth are essentially what we can perceive with our senses and the corollary belief that scientists are pure as the driven snow.
I do agree with you that the left increasingly uses “science” as kind of a talisman against critique, and that they’re entirely unconcerned by whether their policies contribute to human flourishing in any measurable way. They are only interested in – have only ever been interested in – the acquisition of power, and by any means necessary.
Yes, the vaccine was weird. I think that he took the word of the government medical professionals, and now that you mention it, I strongly suspect that the financial and legal framework for the emergency use of the vaccine along with the immunity for pharm companies was long before thought out — evidence for this was Facui alluding, in principle, to a thought-out emergency mRNA flu vaccine roll-out before the vaccines were approved; and the suspicion of this is strengthened in light of the high degree of intellectual preparation involved in Event 201.
Maybe Trump today still thinks that the vaccine was a good idea, or maybe he just has too much pride to admit that he was duped, or maybe he just doesn’t care. But Trump has not called for or ever supported, in words, a vaccine mandate; and judging from his last year in office would not ever have done so even if he were serving a second term. Just as he never accepted pushing for a mask mandate.
I’ll answer your question and hope that you answer mine. Yes, I’d vote for Trump again, because the world, and the US presidency requires a person who can take what the Press dishes out (and does so as severely as they did when they “fortified” the 2020 election) and chew it up and spit it out. DeSantis may be able to do this, but it is such a rare quality that I have my doubts (but then I really doubted Trump in 2016 as well).
Did you vote for Trump in 2020, and would you vote for him again?
You ought to have been around and listening to the chatter back when it all happened.
I would phrase the current covid argument as being between those who say “The data, the data, the data!” and those who say, “It’s about control!”
What I’ve been arguing for a while is that it’s not the science, it’s the power. To this point speaks Olavo de Carvalho (with subtitles). NSFW (in Brazil).
PS: Regarding “Usually unwilling to consider even the possibility of confirmation bias, roganists draw their conclusions from a multitude of assembled anecdotes regarding people who have actually recovered.” Confirmation bias is given a bad rap. On balance confirmation bias is very good (otherwise we’d never be able to make up our minds on anything).
When what all happened?
The development, testing and rollout of the vaccines.
I was.
I attribute most of the same illogical, instant certainty, to that of the climate fear-mongering as well. Do not doubt us ever, if you do, you are a denier. Anyone who calls you a bad word because you disagree with them, is not somebody who is genuinely interested in exchanging ideas, or trying to actually understand that there are always more than one side of discourse. The word discourse, vs argument, is an important distinction. Understanding, is always antithetical to certainty. The more certain you are about something , the more likely you are to be proven wrong.