Latest / UK Column Radio / Don’t Trust the Experts | Jerm Warfare

Transcript

Don’t Trust the Experts | Jerm Warfare · UK Column Radio

0:30
Speaker 1: My name is Jim. This is the battle of ideas,
0:34
Speaker 1: ethical skepticism, propaganda. Uh you know, fake skepticism is a
0:40
Speaker 1: term that you use, Pseudo pseudo skeptics.
0:46
Speaker 2: Yes, I called him, just a variety of names, narrative pushers,
0:51
Speaker 2: pseudo skeptics. Social skeptics is my most common term on
0:55
Speaker 2: my website and it basically just outlines this. It stems
0:59
Speaker 2: from Edward's social engineering that steps the ways through which
1:04
Speaker 2: controlled narratives engineer compliance or coerce compliance, or cultivate ignorance
1:10
Speaker 2: in a large population. So Edward Burne's I believe it
1:13
Speaker 2: was in the twenties or thirties outlined outlined a series
1:17
Speaker 2: of tactics that control agencies or governments or even NGOs
1:22
Speaker 2: use to control the prevailing thought, and that social engineering
1:27
Speaker 2: becomes the chief focus of social skepticism or ethical skepticism.
1:34
Speaker 2: Ethical skepticism is a broader application about the state of
1:38
Speaker 2: mankind the history of mankind. It stems from the avestin
1:43
Speaker 2: tradition called vohumana or the clear mind, or the rational
1:49
Speaker 2: or sound method of thinking, and certainly topically it sounds
1:53
Speaker 2: like the skepticism that was pushed out on us by
1:56
Speaker 2: Carl Sagan and Michael Shermer in nineteen seventy two. But
1:59
Speaker 2: it's completely different and a number of different apothegems or
2:03
Speaker 2: principles that differ inside ethical skepticism, which is more really
2:09
Speaker 2: scientific skepticism, as opposed to this false bravado that is
2:14
Speaker 2: foisted on the population to help them filter out ideas
2:18
Speaker 2: that the narrative agency doesn't like. Our job is not
2:22
Speaker 2: to filter out ideas, it's actually to go and examine them.
2:25
Speaker 2: Skepticism means to examine, to palm to look. It doesn't
2:30
Speaker 2: mean unbridled doubt. It doesn't mean cynicism. It doesn't mean
2:35
Speaker 2: doubt everything until you find final proof. You know, final
2:39
Speaker 2: proof is you know, one to five percent of the
2:42
Speaker 2: time is what we attain. It's a rarity. Most of
2:46
Speaker 2: the time we understand what we perceive to be chains
2:49
Speaker 2: of likelihood or probability. So what social skepticism or fake
2:54
Speaker 2: skepticism does is it manipulates these probabilistic arguments so that
2:59
Speaker 2: they just have to always end up on one conclusion.
3:03
Speaker 2: And you'll notice that they never introduced what William of
3:07
Speaker 2: Waucam called plurality that means more than one reasonable explanation
3:13
Speaker 2: they always honed back in on one incumbent explanation, and
3:18
Speaker 2: you'll see that habitually inside the discourse applied by social skeptics.
3:24
Speaker 1: I'm almost tempted to say that the COVID era was
3:29
Speaker 1: a great example of what you're talking about, safe and
3:32
Speaker 1: effective Roger.
3:35
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the narrative coercion that was deployed during the COVID era,
3:41
Speaker 2: it really highlighted these tactics. We were witnessed firsthand how
3:46
Speaker 2: people were killed basically basically through bad science, bad skepticism
3:52
Speaker 2: on the part of the public and on the part
3:54
Speaker 2: of those social communicators who pushed this bad science. But
3:58
Speaker 2: it ended up killing hundreds of thousands, arguably millions of
4:02
Speaker 2: people in the US and then of course millions of
4:04
Speaker 2: people worldwide. The vaccine was not safe, it was not effective.
4:10
Speaker 2: These statistics make that clear, absolutely clear in the data.
4:14
Speaker 2: But through these social narratives, they can control a good
4:20
Speaker 2: sixty seventy percent of the audience just through clever wording,
4:24
Speaker 2: rhetorical expressions, apothegems, and semantics. And this is not how
4:30
Speaker 2: science is conducted. But you know, when we're arguing UFOs, well, okay, yes,
4:36
Speaker 2: I actually appreciate some of the semantic arguments and apothogems
4:40
Speaker 2: that are tossed around out there. But when we're talking
4:42
Speaker 2: about family members dying, and we had eleven family members
4:47
Speaker 2: die of cancer in twenty twenty three after one person
4:52
Speaker 2: in our family the prior sixty years, we're not a
4:56
Speaker 2: cancer family, and all of a sudden we had an
4:58
Speaker 2: extraordinary way of cancer. That proves out once you go
5:02
Speaker 2: look at the CDC statistics, once you lay them into
5:06
Speaker 2: what is called a deviation from trend signal analysis, what
5:09
Speaker 2: professional systems engineers use, you can see the cancer signal. Well,
5:14
Speaker 2: what happens here is and this is a perfect example
5:16
Speaker 2: of social skepticism. They put out these flat, high school
5:20
Speaker 2: trend graphs and then put a regression through all the
5:23
Speaker 2: data and say, hey, it looks fine. Yet it's trending
5:26
Speaker 2: up because the aggression, the regression is grabbing the entire domain,
5:32
Speaker 2: so it is going to trend up. But they're ignoring
5:35
Speaker 2: the inflection that occurred to the very weak of the
5:39
Speaker 2: vaccine rollout in terms of cancer especially, but also excess
5:43
Speaker 2: mortality that wasn't COVID. This type of coercive, manipulative rhetoric
5:49
Speaker 2: is a sign of agency. Now, agency I don't mean
5:52
Speaker 2: that from the standpoint of personal agency, that's certainly one
5:55
Speaker 2: valid definition of the term agency. But from an intelligence standpoint,
5:59
Speaker 2: agency means you're carrying someone's water. You're not thinking for yourself.
6:05
Speaker 2: You're going out and expressing a coercive message to the
6:08
Speaker 2: public and expecting that everyone is going to believe you
6:12
Speaker 2: just because you have a couple clever one liners and
6:15
Speaker 2: represent authority. And that is those are the last two
6:18
Speaker 2: things that anyone should base their epistemology upon.
6:22
Speaker 1: You've written extensively on logical fallacies, you know, and I
6:26
Speaker 1: guess propaganda tools. I mean this was used very effectively
6:30
Speaker 1: in the COVID era, and we can see this in
6:31
Speaker 1: the conversations that we have that around us.
6:37
Speaker 2: Absolutely, I call it the tree of knowledge obfuscation, which is,
6:41
Speaker 2: you know, a playoff of the Biblical Tree of Knowledge
6:44
Speaker 2: of good and evil, but this would be the tree
6:47
Speaker 2: of knowledge obfuscation there. I think it's up to about
6:51
Speaker 2: thirty six hundred specific fallacies, methods of crooked thinking, rhetorical
6:56
Speaker 2: and semantic tactics by which one can control role public thought,
7:01
Speaker 2: or appear to argue with someone who has a dissenting
7:06
Speaker 2: opinion or a differing opinion from you. Its hope is
7:10
Speaker 2: to provide a library or resource for these types of
7:14
Speaker 2: these types of pseudo arguments, if you will. But as
7:17
Speaker 2: I've gone through it, and I've amassed these over probably
7:20
Speaker 2: about thirty five years, longer than that forty years of
7:24
Speaker 2: really starting out arguing with my father when I was younger,
7:28
Speaker 2: who was a very skilled lawyer, and so every discussion
7:32
Speaker 2: was to be structured in that type of not legal framing,
7:37
Speaker 2: but certainly it had to be a syllogism that delivered
7:40
Speaker 2: a logical conclusion and was based upon sound evidence, otherwise
7:45
Speaker 2: you were going to get a butt chewing Roger Good.
7:50
Speaker 1: This is not something I think that you've covered, but
7:52
Speaker 1: it's more of an existential kind of question. I don't
7:55
Speaker 1: know if you have the answer. It's something that I
7:58
Speaker 1: have grappled with for a long time because of the
8:02
Speaker 1: nature of humans, are we actually able to be objective
8:07
Speaker 1: or reasonable?
8:11
Speaker 2: Well, the ultimate answer is no. The scientific community would
8:18
Speaker 2: like to pretend that the process of peer review, you know,
8:22
Speaker 2: ensures that objectivity to a reasonable level. But what I
8:26
Speaker 2: find is that because peer review is anonymous, and because
8:30
Speaker 2: authors have to submit their name on their on their work,
8:35
Speaker 2: we immediately start ascribing truth and non truth status or
8:39
Speaker 2: categorization based on who's publishing the work. You know, the
8:43
Speaker 2: merits of the work rarely play into how it's accepted
8:46
Speaker 2: inside the scientific discourse, much even less the social discourse.
8:51
Speaker 2: Peer review allows people who are agency minded. They're carrying
8:55
Speaker 2: someone's water, or they're defending a theory that they developed,
8:59
Speaker 2: or or they're just defending the narrative because they're either
9:03
Speaker 2: making money off of it or their career is based
9:05
Speaker 2: upon it. That that anonymous peer review becomes a coercive mechanism.
