More on "Truth"

 

One of my friends, John, sent me this article – “Is Truth Objective or Subjective? Here’s What Science has to Say”.

Before I continue please take a moment and read that title again asking yourself this question: is this question an honest one or a perverse (“turned away from or rejecting what is right, good, or proper; wicked or corrupt.”) question? We will address that specifically later in this essay.

First, let us summarise the main points of the article. It starts off by saying that Scientific truths are objective (based on observational facts) and that is correct. Then it identifies what they describe as “subjective truths”. If two people are shown a colour (an objective truth) each person likely will describe that colour by a different name. As each person sees what they see that must be a truth and since the colour names are different that is a subjective observation, and this must be a “subjective truth”.

At first blush that seems to be correct. Except it is not. The “subjective truth” is not a truth at all but an opinion. Take for example the parable of several blind people being shown an elephant. From Wikipedia:

“The parable of the blind men and an elephant originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent, from where it has been widely diffused. It is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.”

In the article the subject example is not an elephant but a colour. Each observer, based on their personal experience, finds a different name for that colour, yet they are describing the same colour. Each is giving their opinion. And there lies the problem; our language is truly diverse with many words having multiple meanings. Even the words “true” and “truth”. Here it is okay to use the word “truth” for an observational fact, and for a subjective opinion that the person who made it believes.

Now let us come back to the question I posed: “is this question an honest one or a perverse question”? Did you catch the use of the word “or”? The writer is trying to trick you with words in believing that truth can either be objective OR it can be subjective. And the use of or implies that it must be one but not the other! In other words, an opinion can replace objective facts!

Note that the article itself is far more balanced in that we can have objective and subjective “truths” at the same time. The problem here is that the authour is “perverting” the meaning of truth; they are taking the word and applying it dishonestly. Even though an opinion may be correct, based on the analysis given, that does not mean that it is true. Did you catch what I did there? I used a different word, “correct” for what the authour would have used the word “true”. This is a good example of how language can be used to manipulate thought by using words out of context and thus implying a meaning that is not appropriate. Yet the mind typically is unable, or unaware that a trick is being played on them.

As another example here is a meme I just came across:

 

It summarizes pretty good  how language can be perverted to cause people with good morals to do bad things. An example of one of these "anti-bad guy squads" of course is Antifa, which I have written about before exposing them for what they are. Another is Black Lives Matter - a racist organization that tries to cloak itself in the guise of being anti-racist.

This is why “propaganda” is so effective. It takes “truth” and twists it in such a way that it no longer means what it should to bend the observers mind. Not unlike the magicians use of misdirection. The switch is done right in front of you, yet you are not even aware.

Geologists are well suited for identifying “truth” and “opinion”. The reason is that we are always faced with trying to draw conclusions based on limited information. These conclusions we know for sure are just opinions because we have so little supporting “facts”. But as we acquire more facts, we can become more assured in our opinions or let the facts take us in a different direction completely; you let the data take you where it does and only  accept, or reject, just to support your belief.

With a magician it is easy to address; you know there is no such thing as magic so it must be a trick. With media it is far harder. My rule of thumb is that if you find a media source using deception in one instance then it is likely safe to believe they use deception in others. So, treat them like the magician and do not believe anything they say, or at minimum doubt everything they say until such time as you can verify independently. An excellent first pass is look for the presence, or absence, of facts. If no facts are given, then do not trust at all the opinion presented.

The Search for Truth

 

When we are born, even though with an innate personality, we are still a blank slate that time and experiences help develop. In my case I spent my formative years in a rural setting such that I was bussed to school from kindergarten through to grade 13. While there were several other kids in our location the same age as my younger brother there were none my age. As a result, I developed an independence and reliance on self.

One formative event was when I was exploring in the bush out behind our home and got disoriented. As panic was beginning to settle in, I heard a train. Soon after I heard a transport on the highway. Now that I had a sense of location, I soon extricated myself from my predicament and ever since always maintain an awareness of my location and have never been lost since.

