Truth
Discernment is a Wicked Bitch
In ninety-four, the NHL had a problem: The players were getting uppity.
It got nasty, the players were locked out, merch sales cratered, thousands of Canadian TVs hit the landfills due to abuse by half-filled beer cans.
One of the points of contention was the ability for redress when negotiating contract renewals. The solution, found amenable by both the rich/white owners and the player’s association was third party intervention.
“NHL salary arbitration is a tool available to settle some contract disputes. The player and team each propose a salary for the coming season and argue their cases at a hearing. The arbitrator, a neutral third party, then sets the player's salary.
The process is used by restricted free agents because it is one of the few bargaining options available to them.”
Jamie Fitzpatrick, Liveaboutdotcom, Guide to NHL Salary Arbitration
Science took a slightly different approach: Peer Review.
“[T]he process by which scholars critically appraise each other's work to ensure a high level of scholarship in a journal and to improve the quality and readability of a manuscript.”
The University of Toronto, Understanding Peer Review
Self-policing. You write up the results of your study on asbestos/eating carbs/rainfall in the Himalayas, call up your favourite/reputable journal for submission.
They assembly a team of knowledgeable/credible/subject matter experts to check the math.
Did you carry the one? Do you draw conclusions of correlation where none exists?
Checks and balances when discerning truth.
What could go wrong?
From the beginning, the virus came from a bat in a wetmarket in Wuhan, China.
Rumours started to circulate.
There was a bio-lab a couple of blocks down the road, doing research on the virus, trying to make it more communicable and deadly.
Fortunately, these fears/concerns were quickly put to rest.
“Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
Kristian G. Andersen, et al, Nature, The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2, March 17, 2020
Thank the good Lord. If it turned out that it was man-made, that Covid was self-inflicted, there would be thousands of zealots aggressively searching for hands on which to dump the indelible blood of millions.
In the years since the report that quash concerns was published, it became concerning in and of itself.
“A growing number of people, including prominent scientists, are calling for a full retraction of a high-profile study published in the journal Nature in March 2020 that explored the origins of SARS-CoV-2.”
John Miltmore, American Institute for Economic Reach, ‘Caught-Red-Handed’: Scientists Call for Full Retraction of Nature’s Proximal Origin Paper, as Fraud Accusations Mount
With good reason.
“But now, Public and Racket have obtained hundreds of previously unreleased email and Slack direct messages which cover the period when Andersen and his colleagues collaborated to write ‘Proximal Origin.’
Those communications paint a starkly different picture from the one Andersen and Garry presented to Congress last week. They show that Andersen and his colleagues clearly thought it was indeed possible not only that the virus that causes Covid-19 had leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but specifically that it had been cultured in the laboratory.”
Alex Gutentag, et al, Public, Top Scientists Misled Congress About Covid Origins, Newly Released Emails And Messages Show
The scientists/experts/those we trust had doubts but published their peer reviewed paper – with its declarative statements of certainty – anyway.
“That paper dismissed the lab leak theory and has been viewed nearly six million times since its publication.”
Ryan Grim, The Intercept, Key Scientist in Covid Origin Controversy Misled Congress on Status of $8.9 Million NIH Grant
It became the narrative.
“Fauci highlighted it to the public in order to dismiss the notion of a lab escape.”
It was more deception than truth.
“Wrote Andersen on February 1, 2020, “I think the main thing still in my mind is that the lab escape version of this is so friggin' likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” A few days later, he and the other authors were searching for a plausible intermediate host such as a pangolin that would allow them to refute the theory.”
Alex Gutentag, et al, Public, Top Scientists Misled Congress About Covid Origins, Newly Released Emails And Messages Show
The more unorthodox among us would say: “Fuck peer-review”, climb up on their roofs and shout: “Follow the money”.
“That grant proposal detailed in the trove of documents was for a project titled ‘Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence,’ which involved screening thousands of bat samples, as well as people who worked with live animals, for novel coronaviruses.
The $3.1 million grant was awarded for a five-year period between 2014 and 2019. After the funding was renewed in 2019, it was suspended by the Trump administration in April 2020.”
Emily Crane, New York Post, NIH admits US funded gain-of-function in Wuhan — despite Fauci’s denials
In March, 2020, Fauci’s legacy would have turned from benevolent/incredibly short/grandfatherly doctor to the man who created/unleashed the pathogen behind a world pandemic, not to mention incessantly washing his hands. His motivation was clear.
Intent is a key to determining criminality.
As to the motivations of Kristian G. Andersen, et al, the authors of Proximal Origins?
“The grant wasn’t finalized until May 21, 2020. In other words, it was on Fauci’s desk at the time of the conference call. Andersen’s lab announced the funding in a press release in August 2020, nine months after he claimed it was already finalized. The press release describes it as a ‘new $8.9 million grant’.”
Ryan Grim, The Intercept, Key Scientist in Covid Origin Controversy Misled Congress on Status of $8.9 Million NIH Grant
Peer review? Science may want to look into arbitration.
Claims that the search for truth has been perverted by money and politics appear to be justified.
The impacts of redaction are manifold – to reputation/career/respect – yet the calls continued.
“The case for retracting Proximal Origins is overwhelming because we now know, undeniably, that it was seriously flawed and misleading.”
Roger Pielke Jr., The Honest Broker, Why Proximal Origins Must be Retracted
Not all calls for retraction are the same.
In 2022, Springer Link published a rather innocuous article/analysis/report on the frequency of extreme weather.
By experts.
It wasn’t a big deal, didn’t make a headline/cause a seismic reaction/sensation. Mind you, it didn’t...
“In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”
Gianluca Alimonti, et al, European Physical Journal Plus, A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
... support the narrative.
The attacks began.