9:12
Speaker 2: So it's an overkill against this tendency for everyone to
9:16
Speaker 2: have bias. We have two things that were that are
9:19
Speaker 2: at play in the scientific discourse and the social discourse
9:22
Speaker 2: as bias. And that's one thing, that's one challenge. And
9:26
Speaker 2: to your point, everybody has bias, But our problem is
9:30
Speaker 2: not bias. Our problem is agency people carrying the water
9:35
Speaker 2: for someone else, for a government organization, carrying the water
9:38
Speaker 2: for their career or the club inside which they, you know,
9:42
Speaker 2: they assign their membership, affix their membership when you carry
9:45
Speaker 2: someone's water. That's worse than bias. It is the most
9:50
Speaker 2: extreme form of bias that a person can hold, and
9:55
Speaker 2: it's applied inside. Those who should be are entrusted or
10:00
Speaker 2: be entrusted with guarding mankind's wisdom. They carry agency, which
10:05
Speaker 2: is the most extreme form of bias. Now, of course
10:08
Speaker 2: they're going to whip out things. Well, here's where we're right.
10:10
Speaker 2: Two plus two equals four. Here's where other people are wrong.
10:15
Speaker 2: But showing those elements of Derek Gour those stooge posed
10:22
Speaker 2: boxers to show here, I'm right on elements one, two,
10:25
Speaker 2: and three. That makes me right on elements four, five
10:28
Speaker 2: and six. That's part of the game that's played on us.
10:32
Speaker 2: But four, five and six, those extrapolated elements may be
10:35
Speaker 2: much tougher issues. The sign of a person who has
10:39
Speaker 2: dealt with their bias is they're able. I think f
10:43
Speaker 2: Scott Fitzgerald said this that the key sign of a
10:47
Speaker 2: rational and sound mind is the ability to hold two
10:50
Speaker 2: diametrically opposed ideas in mind at once and not go crazy.
10:56
Speaker 2: So that's the sound of that's the Vohuman of mind.
10:59
Speaker 2: The skeptic mind. I hold the incumbent hypothesis and certainly
11:05
Speaker 2: entertain its plausibility, but I also hold an alternative hypothesis,
11:10
Speaker 2: and I go out and I look at each of them,
11:12
Speaker 2: and it's not that I don't have a bias. It's
11:15
Speaker 2: that I put that bias in a cage and don't
11:18
Speaker 2: allow it to affect my observation of the domain. Put
11:21
Speaker 2: it an ethical skeptics speak. I go out and let's
11:25
Speaker 2: say UFOs. Yes, I understand the incumbent hypothesis that it's
11:30
Speaker 2: all military hardware, it's misinterpretations, it's you know, satellites, it's people,
11:36
Speaker 2: it's lights in the sky that maybe the observer didn't
11:40
Speaker 2: really pay full attention to and thought something happened. All
11:44
Speaker 2: that happens, All that certainly is plausible. I value that
11:48
Speaker 2: incumbent hypothesis, but it doesn't explain the body of data.
11:53
Speaker 2: And this is a principle called called deduction. When you
11:56
Speaker 2: pose a theory or a hypothesis, it doesn't have to
11:59
Speaker 2: explo all the inductive stuff, you know, the suggestive or
12:03
Speaker 2: circumstantial evidence. In a legal setting, that's certainly understandable. But
12:07
Speaker 2: when something is deductive, you have to address it or
12:11
Speaker 2: you actually don't have a hypothesis. And we have a
12:14
Speaker 2: number of standing hypotheses. These incumbent explanations or what is
12:19
Speaker 2: falsely called you know, often the null hypothesis or the
12:22
Speaker 2: prevailing wisdom that are completely wrong. They have not addressed
12:26
Speaker 2: any of the evidence, yet they're foisted by quote peer
12:30
Speaker 2: review as truth. That's our biggest problem. Individual bias, bias
12:36
Speaker 2: in you know, exclusion criteria, picot, structuring of study design.
12:41
Speaker 2: All that can be handled. It exists everywhere, but agency
12:45
Speaker 2: is our problem.
12:46
Speaker 1: I think it was around twenty twelve, fish, I can't
12:49
Speaker 1: even remember the date when Obama made the famous ninety
12:53
Speaker 1: seven percent of scientists agree that humans cause global warming,
12:59
Speaker 1: and therefore, well, because there's a consensus, which by the way,
13:03
Speaker 1: can be questioned, but because there's a consensus, it must
13:05
Speaker 1: be right.
13:08
Speaker 2: Yeah, And as a skeptic, I went to look to
13:11
Speaker 2: find that the source of that claim, and indeed it's
13:15
Speaker 2: in a study. I have it on my website, but
13:17
Speaker 2: I don't recall the name of the study right now.
13:19
Speaker 2: What it studied were of those who who felt that
13:25
Speaker 2: climate change was valid, number one and number two that
13:28
Speaker 2: at the time they called it anthropogenic global warming, that
13:32
Speaker 2: AGW was the lead theory with regard to that of
13:36
Speaker 2: that body, that screening criteria, ninety seven percent of them
13:41
Speaker 2: agreed that mankind was the chief or sole cause of
13:44
Speaker 2: climate change. So it was a what's called a circulus
13:49
Speaker 2: pro appeal to circular argument or appealed to circularity, or
13:55
Speaker 2: begging the question. So they took they qualified the scientists
13:58
Speaker 2: by whether they were already AGW proponents, and then did
14:02
Speaker 2: a survey and surprisingly ninety seven percent of them agreed
14:06
Speaker 2: with AGW narratives. So the quote by Obama was incorrect.
14:13
Speaker 2: It was framed in the wrong context. And he's smart enough,
14:17
Speaker 2: you know, in his legal and political background to know
14:20
Speaker 2: that he was crafting a lie there. So that signals
14:23
Speaker 2: agency not bias. When you purposely lie to the public,
14:27
Speaker 2: that's agency not bias. So that statement diffuses once you
14:34
Speaker 2: go and actually look. And that's of course what I said.
14:37
Speaker 2: Skepticism means to go and look. The statement was qualified,
14:42
Speaker 2: and it was a begging the question principle.
14:45
Speaker 1: I'm also reminded of when Fauci a few years ago said,
14:48
Speaker 1: if you questioned me, you questioned the science.
14:52
Speaker 2: Yeah, this adopting of the robes, that's basically the emperor
14:56
Speaker 2: wearing no clothes right there. That's a childhood. A child
15:00
Speaker 2: can understand the problem with this argument. When you put
15:02
Speaker 2: on the robes of science, that again is agency, because
15:06
Speaker 2: what you've done is married yourself to all the conclusions
15:09
Speaker 2: of the club, and you have to defend those conclusions.
15:12
Speaker 2: It's like when a person says, if you read the
15:15
Speaker 2: Bible and you accept one piece of it, you have
15:18
Speaker 2: to accept all of it, because you can't pick and
15:21
Speaker 2: choose what you believe out of the Bible. And that's complete,
15:25
Speaker 2: inane beloney. Of course you can pick and choose. We
15:28
Speaker 2: picked and choose the Bible to begin with. The same
15:31
Speaker 2: thing applies to science, that those two apothegms are foisted.
15:36
Speaker 2: That you can't pick and choose the science that you
15:38
Speaker 2: regard as valid. You must believe it all or all
15:42
Speaker 2: scientists are truthful and correct, and I am the head
15:46
Speaker 2: of science. I am wearing the priestly robes. Those two
15:50
Speaker 2: are two of the principal fallacies that ethical ethical skepticism
15:55
Speaker 2: sites in the tree of knowledge obfuscation.
15:58
Speaker 1: Yeah, you just mentioned picking and choe using the Bible.
16:00
Speaker 1: I had a very similar conversation a while ago with
16:04
Speaker 1: with somebody who said, yes, but those people, I think
16:07
Speaker 1: it was the Council of Narsia. I forget not where
16:09
Speaker 1: they created the canon, they put the Bible together, they
16:12
Speaker 1: Roger were ordained by God. Well, you know it's unfalsified.
16:18
Speaker 1: I'm sorry for interrupting it.
16:20
Speaker 2: It's called it. It's called an ad hoc rescue. But
16:22
Speaker 2: that means you cannot approach it with falsification. A lot
16:27
Speaker 2: of people say, well, take it's unfalsifiable. Well that means
16:30
Speaker 2: it's true because you can't falsify it. You can't approach
16:33
Speaker 2: it with falsification or deductive methodology. It's called an ad
16:37
Speaker 2: hoc rescue. It just means that I can appeal to
16:40
Speaker 2: that at any time. Anytime I see something that is challenging,
16:44
Speaker 2: or what they call the gaps, then I appeal to God.
16:48
Speaker 2: Science does the same thing. They appeal to infinity or plenitude.
16:53
Speaker 2: They're like, where did life come from? Well, it evolved,
16:57
Speaker 2: you know, through a biogenesis on Earth, but it's so unlikely.