Another was in Grade 5 when we all had to do Public Speaking which involved a 3-minute presentation assisted only with some cards with key prompts. I spent much time and effort, especially since I was rather insecure about my abilities to memorise the presentation. I gave my speech and rarely, if at all had need to refer to my cards. Then was humiliated for what seemed like an eternity as my teacher criticized virtually everything I had said and done, aided by my classmates who in their innocence just went with the flow. While that scarred me for a long time it opened another door in that I became a particularly good listener, even if I rarely would get the courage to speak up in fear of being criticized.

I also became an avid reader, whether it be books or magazines. Because of this hobby I have squirrelled away an abundance of trivia such that when in High School I did well with the “Reach For The Top” club. Here we are many decades later and the one book from my youth that is seldom out of my thoughts is “1984” by George Orwell.

Key aspects of the book are the concepts of “doublethink” and “newspeak” that involve accepting two mutually contradictory thoughts as correct; “war is peace”, “freedom is slavery” and “ignorance is strength”. And we see that all around us more and more as time has gone on, especially in the last couple of decades. To the point that outright lies are now accepted as truth.

You may find that difficult to believe, but it is part of human nature to spend more time on emotional reaction and as little as possible on actual thinking. We are all aware of the folk tale “Chicken Little”. While its origins date back at least a couple of centuries it documents the point I wish to make. [Insert perceived catastrophe] is fervently expressed by Chicken Little (choose your speaker of doom) and in the ensuing panic accept as fact by all around you, except for Foxy Loxy (choose those who have the most to gain at the detriment of the others by taking advantage of the mass hysteria).

I have written before about Propaganda and how it is designed to deceive for ulterior motives. But human nature as pointed out can produce the same result, the madness of crowds. The ultimate expression of “peer pressure” where the only motivation for blindly following is “everyone else is doing or saying it”. A suggestion for those of you who have read this far – be sceptical of everything you see or hear unless there is compelling evidence to support it. For example, if someone says something like “a consensus of scientists say …”, that is a red flag that it is false as science is based on scepticism, not consensus. Science greats such as Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Einstein, Darwin and so many more all share the common trait that none of them accepted the “consensus” of the time. All asked questions and pushed back on what was generally accepted. We all should push back on any thought or idea that the only supporting “evidence” presented are mindless phrases that try to do nothing but elicit emotion when actual thought is required. In fact, the easy way to identify the Foxy Loxy’s of the world who have ulterior motives is to watch for the use of meaningless phrases. Even ones like “follow the science” yet provide no scientific data as that is the very foundation of “science”!

If the last sentence generated a question such as “who are you to say what is science”, then good for you! That is warranted push back. And the answer is that I have an Honours Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science degrees and have been a practising scientist for most of my life. As I like to tell people, I am a jack of all trades, but a Master of one and I have the paper to prove it. But most importantly the best lesson I learned from my university days was to be skeptical. I strongly encourage you to do so too, especially now when so many are doing as Orwell predicted and are trying to enslave us yet calling that “freedom” and doing so by telling us lies yet making you think it is truth.

All searchers for Truth push back. If you value freedom it is about time more of us do that before it is too late.

Why are COVID-19 cases still rising?

 

 Why are cases still rising? Testing using a method that does not work as advertised (COVID19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless).

Think back to just this time last year as the annual flu season was ramping up. How were flu “cases” identified then? You showed symptoms of the flu! No testing to verify even though there are at least two known variants with multiple sub-types (Types of Influenza Viruses) and you would think that it would be nice to know which one a person was suffering from.

Note that early this year we had two “petri dish” examples with which to evaluate how virulent the new virus is, how it may be transmitted (we still do not actually know! - Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - Transmission) and other observations from which we can draw conclusions.