17:01
Speaker 2: It's in the trillions and trillions in unlikelihood. So what
17:05
Speaker 2: they do is they appeal to plentitude. Well, given enough
17:08
Speaker 2: planets and enough time, it's eventually going to happen. That's
17:12
Speaker 2: nothing more than an appeal to God. You just don't
17:14
Speaker 2: have a person, you know, the face of a grandfather
17:17
Speaker 2: stamped on that argument. That's an appeal to plentitude. It's
17:21
Speaker 2: ad hoc, it's an ad hoc rescue. It is exactly
17:25
Speaker 2: the same claim that the person who appeals to God makes.
17:28
Speaker 2: So what the skeptic says is disregard those two false bookends,
17:33
Speaker 2: this appeal to plenitude and this appeal to God, and
17:36
Speaker 2: begin to rationalize the deductive deductive evidence that resides in
17:40
Speaker 2: the middle. Our DNA is based on a very logical
17:44
Speaker 2: and rational codex, and that codex could not have evolved
17:48
Speaker 2: because you have to have the codex before you can
17:51
Speaker 2: have evolution. But yet the codex is a one in
17:55
Speaker 2: ten to the twenty sixth. I believe it is an
17:59
Speaker 2: unlikely to just assemble on its own. The fact that
18:03
Speaker 2: it did assemble number one, and then the second fact
18:07
Speaker 2: that it would assemble in this logical structure. And I've
18:09
Speaker 2: outlined this in one of the articles Watson and Kirk
18:12
Speaker 2: discovered this structure in nineteen fifty four. It's not just
18:17
Speaker 2: remote and chance. It's impossible, and you cannot appeal to
18:21
Speaker 2: plenitude on the one hand to explain that, and you
18:24
Speaker 2: cannot appeal to God either. Because it's a technology. It
18:28
Speaker 2: was surfing the wave it didn't make the wave. It
18:31
Speaker 2: was doing the best it could given the resources that
18:34
Speaker 2: were afforded it. So both of those bookends are invalid
18:38
Speaker 2: when it comes to a biogenesis. Evolution is another argument altogether.
18:42
Speaker 2: That's another tactic. Is this conflation of two ideas into one,
18:46
Speaker 2: and you take one valid idea and then you poort
18:49
Speaker 2: beryl an invalid idea in with it a biogenesis and
18:52
Speaker 2: force that on the public, and they don't know any better.
18:55
Speaker 2: Most people don't know any better, so they accept that
18:57
Speaker 2: agency and begin to defend it instinct. So yeah, that
19:02
Speaker 2: I think you had a great point there about the
19:05
Speaker 2: the the way that type of bias creeps into the mix.
19:08
Speaker 1: A term that you I think created is torphuscation. Is
19:12
Speaker 1: that right? Torfuscation?
19:15
Speaker 2: Yes, it's a term I created it. It simply means
19:19
Speaker 2: burying in the bog. If you remember the excellent articles
19:23
Speaker 2: Scientific American and uh goodness, National Geographic talking about the
19:27
Speaker 2: Bog people and I can't remember the city is close
19:30
Speaker 2: to in the UK, but basically they found a series
19:33
Speaker 2: of bodies of people. One even had a noose around
19:36
Speaker 2: its neck. So these are likely criminals, so you know,
19:40
Speaker 2: in a long time ago, so Pity is not the
19:42
Speaker 2: the appropriate response, but science is. And these bodies were
19:46
Speaker 2: preserved by the tar uh, the the alkanes I believe
19:51
Speaker 2: it would be called, that are in the bog, that
19:53
Speaker 2: prevent bacteria I from breaking down the bodies. So you
19:56
Speaker 2: got these complete bodies that that are in the in
19:59
Speaker 2: the the turf or the turf which is the I
20:02
Speaker 2: guess the old Gaelic term for a bog. So torfuscation
20:08
Speaker 2: means to hide the bodies in the bog. And this
20:11
Speaker 2: is what we did all through all through COVID. We
20:14
Speaker 2: basically when we issued the or when we rolled out
20:18
Speaker 2: the vaccine. You know, the analysis I've done have shown
20:21
Speaker 2: that we put it extreme efforts on recategorizing deaths so
20:26
Speaker 2: they didn't show up as a result of the vaccine.
20:29
Speaker 2: We aired toward too many COVID deaths. We denied people
20:34
Speaker 2: treatment for the blood coagulation disorders that COVID, especially delta
20:39
Speaker 2: call caused until they got in the hospital, and then
20:43
Speaker 2: by the time they're in the hospital, they're almost dead.
20:45
Speaker 2: And if they die, well they died of COVID. No,
20:48
Speaker 2: they died of lack of treatment. That's torfuscation, that's hiding
20:52
Speaker 2: the dead bodies. That is a human rights crime, and
20:56
Speaker 2: I would not want to be somebody who had committed
20:58
Speaker 2: that through their life and pass on to whatever comes
21:01
Speaker 2: next and have to realize the horrendous set of actions
21:06
Speaker 2: that were rolled out by those who carried this agency
21:08
Speaker 2: carried the water of this agency.
21:11
Speaker 1: Well, speaking of tofiscation, isn't I mean you're talking about gaming,
21:15
Speaker 1: gaming something to get the result that you want. I'm
21:18
Speaker 1: thinking of pretty much most peer reviewed papers if you
21:23
Speaker 1: look at who funds them. I'm going back now to
21:25
Speaker 1: the COVID era. I mean you had pharmaceutical companies and
21:29
Speaker 1: government institutions funding papers that were supposedly objective for example.
21:37
Speaker 2: Yes, the funding. We haven't even touched on the funding.
21:40
Speaker 2: We talk about agency and carrying. You know, the water
21:43
Speaker 2: of a narrative. Funding is certainly a big factor in there.
21:50
Speaker 2: In fact, it's the most often appeal to objection to
21:55
Speaker 2: syndicate science is what I call it when you when
21:57
Speaker 2: you assemble a syndicate. Go back to I stayed in
22:01
Speaker 2: a place called the Orchard in when I was doing
22:04
Speaker 2: surveys of the Eastern region for ARII Sporting Goods, talking
22:08
Speaker 2: about their expansion of their corporation, and I stayed at
22:12
Speaker 2: a place called the Orchard Inn, and the propriety of
22:15
Speaker 2: their proprietor there stayed up with me and explained the
22:18
Speaker 2: history of those groups that were that were in that
22:22
Speaker 2: in that stayed in that hotel. They were basically U
22:26
Speaker 2: booze runners. It was the trying to remember railroad clerks
22:30
Speaker 2: Union stayover hotel and their transits between New York and Florida.
22:35
Speaker 2: It was in North Carolina. I think it was in Saluta,
22:38
Speaker 2: North Carolina. And so what they would do is spend
22:41
Speaker 2: the night there, but they they helped organize the booze
22:45
Speaker 2: runners that were taking booze out of the mountains and
22:48
Speaker 2: down into the Piedmont and up into the northeast from Appalachia,
22:53
Speaker 2: and so they would coordinate that out of this hotel
22:56
Speaker 2: and it was a very successful operation. It had, like
22:58
Speaker 2: I forget, its probably eighteen or twenty five garage doors
23:02
Speaker 2: underneath the hotel, and the booze erunners would cut in
23:05
Speaker 2: there really quick and they'd shut all the doors down.
23:07
Speaker 2: Then they would drink and have a stayover at the
23:10
Speaker 2: hotel that evening before they continued their journey. Well, once
23:15
Speaker 2: prohibition was repealed, it wasn't that all those players in
23:20
Speaker 2: those participants said, yay, we won. Our goal was to
23:24
Speaker 2: make alcohol legal again. Yes, we're done, our job is done.
23:28
Speaker 2: We're going to disband now and all go home. No,
23:32
Speaker 2: the value was not in the product. The value was
23:35
Speaker 2: in the network itself. And so that network simply said,
23:40
Speaker 2: hey are connections who we've paid off, the graft that
23:44
Speaker 2: we've rolled out, the power structure, the transit lanes, the freight,
23:49
Speaker 2: the transportation, the people. All that is way too valuable
23:53
Speaker 2: to just drop. Now what else can we run illegally?
23:57
Speaker 2: And so that became the origin of our of our
24:00
Speaker 2: drug running illicit drug running network. The power is in
24:05
Speaker 2: the cabal or the syndicate. It's not in the product.
24:08
Speaker 2: The product is not actually what they're selling. What science
24:12
Speaker 2: is selling is the club or the syndicate of science,
24:17
Speaker 2: so that it has the power to dictate and enforce conclusions.
24:21
Speaker 2: I've outlined this thing this in a principle I call
24:25
Speaker 2: the principle of diminishing scientific returns. When you get a
24:29
Speaker 2: mature science, say like archaeology, and you have what's called
24:33
Speaker 2: prior art in patenting, you always have to address prior art.
24:36
Speaker 2: In other words, what have people done in this field
24:39
Speaker 2: in the past, what has been accepted as truth in
24:42
Speaker 2: this field, or at least sound epistemology in this field
24:46
Speaker 2: in the past. And when I file a claim, or
24:49
Speaker 2: if I file a study, I've got to look back
24:52
Speaker 2: at all that prior history of science and ensure that
24:55
Speaker 2: what I'm saying conforms and comports with all that science. Well,
25:00
Speaker 2: as we begin to accumulate more and more science inside
25:03
Speaker 2: a discipline, say like archaeology, we begin to slow down
25:07
Speaker 2: because we're driving through the rear view mirror or basically
25:11
Speaker 2: looking behind us to make sure that we don't piss
25:13
Speaker 2: anybody off, we don't harm our career, we don't dissent
25:17
Speaker 2: on the wrong thing. So I've got to look back
25:20
Speaker 2: through maybe ten thousand elements of inference in past science
25:25
Speaker 2: before I can make my statement. What that does is
25:27
Speaker 2: it slows down the progression of science and turns it
25:30
Speaker 2: into a club celebration exercise. Every study that comes out,
25:35
Speaker 2: you know, on a grad student's work or a new
25:39
Speaker 2: doctrinal candidate, is basically I not only have confirmed the
25:44
Speaker 2: prevailing wisdom, I've confirmed it one more increment in validity.
25:49
Speaker 2: And that's all that's happening. And so what happens there is,
25:52
Speaker 2: science slows to a crawl. We stop discovering anything, as
25:56
Speaker 2: evidenced by what's happened at go Beckley Tepe over the
25:59
Speaker 2: last ten years. They've shut it down because they don't
26:02
Speaker 2: want to know what's buried under that ninety five percent
26:05
Speaker 2: of the site that remains unexcavated. They don't want that.
26:09
Speaker 2: They want the answers already codified, and everyone must comport
26:14
Speaker 2: their work to those answers. That's the sin of this club,
26:18
Speaker 2: this syndicate. The value is in the syndicate, and it
26:22
Speaker 2: expresses itself in the in the it manifests as a
26:26
Speaker 2: slowing down of science to a snail's pace.
26:30
Speaker 1: Now on the.
26:31
Speaker 2: Counter, what they have to do is, since science is
26:34
Speaker 2: not functioning any longer, what they have to do is
26:37
Speaker 2: begin to frame science or their conclusions in rhetorical virtue.
26:42
Speaker 2: They have to start pointing out, oh, you know, the
26:46
Speaker 2: simplest explanation is the is the correct one or the
26:50
Speaker 2: null hypothesis or peer review, and all these things that
26:53
Speaker 2: are our logic or semantic truths, if you will, but
26:58
Speaker 2: in any given situation, can be used in other words,
27:01
Speaker 2: they're not logical truths. They're not logically sound principles. They're
27:05
Speaker 2: conditional based on where the club is at any given time.
27:09
Speaker 2: That's how we squelch and steer science. That's part of
27:12
Speaker 2: this burnet's engineering that we cite. But at the website
27:18
Speaker 2: for syndicate, I call it syndicate anti wisdom. It's a
27:21
Speaker 2: methodology that rolls through our social discourse. And there are
27:25
Speaker 2: probably I don't know, maybe eighteen or twenty different methodologies
27:30
Speaker 2: by which we lie to the public but make it
27:33
Speaker 2: sound like truth disinformation. In other words, we use facts
27:36
Speaker 2: to lie. The most skilled form of lying is using
27:40
Speaker 2: facts in order to lie.
27:42
Speaker 1: I want to point out at this stage that we
27:47
Speaker 1: often point things at the mainstream, but all of this
27:50
Speaker 1: applies equally to the non mainstream, because we don't want
27:54
Speaker 1: to get caught up in a false dichotomy.
27:57
Speaker 2: Yes, yeah, indeed we have two rssions of that. And
28:00
Speaker 2: that's the job of the ethical skeptic. And I mean
28:03
Speaker 2: that generically, not me like the creative architect. You know,
28:08
Speaker 2: it's the job of someone who would apply ethical skepticism.
28:11
Speaker 2: Is that Number one, you have to be able to
28:14
Speaker 2: spot psyops or limited hangouts where it's like the pillar
28:19
Speaker 2: forty three at go Beckley Tepe has handbags on the
28:22
Speaker 2: top of it.
28:22
Speaker 1: Ooh whoo.
28:23
Speaker 2: We're in the mystery zone. We're doing our job, we're
28:26
Speaker 2: creating mystery. Whoo. And all they've done is that gets
28:32
Speaker 2: touted far and wide. When those are not handbags. They're
28:35
Speaker 2: easily explainable. But that's the problem. They are explainable, so
28:39
Speaker 2: they have to occlude or obfuscate this explainable message with
28:44
Speaker 2: the handbags message. That's a limited hangout or a syop.
28:48
Speaker 2: But as well, we have individuals who will take either
28:52
Speaker 2: peripheral or inductive mild induction and run with it and
28:57
Speaker 2: extrapolate it for orders of magnitude on what they can.
29:01
Speaker 2: You know, you see a light in the sky and
29:03
Speaker 2: suddenly it's the Pleadians and they're they're dictating my life
29:07
Speaker 2: and you need to, you know, do this or that.
29:10
Speaker 2: Those two camps are the loudest two camps inside the
29:15
Speaker 2: outside science, if you will, domain And yes they're a problem.
29:19
Speaker 2: So the principle runs both ways. I would say that
29:22
Speaker 2: the syndicate activity is less pronounced in that camp, it's
29:27
Speaker 2: less organized, but that also allows greater opportunity for the
29:32
Speaker 2: syndicate to manipulate it. So we have we do have
29:35
Speaker 2: a problem on both sides. Absolutely.
29:37
Speaker 1: I think it was Sun Sou who said something along
29:39
Speaker 1: the lines of the you know, if you can infiltrate
29:42
Speaker 1: the opposition and let the opposition eat itself up, then
29:46
Speaker 1: you're doing the job for the enemy as it were. Yeah.
29:52
Speaker 2: Absolutely a big fan of Sun Sou on the art
29:55
Speaker 2: of war I read I've read it probably five times
29:58
Speaker 2: and forgotten ninety five percent, but I think sometimes it
30:01
Speaker 2: percolates through in my writing. But absolutely a great resource
30:06
Speaker 2: on the warfare that the context we introduced at the start.
30:11
Speaker 1: Now I'll bring that up because on my show, for example,
30:15
Speaker 1: I've done a number of conversations, for example around nine
30:18
Speaker 1: to eleven, and all of them are not the mainstream position.
30:23
Speaker 1: Now that has led to all sorts of angry finger pointing, Oh, well,
30:28
Speaker 1: you're a limited hangout controlled the position because you're alling
30:31
Speaker 1: Richard Gage, who argues for thermite and Judy Wood says
30:35
Speaker 1: that the buildings were justified, and now we're having people
30:40
Speaker 1: in the opposing camps fighting with one another.
30:47
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is the purpose of a limited hangout is
30:51
Speaker 2: just to put dissension in the opposing camp. So you
30:54
Speaker 2: have a syndicate that is unified because they coerced the
30:57
Speaker 2: members into being part of the the club. You know,
31:01
Speaker 2: you can't be in the club unless you adhere to
31:03
Speaker 2: everything the club says. And as they say, in a religion,
31:06
Speaker 2: you can't pick and choose what you believe. You must
31:09
Speaker 2: accept the club. They're one of their first tactics is
31:12
Speaker 2: to divide the opposition. And certainly we have the camps
31:16
Speaker 2: that two camps that we just talked about, the limited
31:20
Speaker 2: hangout camp and then those who are fanciful extrapolation, and
31:24
Speaker 2: they get in conflicts with each other, and it causes dissension, yes,
31:28
Speaker 2: and lack of ability to cohesively conduct research. But it
31:32
Speaker 2: also makes the entire you know that side of the
31:35
Speaker 2: argument of mockery, and the Syndicate lifts loves this. They
31:38
Speaker 2: roll out Michael Shermer and Scientific American to mock the
31:43
Speaker 2: other side because of these proclivities. But that's a problem
31:47
Speaker 2: because Michael still represents only the syndicate. So ethical skepticism
31:51
Speaker 2: is as much a protest against those two camps, the
31:54
Speaker 2: SIOP camp and the you know, the WU extrapolation camp.
31:59
Speaker 2: It's a protest against them as well. And UH and
32:03
Speaker 2: so fall in the middle it's a completely different method
32:07
Speaker 2: of how to address these subjects. And it basically means
32:10
Speaker 2: go there, like I'm going this fall to go Beckley
32:13
Speaker 2: Tepe and I'm going to go to Nimriate Dog and
32:16
Speaker 2: I want to go there and see and go through
32:18
Speaker 2: the library and read the see the actual artifacts, and
32:21
Speaker 2: go through the written library of written materials. Before I
32:25
Speaker 2: finished this second book, that's the task of skepticism is
32:29
Speaker 2: to go and look, not invent clever apothegyms Michael Shermer
32:34
Speaker 2: style apothegms, to dismiss something that threatens you that's nothing
32:38
Speaker 2: but a religion. And that's that's what our our syndicate
32:42
Speaker 2: is has undertaken. But yeah, most of my time on
32:47
Speaker 2: X I spend trying to talk people off the off
32:50
Speaker 2: the edge of just spending crazy versions of my of
32:56
Speaker 2: my uh my hypotheses and uh and misrepresenting them because
33:03
Speaker 2: that forces it into this pseudoscience camp. When when I
33:07
Speaker 2: sit down with PhDs and review the actual structure of
33:10
Speaker 2: the theory, they're like, yes, this is a scientific set
33:13
Speaker 2: of scientific hypotheses and it's a valid theory. That's unanimously
33:19
Speaker 2: they respond, whether they you know, side with it or
33:21
Speaker 2: not to one degree or another that that's separate, but
33:24
Speaker 2: they believe it is a true scientific hypothesis. These you know,
33:29
Speaker 2: these the disarray on the on the opposing side of
33:32
Speaker 2: the science syndicate, that disarray becomes one of our chief opponents. Absolutely.