The first is the Diamond Princess cruise ship (COVID-19 pandemic on Diamond Princess - Wikipedia). There were 3,711 passengers and crew on board all of who were placed under quarantine after a passenger was identified as having the virus. Those on the ship were subjected to extensive testing using the RT-PCR “test”. Of these, 696 (18.7%) tested “positive” but only 286 (7.7%) ended up having symptoms. The balance of the “positives” were written off as being “asymptomatic” (did not develop any symptoms) when in actuality they likely were just false positives. This calculates out to be a false positive rate of 13.6% (410/3015). In summary, only 7.7% of all on board ended up with covid symptoms which makes it hard to believe it is transmitted by air.

The second was the US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt (Study provides more detail of how COVID-19 spread to 1,271 sailors aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt). A case of covid was determined, the whole ship was put into quarantine and then the whole crew tested, again using the RT-PCR “test”. Of the 4,779 on board 1,271 tested positive. Of these, 572 (43%) never did exhibit any symptoms and were again written off as being “asymptomatic”, a false positive rate of 14.0% (572/4080). Only 14.6% of all on board developed covid symptoms.

The evidence is clear, the problem is not covid itself but the “testing”. Based on two well documented examples where covid was present and where all were tested, approximately 14% of all tests end up being false positives. There are far too many false positives associated with the standard “test” that is being used and all testing needs to stop!

Now the number that really matters - the number of deaths from this virus. On the Diamond Princess 14 died (0.4% of all those on board) of which 10 were over 70 years old. On the Roosevelt 1 person died (0.02%). Draw what conclusions you may.

Freedom of the Press

 

 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law”. So, what are the “fundamental” freedoms? They include “freedom of association” and “freedom of peaceful assembly” as well as “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication”.

Sounds great does it not? Unfortunately, in the case of the latter, what good is “freedom” if you do not want to exercise that right? All sources of “media of communication” have pretty much abdicated that right. Why was it considered so important in the first place? Why is the freedom to have thought, belief, opinion, and expression tied so closely to media of communication?

Recently I read an essay by Bryan Golden titled “Freedom – hard to get but easy to lose”. In it he stated- “Tyrants depend on people’s ignorance, inaction, or apathy to confiscate power”. The only way we can avoid ignorance, inaction and apathy is to publicly dissent. And how do we do that? By speaking our minds, thus the freedom of “opinion and expression” and being able to share those opinions and thus the “freedom of the press”. When that vehicle for disseminating opinion and expression fails to do its duty tyranny wins.

The Twenty First century has so far been marked by media failing we, the people, by not holding up their part of the bargain. The media need to be the vehicle of dissent and not the gate keepers.

It may be true that like any business, they have the right to choose whatever path they want. But at the core of any society that wants to call itself “civilized” there must be core morals and beliefs that transcend mere greed. But even then, to pick one side makes absolutely no sense. Is not the money to be earned of equal value no matter what beliefs people have? Should it not be financially lucrative to allow all people access to a means of sharing your message whether it be for or against?

I once subscribed to a newspaper in another jurisdiction who followed unstated rules as best they could: “news” reports stated only facts with no opinion attached; opinions were kept exclusively to the Opinion section; and in that section a full spectrum of views was always maintained through the use of staff and freelance writers. If we look at most media these days those “rules” are no longer followed. For example, I recently came across a short “news” piece about caribou which stated, “the province says it is monitoring a fragile caribou herd”. Note that the word “fragile” is an opinion and thus had no place in this piece as it was supposed to only give facts.  Similarly, in the same issue all the “opinion” pieces were from the same service and reflected the same points of view.

The net effect is that dissent has been suppressed to the point we likely have gone down the rabbit hole too far to easily return. To think that the last world war was fought, and people died, including many Canadians, to protect our freedoms. Yet we now ignore the Canadian Legion motto: “Lest we Forget”. We are being overwhelmed by tyranny whether it be petty bureaucrats using the dishonest byline “to keep us safe” or politicians wanting to make a “reset”.  I know there are others out there like me who try to expose the lies but without the full support of the media our dissent, like sound in a vacuum, can go nowhere.