33:38
Speaker 1: But a big problem, as you pointed out earlier, is
33:40
Speaker 1: the dogmatism dogma. Sorry, is dogmatism or word dogma? I
33:44
Speaker 1: mean to say dogma the science. Yea, both are the
33:47
Speaker 1: science Roger with the capital s.
33:51
Speaker 2: Yes, dogma. You know the word cynicism it's root word
33:57
Speaker 2: is the same Latin root word as dog uh, you know,
34:02
Speaker 2: and dogma is you know, more of a I guess
34:05
Speaker 2: an anglization of that. But but they both come from
34:09
Speaker 2: the same concept dogged denial and dogma is certainly that
34:15
Speaker 2: I think that, you know my experience, dogs are not
34:18
Speaker 2: actually that stubborn. I think more mules are stubborn. We
34:21
Speaker 2: should probably use mules jets. Cats are very very tough
34:26
Speaker 2: to get to do.
34:26
Speaker 1: You don't own a cat, you have an agreement?
34:29
Speaker 2: No, yes, that's correct. You're you're paying them for the
34:35
Speaker 2: privilege of seeing them at your home. But yeah, dogma,
34:40
Speaker 2: dogma is cynicism, and they come from the same root word.
34:43
Speaker 2: If you doubt everything and you know every new idea,
34:46
Speaker 2: oh that's baloney. That's cynicism. It's not skepticism. Kan said
34:51
Speaker 2: I doubt, therefore I'm a skeptic. He can say that,
34:53
Speaker 2: but he said, you know words to that effect. Doubt
34:56
Speaker 2: is certainly a tool, but it itself does not comprise skepticism.
35:01
Speaker 2: Skepticism may choose to doubt, or it may not choose
35:04
Speaker 2: to doubt. It may choose a term called a poke
35:07
Speaker 2: or a poke. It's e p O c HG. It's
35:10
Speaker 2: a Greek term in the you know the English version
35:13
Speaker 2: of it or Arabic alphabet version of it. It simply
35:17
Speaker 2: means a neutral mind state, or the neutrality that one
35:20
Speaker 2: adopts before going to look at an issue. If you
35:23
Speaker 2: doubt it, you've already declared the answer before you walked
35:26
Speaker 2: in the door. That's not skepticism. That's cynicism. So I
35:30
Speaker 2: don't like to use the word doubt, even though it
35:33
Speaker 2: is a tool. I use a pooke instead. It's that neutrality.
35:37
Speaker 2: It's allows me to look at the buildings in nine
35:40
Speaker 2: to eleven and say, on one hand, I do see
35:43
Speaker 2: pancaking on overly heated structural you know, columns. But on
35:48
Speaker 2: the other hand, I see what the what the counter
35:51
Speaker 2: evidence people are pointing out, and I hold a pok
35:53
Speaker 2: on that issue as a result, So I don't get it.
35:56
Speaker 2: I don't get involved in those fights because I'm I'm
35:59
Speaker 2: on new ground on many of the facets of that.
36:02
Speaker 2: You know, that whole argument.
36:04
Speaker 1: I mean on your website you have I think about
36:06
Speaker 1: twenty five language tricks words, and I mean that's a
36:12
Speaker 1: problem because we've seen this happening all around us. Pseudoscience
36:16
Speaker 1: tenfoil hats. It's a great way to silence Oh yeah,
36:21
Speaker 1: people who are thinking about things.
36:24
Speaker 2: Yeah, if you say pseudoscience wu or tenfoil hat in
36:28
Speaker 2: the pejorative on a discussion, you basically lost the argument.
36:32
Speaker 2: You don't know it, but everyone else everyone else knows it. Denier,
36:36
Speaker 2: You've lost the argument from the outset. Everyone else knows it,
36:39
Speaker 2: but you don't know it. And that has been to
36:41
Speaker 2: the discredit to the lack of success of the science syndicate. Now,
36:47
Speaker 2: I separate the science syndicate from the body of science itself.
36:51
Speaker 2: Those are two distinct things. They may want them to
36:54
Speaker 2: conflate and be to conflate those into one thing, but
36:56
Speaker 2: those who wear the robes rarely are adept at the
37:01
Speaker 2: subject that those robes represent. Roger, I think I called
37:08
Speaker 2: those weapon weapon words. Yes, weapon words. Now, yeah, I
37:11
Speaker 2: know what you're talking about. Now yeah.
37:12
Speaker 1: This word denier bugs me to the point where I
37:20
Speaker 1: don't even like saying it anymore, because it's been so abused.
37:25
Speaker 1: You know, it's used by people in the mainstream and
37:28
Speaker 1: in the alternative independent space. I get accused of being
37:33
Speaker 1: a denier for any number of reasons, and no real
37:38
Speaker 1: scientific think or critical thinker uses a term like denier
37:43
Speaker 1: because it assumes create if I'm wrong, It assumes a
37:46
Speaker 1: monopoly on truth.
37:50
Speaker 2: It does it's it's called a syllogism. A syllogism is
37:53
Speaker 2: a conditional statement if P, then Q. So what they
37:58
Speaker 2: do is they hold the P silent, say you're a denier.
38:02
Speaker 2: But what's incumbent in that syllogism that statement is I
38:06
Speaker 2: am holding the repository of truth. But they don't articulate that,
38:10
Speaker 2: but they imply it through calling you a denier. And
38:13
Speaker 2: that is one of the I guess the most deceitful
38:17
Speaker 2: methods of scientific communication is using the term denier. It's
38:21
Speaker 2: a yeah, it's it's completely dishonest and and it should
38:26
Speaker 2: discredit the the I guess, the syndicate aspect of science.
38:31
Speaker 2: But but people haven't been trained in how to spot
38:34
Speaker 2: these these elements of obfuscation. And that's one of the
38:38
Speaker 2: purposes of the website is to help train that into
38:41
Speaker 2: the social mind.
38:42
Speaker 1: Roger is science did.
38:47
Speaker 2: Science is in a period of diminishing returns. On the
38:51
Speaker 2: on the other side of that that period, in other words,
38:54
Speaker 2: it's it's laboring under the weight of its own conclusions
39:00
Speaker 2: and its own syndicate advocacy and is barely able to move.
39:05
Speaker 2: It's at that snail's pace we talked about when I
39:07
Speaker 2: described the principle of diminishing scientific returns. But there's a
39:11
Speaker 2: thing called a coon what I call a coon Plank
39:14
Speaker 2: paradigm shift. Max Plank said, science advances one funeral at
39:19
Speaker 2: a time. He means, the old guard has to die off.
39:22
Speaker 2: They're not going to accept it. And then Thomas Kuhn
39:25
Speaker 2: in his book Scientific Revolutions, I can't remember the specific title,
39:30
Speaker 2: cited the paradigm shift. Both of those things have to happen.
39:34
Speaker 2: The mind of our fourteen year olds has to change,
39:37
Speaker 2: and that's happened already, They already are entertaining ideas that
39:42
Speaker 2: forty year olds will not will doggedly deny. And then
39:47
Speaker 2: the old guard, the sixty five and older, have to
39:50
Speaker 2: begin to die off. And that's indeed what we're seeing
39:52
Speaker 2: in skepticism. About forty percent of our art skeptics are
39:56
Speaker 2: dead now. And then COVID came along and showed that
40:00
Speaker 2: all their apothegms, all their wisdom, all the king's horses,
40:04
Speaker 2: and all the King's men couldn't put Humpty together again.
40:07
Speaker 2: They couldn't address COVID. In fact, it was so bad
40:11
Speaker 2: that a lot of people like Nasim Talib lost credibility
40:15
Speaker 2: because they number one, didn't apply their principles when push
40:18
Speaker 2: came to shove, and number two, they didn't work, and
40:21
Speaker 2: so Michael Shermer lost enormous amounts of credibility. People don't
40:26
Speaker 2: quote carl Sagan like they used to. Nobody buys Nasam
40:29
Speaker 2: Talob's books anymore because we found out they were Charlatan's.
40:33
Speaker 2: To put it in his vernacular, it was all a
40:36
Speaker 2: rhetorical charade and things weren't as they appeared. So this
40:40
Speaker 2: coon Plank paradigm shift is when not only the scientific
40:45
Speaker 2: community but also the knowledgeable public cross over a threshold
40:51
Speaker 2: and introduce a new idea. William of Wakam called that plurality.
40:55
Speaker 2: Plurality means more than one. That's all it means. And
40:58
Speaker 2: he said he should not be positive without necessity. And
41:02
Speaker 2: that simply means if I'm going to if I'm going
41:05
Speaker 2: to entertain a new theory theory, I need to be
41:08
Speaker 2: compelled there. But once I am compelled there, I should
41:11
Speaker 2: not unduly protect the null hypothesis or the incumbent hypothesis,
41:16
Speaker 2: because that's not science. You have a thing called plurality.
41:20
Speaker 2: We have plurality today. For example, with UFOs, there's more
41:23
Speaker 2: than one valid explanation for the phenomena that we see.
41:29
Speaker 2: But those who push back and say, oh, there's only
41:31
Speaker 2: one explanation or prove it, bring me a dead body.
41:35
Speaker 2: It's not the way science works. You don't advance through
41:39
Speaker 2: the first step of the scientific method is not proven.
41:42
Speaker 2: The scientific method has six, seven, eight steps, depending on
41:46
Speaker 2: who you talked to about it, and it's a process
41:48
Speaker 2: that we have to go through. The goal of fake
41:51
Speaker 2: skepticism is to make sure that that process never occurs. Now,
41:55
Speaker 2: they use a thing called going back to William of Aaukham.
41:57
Speaker 2: They use a thing called Ocham's razor, even misspell it
42:01
Speaker 2: because William of Vaucam did not spell his name Occam.
42:05
Speaker 2: And it says the simplest explanation is the correct explanation.
42:09
Speaker 2: That's a decision heuristic. It's enforcing the prevailing or incumbent hypothesis.
42:16
Speaker 2: That's a way of squelching science. It is a completely
42:19
Speaker 2: invalid principle. Simplicity is what a huckster uses to sell
42:24
Speaker 2: an unsophisticated off the audience. The catchphrase you see it
42:30
Speaker 2: simple is one of the most common catchphrases of use
42:35
Speaker 2: by a huckster. So these are hucksters that are promoting science.
42:38
Speaker 2: They bastardize Oakham's razor, and instead of allowing plurality, they
42:43
Speaker 2: actually screen out plurality and do the exact opposite of
42:48
Speaker 2: what William Wacam said. So this plurality is key in
42:53
Speaker 2: keeping that neutrality that a pulk.
42:56
Speaker 1: Would you say that true science is therefore nuanced.
43:03
Speaker 2: Well to the degree that absolute proof only arrives let's
43:06
Speaker 2: say five percent of the time, And that's being generous.
43:10
Speaker 2: It absolutely is nuanced, but is nuanced in the tallying
43:15
Speaker 2: of probability. That's one thing. It's say we have cox
43:19
Speaker 2: hazard ratios that suggest that a product is damaging human health.
43:25
Speaker 2: You know, that's an observation of a positive. Or we
43:28
Speaker 2: have cox hazard ratios that cite an absence of damage
43:32
Speaker 2: from a product that's a that's a negative. Citing a
43:35
Speaker 2: negative or proving a dispositive. You know that's those are
43:40
Speaker 2: the the.
43:42
Speaker 1: The like drinking rest poison tactics. You're almost always going
43:47
Speaker 1: to get sick or die.
43:49
Speaker 2: Yes, correct. We rarely have things that are that manifest.
43:54
Speaker 2: The nuanced argument that you're raising here, ninety five percent
43:57
Speaker 2: of what we have to deal with as a society,
44:00
Speaker 2: and as those issues support us out of science are nuanced,
44:05
Speaker 2: they're probabilistic, if you will, and I hate to even
44:08
Speaker 2: frame it as probabilistic. They're dependent on a chain of deductive, inductive,
44:14
Speaker 2: and abductive inferences. And if you stick with just induction
44:20
Speaker 2: or circumstantial evidence, you're probably going to come up with
44:23
Speaker 2: the wrong answer, even though all the evidence points that way.
44:27
Speaker 2: But if you focus on deductive evidence, which is smoking,
44:31
Speaker 2: gun or falsification. You know, if you see your neighbor
44:35
Speaker 2: walking out of your house at one in the morning,
44:37
Speaker 2: and your TV is missing. That's deductive evidence. It's strong.
44:42
Speaker 2: Every alternative has to address why was my neighbor walking
44:45
Speaker 2: out of my house at one in the morning. That's deductive.
44:48
Speaker 2: But if you saw him hanging out in the backyard
44:50
Speaker 2: when your TV was stolen, that's inductive. He may or
44:53
Speaker 2: may not have stolen the TV, but you don't have
44:56
Speaker 2: to address the fact that he was hanging out in
44:58
Speaker 2: his backyard. It's indu The only way you can use
45:01
Speaker 2: that is if it's part of an overwhelming mass of evidence,
45:05
Speaker 2: including deductive and then finally abductive. Does the does the
45:10
Speaker 2: hypothesis you propose satisfy all the array of deductive evidence?
45:15
Speaker 2: Does it explain essentially everything? Those are the keys that
45:19
Speaker 2: help us rationalize this nuancing of science, not just issuing
45:24
Speaker 2: probabilities like it's a stats in provs. Class that somewhat
45:27
Speaker 2: reduces it down to, you know, ludicrous levels of tactical assessment.
45:33
Speaker 2: It's the art of using inference, the Sherlock Holmes detective
45:37
Speaker 2: method of resolving a difficult or prosecuting a difficult problem.
45:41
Speaker 2: That's the nuance of science.
45:45
Speaker 1: Did you ever see that paper published? It's a weird irony,
45:51
Speaker 1: but it was a peer reviewed paper by John Ionidis
45:54
Speaker 1: long time ago, twenty five years ago, I think, in
45:57
Speaker 1: which he concluded that seventy two eighty percent of all
46:01
Speaker 1: peer reviewed science is pretty much junk science.
46:07
Speaker 2: Yes, I have not read the paper or read a
46:10
Speaker 2: summary of it, and I think it was probably back
46:12
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two where really people resurrected that paper.
46:16
Speaker 2: But the experiment that came off the tail of that,
46:20
Speaker 2: I believe occurred in twenty twenty three, you know, as
46:23
Speaker 2: a direct result of that assertion, and they submitted, gosh,
46:28
Speaker 2: I can't remember, was it ten thousand manuscripts into the
46:32
Speaker 2: peer review process. There was a body, a test body
46:35
Speaker 2: of AI written studies. There were just complete hogwashed. There
46:39
Speaker 2: were a series of excellent sounding terminology strung together in
46:44
Speaker 2: completely invalid syllogism or statements of logical fact, and they
46:49
Speaker 2: were submitted into the peer review process. And I had
46:51
Speaker 2: these statistics memorized. But it was something like seventy percent
46:55
Speaker 2: of it was granted entry was given satisfactory peer review
46:59
Speaker 2: simply because it appeared to be restating what we already knew,
47:03
Speaker 2: or was so much gobblegook that the reviewers didn't really
47:06
Speaker 2: understand it. And didn't want to tip their hand to
47:08
Speaker 2: that fact. So yes, peer review from that standpoint is dead.
47:14
Speaker 2: I contend that peer review needs to be the accountable
47:18
Speaker 2: aspect of scientific review, and that ideas should be based
47:22
Speaker 2: upon their merit, their soundness, their epistemic backing, the methodology,
47:28
Speaker 2: the screening, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the structure of the
47:32
Speaker 2: study should stand as the personality if you will. So
47:37
Speaker 2: if I publish a study because it's me, it will
47:41
Speaker 2: never get accepted by a journal. It will never pass
47:43
Speaker 2: peer review because of who I am and the things
47:46
Speaker 2: that I advocate. That's not science, it's the inverse of science.
47:50
Speaker 2: So peer review should actually be the most accountable, personally
47:54
Speaker 2: accountable aspect of the scientific method and then the publication
47:59
Speaker 2: should be an anonymous to let the ideas stand on
48:02
Speaker 2: their own merit. I don't know if I'm slamming a
48:05
Speaker 2: paper from Joe Blow down the street who just got
48:08
Speaker 2: finished mow in a lawn and has a beer in
48:10
Speaker 2: his hand, or it's a paper that Einstein wrote and
48:14
Speaker 2: nobody's reviewed it to date. I don't know that I
48:17
Speaker 2: have to look at the ideas, assess the evidence that
48:21
Speaker 2: backs those ideas. That would be a wonderful proposition. And
48:24
Speaker 2: if if the syndicate slams that paper, I want to
48:28
Speaker 2: know who slammed it and why, and I want to
48:30
Speaker 2: see their agency. That should be science.
48:34
Speaker 1: The way I approach most things. As a result of
48:39
Speaker 1: doing my podcast for the last five six years, I've
48:42
Speaker 1: learned a lot, and I've broken everything down into two approaches.
48:49
Speaker 1: Tell me what you think. The one approach is, I
48:52
Speaker 1: believe something at Bruce Lee once upon a time said,
48:54
Speaker 1: and that was take that which is valuable, to scard
48:59
Speaker 1: that which is not create what's is unique to yours.
49:02
Speaker 1: And it's a very beautiful statement because it means that
49:04
Speaker 1: I can listen to anybody and find value in what
49:09
Speaker 1: they're saying. It doesn't have to be one hundred percent
49:12
Speaker 1: of what they're saying. And then the second thing is,
49:19
Speaker 1: and I don't know who this is attributed to. Somebody
49:22
Speaker 1: said it was on my show that was attributed to Einstein.