I will close with a quote by George Orwell, authour of “1984”- “Freedom of the Press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose”. If only it were still so.

Who Should I Vote For?

 

Whenever there is an election we are faced with the same question: who should I vote for?

Since “government”, the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the citizens of a country, province or municipality, has such a major impact on your life do you not think it is something that should be given some thought? Yet far too many of us do not. People typically fall into the following groups: those that have a sense of what issues are important, idealogues (“I have always voted for party X”) and the flighty (“who talks the best/looks the best, etc.). The latter are the most volatile as they are easy victims to false advertising whether it be campaign slogans or media “scandals”.

What is really required, and typically helps guide the first group, is to take some time to look at the substance of the candidates and their respective platforms. Does candidate A, an incumbent, have a proven track record of delivering on previous pledges ("promises”)? Does candidate B have a solid track record from previous elected roles whereby they did more than just provide lip service? Or does candidate C offer a new perspective with potentially viable suggested solutions? Do their positions make sense economically as well as socially? Remember that “government” is fuelled by the taxes you pay. Are they being spent “wisely”? The government has a fiduciary duty to serve the citizens the best they can. Are they doing that?

It is complicated these days in that many sources of information are very biased. A quick way to filter out negative bias is to get a handle on the perspective being presented. Can it be described as favouring “Marxism”? Note that this political view is very shallow being based on the false assumption that we are divided into the “oppressed” and “oppressors”. When ever it has been tried it has failed in that the “oppressed” become the oppressors and then, drunk on the newly attained “power” do everything they can to maintain that power. An extreme example was Pol Pot in Cambodia. When your solution is to kill as many of your former “oppressors” something is wrong with you, not them.

Over the last half century, we have seen significant advances in overcoming major societal problems, such as racism and sexism. Unfortunately, those that fought for those changes, now that the goals have been met, are lost and now in search of new giants to kill. But in doing so they have become like Don Quixote in that the giants they now see are figments of their imagination. “Black Lives Matter” is a good example. Of course, black lives matter, but so do all others! To focus on one racial group is to revert to the racism of the past. “Me too” is no different. Women are, outside of biology, equal to men thanks to the advances of “Feminism”. But now to say that men lie but women do not is again a repudiation of all that was gained. Both movements fall into the Marxist Oppressor/Oppressed dichotomy that is morally bankrupt.

Another filter to consider is what is our strength as a society? Is it really a “strength” to focus on how we are different? Or is it our commonalities? There is a parable I heard a long time ago that made sense then and still does. A stick can be easily broken but when several sticks are bundled together, they become strong. And so, it is with a country, for example. If we work together for the common good, then we are strong. But if we work against each other focusing on our differences we are weak. Therefore, any person who promotes unity is promoting strength and those who promote differences is not. It is always better, for example, to negotiate from a position of strength than it is of weakness.

Also important are good morals and ethics and both flow from one who believes in “truth”. These days truth is easily hidden unless you have skills that help you unwrap the lies and deceit typically used to hide the truth. Even if you lack relevant skills a good way to expose the truth is to see and hear opposing views. More likely than not the one view that spends more time on demonstrable facts is likely closer to the truth than the one that makes a point of dismissing other views out of hand by using name calling as their primary tool.

Every voter should take their duty seriously. Do your research. Look at the character of those being evaluated and not the superficial. Check their track record. Have they changed positions many times over the past like a sailing ship tacking to go with changing wind conditions? Or have they maintained a steady course backed by good moral and ethical reasons? Are your measures of character controlled by how someone talks or the fact you do not like their looks? Then review them using other methods such as the written word so that you can get past your own biases.

If you do not have the desire to do the work, then do not vote. Leave the choice up to those who have done the due diligence. Having the right to vote gives you great power. But as Uncle Ben told Spiderman: “With great power comes great responsibility”. So, use it wisely. If you are not wise, then do not use it.