49:24
Speaker 1: I think that's incorrect, but it goes something along the
49:27
Speaker 1: lines of if nine outs of ten scientists agree on something,
49:33
Speaker 1: I'm only interested in the one scientist who doesn't agree.
49:38
Speaker 1: And it's the combination of those two approaches that I
49:41
Speaker 1: find very, very helpful.
49:45
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's very much. Both principles, the Bruce Lee principle
49:48
Speaker 2: and the ninety ten principle are very much. I guess
49:53
Speaker 2: examples that are offered that I offer inside the writings
49:57
Speaker 2: on Ethical Skepticism. It's called heteroduction in the second case,
50:02
Speaker 2: when ninety percent of those in authorities say something, especially
50:06
Speaker 2: if they say something isn't. It's one thing to say
50:09
Speaker 2: something is or a positive assertion of a positive. It's
50:15
Speaker 2: another thing to say that I have been able to
50:19
Speaker 2: observe a dispositive. There's no such thing as an appeal
50:22
Speaker 2: to ignorance is typically what's entailed there. Anytime ninety percent
50:27
Speaker 2: of science says something isn't, you need to be extraordinarily
50:33
Speaker 2: cautious when that happens. For instance, I let a materials lab,
50:37
Speaker 2: and the standing wisdom was that you could not materially
50:41
Speaker 2: transform the surface of titanium because of its hexagonal close backstructure.
50:46
Speaker 2: That's the null hypothesis. That was not only the null hypothesis,
50:50
Speaker 2: it was insisted as truth. In other words, they're saying
50:53
Speaker 2: you can't convert titanium, and I'm using a lot of
50:56
Speaker 2: technical terms mashed down into quote convert. And so when
51:00
Speaker 2: I took over the team. I said, we're basically I said, basically,
51:06
Speaker 2: the job of science is to disprove the null hypothesis.
51:10
Speaker 2: As of today, the null hypothesis is not true. It's
51:14
Speaker 2: a religion, and we're here to prove it wrong. And
51:18
Speaker 2: so they gave us funding eight months of funding, and
51:20
Speaker 2: we disproved that standing wisdom in eight weeks. It didn't
51:24
Speaker 2: take long at all. That's called heteroduction. It is it's basically,
51:29
Speaker 2: look at it the landscape of who says what inside
51:32
Speaker 2: of science, and especially if they assert, if they appeal
51:35
Speaker 2: to ignorance or they assert a dispositive, they're probably wrong.
51:40
Speaker 2: And there's a there's a philosopher as a key statement
51:43
Speaker 2: like this. If if the old guard of science says
51:45
Speaker 2: something's impossible yet it has a mechanism, they are most
51:49
Speaker 2: likely incorrect. Then under the Bruce Lee method there that's
51:54
Speaker 2: called shotgunning, and we use that also in the materials lab.
51:58
Speaker 2: Instead of saying, well, I'm going to test this method,
52:01
Speaker 2: this amperage, this current, this bath temperature, this compound in
52:05
Speaker 2: the bath, I instead went through like a mind sweeper.
52:10
Speaker 2: Might I methodically shotgun tested the entire domain. And by
52:15
Speaker 2: doing that, I found the three indicative results that were
52:20
Speaker 2: necessary in advancing this science, whereas when you just hunt
52:24
Speaker 2: and peck through science, you're not going to hit those successes.
52:28
Speaker 2: And we found it quickly because we used method to
52:30
Speaker 2: find it. That's what Bruce Lee is using in that
52:33
Speaker 2: first principle that you outlined. You take what lights off
52:39
Speaker 2: as a success as you test catalogs. Do this in
52:42
Speaker 2: AB testing. We've done this in our catalog. With AB testing,
52:46
Speaker 2: you observe your successes and you begin to pull those
52:49
Speaker 2: into a body of understanding and you hold the theory
52:53
Speaker 2: around that conditionally. You know, do I have a true
52:56
Speaker 2: seasonal sell through here or is there something more going
52:59
Speaker 2: on with my product line that I'm not aware of?
53:02
Speaker 2: So I have to assemble those successes. I have to
53:05
Speaker 2: disregard things that sell one unit a year. That's irrelevant.
53:09
Speaker 2: I mean, yeah, I love the revenue, but it's irrelevant
53:11
Speaker 2: in terms of seasonality or push pull strategies and merchandising.
53:15
Speaker 2: I want to semble those successes together and then to
53:18
Speaker 2: begin to develop what's called a construct explaining why they're successful.
53:23
Speaker 2: In merchandising, you have to do that, and you use
53:25
Speaker 2: your instinct and many times you come up with the
53:28
Speaker 2: answer through observing those successes, those Bruce Lee successes, and
53:32
Speaker 2: developing an instinct around them. And then when you get
53:35
Speaker 2: a forecasting package and run it objectively, you find out that, yeah,
53:39
Speaker 2: your instinct was good, eighty or ninety percent. Right, there's
53:42
Speaker 2: a shift in consumer sentiment toward yellow polka dot now,
53:47
Speaker 2: you know, and moving away from green plaid. You have
53:50
Speaker 2: to be able to keep your finger on that. And
53:51
Speaker 2: that's that Bruce Lee principle.
53:53
Speaker 1: Yes, has there ever been a time that you know
53:57
Speaker 1: of a human history where social engineering hasn't been a thing.
54:01
Speaker 2: Well, no shortcuts to truth, because then incumbent with that
54:05
Speaker 2: we talked about the syllogism structure. If P, then Q.
54:09
Speaker 2: If I claim to have a shortcut to truth, then
54:11
Speaker 2: I am also claiming incumbent with that that I am
54:13
Speaker 2: the holder of truth. I'm not the holder of truth.
54:16
Speaker 2: I'm the holder of a method. But I think back.
54:22
Speaker 2: Your first point was that has it always been this
54:25
Speaker 2: oppressive domination of the social discourse? Has it always been
54:29
Speaker 2: reality or is it just worse now? It's always been reality,
54:32
Speaker 2: It's just not as easy to identify as it is now.
54:36
Speaker 2: You think back Pillar forty three, go Beckley Tepe. The
54:39
Speaker 2: in situ evidence around it is dated to ninety six
54:42
Speaker 2: hundred BCE. I contend that the actual pillar describes the
54:47
Speaker 2: sky in fourteen eight hundred BCE, and that's pretty clear
54:52
Speaker 2: of substantiated that in a study. It defines a cataclysm
54:56
Speaker 2: which occurred, and whoever was carving this stone depicted that cataclysm.
55:03
Speaker 2: It killed the cataclysms that solons when he talked to
55:07
Speaker 2: the priests in Egypt, they said, hey, you have a
55:09
Speaker 2: short memory. Is Greeks, there have actually been three cataclysms,
55:13
Speaker 2: not just the Cataclism of Decalian that they understood. Indeed,
55:17
Speaker 2: I believe that that's correct. There have been three cataclysms.
55:21
Speaker 2: The fact that they hide they bury these pillars that
55:25
Speaker 2: describe these cataclysms, and they dig them up and photograph
55:29
Speaker 2: them before they know what they say, and then they
55:31
Speaker 2: hide them inside rhetoric. They conduct the torfuscation, if you will.
55:35
Speaker 2: The fact that they've been doing that for a long
55:38
Speaker 2: long time tells me that it has been a persistent
55:41
Speaker 2: agency that has dominated science and dominated mankind for particular goals.
55:48
Speaker 2: It is the origin of this anti wisdom of crowds
55:51
Speaker 2: and this Burne's engineering the social skepticism that is pushed
55:56
Speaker 2: on us relentlessly by the media. It has always existed,
56:01
Speaker 2: it's just now we're beginning to get the terminology and
56:04
Speaker 2: the framing of principles so that we spot it. That's
56:07
Speaker 2: the whole purpose of the Tree of Knowledge obfuscation is
56:10
Speaker 2: so that people begin to spot the methods of agency
56:14
Speaker 2: and mistruth or disinformation.
56:17
Speaker 1: Okay, but Roger, is there not a risk in what
56:20
Speaker 1: you're saying in the sense that by how do I
56:25
Speaker 1: phrase this by claiming that there is the truth that
56:30
Speaker 1: is creating a binary.
56:35
Speaker 2: It does you automatically claim non truth when there are
56:38
Speaker 2: shades of non truth that exist that you're denying exist.
56:45
Speaker 2: And that's a problem, that absolutely is a problem right now.
56:49
Speaker 2: I think the you know, go back to UFOs, not
56:52
Speaker 2: because we need to have that, you know, necessarily forced
56:55
Speaker 2: as an answer, but the landscape that is inside the
56:58
Speaker 2: UFO discourse exhibit it's almost all of these principles that
57:01
Speaker 2: we're that we're talking about here, so avoiding, you know,
57:06
Speaker 2: coming to a final conclusion. There are shades of truth
57:09
Speaker 2: throughout that entire domain of study. And if you if
57:14
Speaker 2: you walk into that subject saying I am truth, you
57:17
Speaker 2: automatically exclude all those shades of truth that you that
57:21
Speaker 2: are outside your you know, your admission, and that becomes
57:25
Speaker 2: you become part of the problem is lying with vacts again.
57:29
Speaker 1: Okay, So I say that a bit facetiously because because
57:33
Speaker 1: of the COVID era, I restructured my entire view on vaccines.
57:37
Speaker 1: For example, and our son was born and he's not vaccinated,
57:42
Speaker 1: and I would argue that it is true that he
57:45
Speaker 1: is healthier as a result.
57:50
Speaker 2: Yes, I, you know, because of my son's you know,
57:54
Speaker 2: injury from the detap vaccine. I'm certainly questioning, skeptical, questioning vaccine.
58:01
Speaker 2: So I went and looked was it that I wanted
58:03
Speaker 2: to get rid of vaccines? In fact, on some of
58:06
Speaker 2: the national strategies of conducted vaccines were the essential part
58:09
Speaker 2: of that strategy. But I wanted to question our version
58:14
Speaker 2: of vaccine. It's like a holy word. It's a virtue word.
58:18
Speaker 2: We put on the robes and we have a big
58:20
Speaker 2: V on our chest. That's not science, that's a religion.
58:24
Speaker 2: I questioned that religion and caught a lot of flak
58:27
Speaker 2: for it. But yes, when the COVID vaccine rolled out,
58:31
Speaker 2: my partner in an energy business went and got the
58:35
Speaker 2: vaccine on Thursday, and then went into a coma on Sunday,
58:38
Speaker 2: perfectly healthy, and then died on Saturday. That just was
58:42
Speaker 2: another positive, Bruce Lee positive that I stake. I drove
58:48
Speaker 2: in the ground and started looking at the statistics from
58:51
Speaker 2: that point on, or the actually the signals, the systems
58:54
Speaker 2: engineering signals, and was the first to find the excess
58:57
Speaker 2: cancer event its inflection and its magnitude, and the first
59:02
Speaker 2: to find the inflection and magnitude of non COVID excess
59:06
Speaker 2: natural cause mortality. I found both of those first because
59:10
Speaker 2: I went and looked.
59:11
Speaker 1: Can it be stated that they are absolute truths?
59:19
Speaker 2: It can be stated that there are logical truths and
59:22
Speaker 2: that there are semantic truths, and along that continuum a
59:27
Speaker 2: person has to be skilled at negotiating their life and
59:31
Speaker 2: the rambifications of those truths in their life. That's really
59:36
Speaker 2: all it is. I would hesitate to use the term
59:40
Speaker 2: absolute truth. Yeah, I'm using that absolutely ironically. Even the
59:47
Speaker 2: existence of our universe. You know, there are reasonable postulates
59:52
Speaker 2: or constructs that say it's a simulation. You know, you
59:54
Speaker 2: go down to the plank time interval, the plank space interval,
59:58
Speaker 2: and it's quantized. It's just as if it's a computation.
1:00:03
Speaker 2: So it's no different than what one might surmise would
1:00:06
Speaker 2: be the constituent makeup of a simulation. So I don't
1:00:09
Speaker 2: even have the absolute truth that this universe is real,
1:00:12
Speaker 2: or that the distance between stars is actually you know,
1:00:16
Speaker 2: the number one challenge that faces us in terms of
1:00:18
Speaker 2: traveling through space. So absolute truth, I would say, no,
1:00:22
Speaker 2: we have logical truths, semantic truths, and then the ethical
1:00:27
Speaker 2: skepticism skill of applying those truths inside one's life.
1:00:32
Speaker 1: What's the takeaway, yeah, Roger.
1:00:37
Speaker 2: Well, the takeaway is to spot these three camps, syndicate science,
1:00:42
Speaker 2: limited hangouts, and then the irrational, wo over excited public.
1:00:49
Speaker 2: Each of those three comprise or compose probably ninety seven
1:00:53
Speaker 2: percent of the discourse online, and very rarely do you
1:00:57
Speaker 2: find people who actually go and look and maintain an
1:01:01
Speaker 2: objective stance and come back with deductive evidence and understand
1:01:06
Speaker 2: the difference between induction and deduction. There's a significant difference.
1:01:11
Speaker 2: Very few people do that. But if you do see that,
1:01:14
Speaker 2: like Jimmy Corsetti going to go Beckley Tepe and saying
1:01:17
Speaker 2: I'm going to look at specific things here, you know,
1:01:20
Speaker 2: the olive trees. Let's study olive trees. What does the
1:01:23
Speaker 2: taproot do on an olive tree? Oh, my goodness, it's
1:01:27
Speaker 2: enormously destructive. Why did they plant olive trees? He went
1:01:30
Speaker 2: and looked, and because he did that, he made he
1:01:33
Speaker 2: precipitated a change. They cut down those trees. Well, the
1:01:37
Speaker 2: roots are still going to do their damage, and they
1:01:39
Speaker 2: know this. But those types of activities are rare. He
1:01:43
Speaker 2: cut through all the racket and the noise from the
1:01:46
Speaker 2: syndicate and all the you know, they tried to get
1:01:49
Speaker 2: him arrested in Turkey. That's the action of a syndicate.
1:01:52
Speaker 2: That's agency, it's not bias. And so our job is
1:01:55
Speaker 2: to spot that three percent that is actually doing the
1:01:58
Speaker 2: job of science despite or in spite of the agency
1:02:03
Speaker 2: of science.
1:02:04
Speaker 1: In terms of propaganda. Matias Desmitt wrote a book on Totalitianism.
1:02:10
Speaker 1: I don't know if you if you know I'm talking
1:02:11
Speaker 1: about or the book that he wrote, I the great
1:02:13
Speaker 1: pleasure of having lunch with it. I don't okay. Oh,
1:02:16
Speaker 1: Actually he's a clinical psychologist based in Belgium and he
1:02:20
Speaker 1: had some great commentary during the COVID era. Anyway, he
1:02:26
Speaker 1: his work is based on past work, so it's not
1:02:28
Speaker 1: necessarily unique. But in his book he essentially makes the
1:02:31
Speaker 1: argument that around thirty to thirty five percent, maybe let's
1:02:36
Speaker 1: say third, okay, of all people at any given time
1:02:40
Speaker 1: will see through thoughter through these things that we've been
1:02:45
Speaker 1: talking about, and about a third will never. I wonder
1:02:51
Speaker 1: if it's desirable for it to maintain that balance for
1:02:54
Speaker 1: society to be healthy.
1:03:00
Speaker 2: Well, certainly the division is useful if you look at
1:03:04
Speaker 2: it under I guess the social understanding of the Hegelian
1:03:07
Speaker 2: dialect is you, you know, two parties. You purposely split
1:03:11
Speaker 2: a body into two parties, and there's always the agnostic middle.
1:03:15
Speaker 2: So when you say two parties are bookends, it sort
1:03:17
Speaker 2: of implies the neutral or agnostic middle. So that's the
1:03:21
Speaker 2: Hegelian bifurcation. A third party then exploits that under that
1:03:26
Speaker 2: Hegel's construct there, So I think it's purposeful because it
1:03:33
Speaker 2: is useful. It's useful to maintaining power on the part
1:03:36
Speaker 2: of agencies that like to control. They love that circumstance,
1:03:40
Speaker 2: having the debate proceed forward of significant utility. I guess
1:03:51
Speaker 2: where that we begin to, I don't know, depart from
1:03:54
Speaker 2: that or alter that is a thing called paltering, where
1:03:57
Speaker 2: we actually condition the media to look at that middle
1:04:00
Speaker 2: group and shift their sentiment over time, so we begin
1:04:03
Speaker 2: to shift the locus of those three groups. You know, politically,
1:04:07
Speaker 2: we've shifted left and it's gotten worse and worse, whereas
1:04:11
Speaker 2: you know what I used to you know, consider left
1:04:13
Speaker 2: principles that I really liked are now considered moderate or
1:04:17
Speaker 2: even conservative. And now when I was in the middle
1:04:20
Speaker 2: at one time, I'm now on the conservative end of
1:04:22
Speaker 2: the spectrum. That's called paltering, and that's the job of
1:04:26
Speaker 2: the media. So there's a second level of control that's
1:04:29
Speaker 2: exercised in that trifurcation, as you outlined it. But it's
1:04:33
Speaker 2: absolutely to answer your question, it's absolutely useful and purposeful.
1:04:38
Speaker 1: Yes, all right, Roger. How can I follow your work?
1:04:44
Speaker 2: Uh, the Ethical Skeptic dot com www, The Ethical Skeptic
1:04:48
Speaker 2: dot com and Ethical Skeptic on x And then of
1:04:52
Speaker 2: course I've got the book sales out there. Ecdo Theory
1:04:57
Speaker 2: as the title of the book, and it's selling robustly
1:05:00
Speaker 2: right now at a couple of different sites. I haven't
1:05:02
Speaker 2: put it on Amazon because I consider Amazon is the
1:05:05
Speaker 2: place where books go to die. I want to keep
1:05:09
Speaker 2: that intellectual property and I want to keep the value sustained.
1:05:12
Speaker 2: These are principles you know, we learned at our catalog
1:05:15
Speaker 2: and retailer. So I want to sustain its value, and
1:05:18
Speaker 2: it's becoming somewhat of a collectible item as well.
1:05:21
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining me in the trenches.
1:05:24
Speaker 2: Thank you Jeremy. It's a pleasure to be on the
1:05:25
Speaker 2: show again