“Yet a closer look at the publication, which appeared nine months ago in the European Physical Journal Plus – a journal not known for climate studies – reveals something very different.
The authors – three Italian physicists and an agricultural meteorologist – did little original work, but instead reviewed selected papers from other scientists. This was an article, not a study.
Climate scientists told Temperature Check the work was selective and had misinterpreted the results of some studies, while leaving others out.
Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, told Temperature Check the journal article was “another example of scientists from totally unrelated fields coming in and naively applying inappropriate methods to data they don’t understand”.
‘Either the consensus of the world’s climate experts that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes is wrong, or a couple of nuclear physics dudes in Italy are wrong’.”
Graham Readfearn, The Guardian, Sky and the Australian find ‘no evidence’ of a climate emergency – they weren’t looking hard enough
They were unrelenting.
“A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.”
Marlowe Hood, Roland Lloyd-Parry, Patrick Galey, PHYS.ORG, Scientists urge top publisher to withdraw faulty climate study
The journal, having those coveted characteristics/appendages: balls/backbone, pushed back.
“I would invite the colleagues that have objections to send in their objections and to pass them on to the authors. To start a discussion in the press as they already did is certainly worse than publishing a critical paper. They could later also be invited to publish a comment.
We should as a journal not refrain or be afraid from a scientific discussion, but it should be in a correct way.”
Jef Ongena, Managing Editor, The European Physical Journal Plus, via The Honest Broker, "Think of the Implications of Publishing"
Push back, initially.
“The adjudicator report – from a leading expert in the field – leaves no other choice but to reject the Addendum altogether under these circumstances.
The failure of the Addendum to mend the problems with the original article as shown by this in-depth post publication review, necessarily re-opens the question of the fate of the original article. After an in-depth consultation with the publishers (copied here) we came to the conclusion that a retraction is inevitable, a decision fully backed by the publishers.”
Beatrice Fabroni, The European Physical Journal Plus’ co-editor-in-chief, via The Honest Broker, "Think of the Implications of Publishing"
Let’s review:
To discern truth, science uses peer-review (their empiricists, not God guys).
Proximal Origins did not represent the views of the authors. It was written with goals that were politically/financially based. Not truth.
A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming was based on empiric evidence, real world data, it was:
“A retraction based not on any claims of scientific misconduct, but simple disagreement.”
Roger Pielke Jr., The Honest Broker, "Think of the Implications of Publishing"
One paper should be retracted, not because of the overt/obvious conflicts of interest that usurped the search for truth and relegated it to a tertiary role/goal behind political expediency and financial considerations, but because it was poorly done, ignoring some evidence while while misrepresenting other data points.
One paper was redacted, not because it didn’t conform to the rigors of peer-review, because Micheal Mann, et al, didn’t like it. (A note to Mike: Fuck you.)
“What does ‘infallibility’ mean? It means that when the pope teaches us definitively, in either the areas of our faith or moral life, he is guaranteed to teach us the truth! In other words, we can always trust what the pope teaches us.”
My Catholic Life!, The Pope’s Infallibility
There is a sub-sect of the human race, commonly referred to as heretics, that believe no one is infallible, that the search for truth is a process, never ending, perfection is unattainable yet – somewhat counter-intuitively, despite its unattainability - remains a worthy goal.
Failure should be celebrated, not disdained.
“I missed a hundred percent of the shots I didn’t take.
Wayne Gretzky
You don’t learn to surf without getting wet, you don’t learn to ski without spending some time in a snowbank.
Uncertainty is an intrinsic characteristic of the search for truth.
“A sense of uncertainty about the future generates a strong threat or 'alert' response in your limbic system. Your brain detects something is wrong, and your ability to focus on other issues diminishes. Your brain doesn't like uncertainty - it's like a type of pain, something to be avoided. Certainty on the other hand feels rewarding, and we tend to steer toward it, even when it might be better for us to remain uncertain.”
David Rock, Ph.D. Psychology Today, A Hunger for Certainty
Failure is not desirable nor the goal, but it’s not unexpected.
The same could be said for uncertainty.
“Space: The final frontier. These are the voyages for the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
James T. Kirk (William Shatner), Star Trek, opening monologue, 1966
Narratives ameliorate risk/uncertainty.
Narratives are comforting. They’re the glass of warm milk before bed, that cozy blanket in front of the fireplace.
They imply safety, freedom from risk and uncertainty.
Seductive.
Back in the late sixties, there was a group of deviants, badly in need of haircuts and wearing weird pants called bellbottons/flares, traumatized by the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, that came up with this phrase to encapsulate/distill the forces against their reforms/approach.
The Powers That Be (TPTB).
The antagonists – in their eyes – weren’t the wannabes that come to your door looking for your vote, but the deep state, the thirty year vets in the state department that tell Dan Rather, and his million head audience, the domino theory: “If we lose Vietnam, Laos will be next, then the Philippines, then Australia”. None of which happened, other than Cambodia a decade later.
We suggest a rephrasing:
Those Who Know Better (TWKB).
There is a cabal, predominately made up of elites – rich/old white guys, often with degrees/certificates of superiority – that treat us like we’re six year olds. We – the normies – like to touch hot stove burners, play in traffic, don’t wear underwear.
Five minutes from irredeemable.
Consider the catalyst/response to the papers detailed above.
Proximal Origins was inspired/written/shepherded/informed with two goals: Protect the guilty and twist the discourse.
It accomplished those goals through censorship, covertly – case closed/science is settled/nothing to see here leading to self-censorship and overtly – Twitter bans, youtube strikes and the forced insertion of the word conspiracy between lab-leak and theory.
A critical assessment was redacted/censored because we – the normies – should never hear:
“the climate crisis... is not evident yet.”
Gianluca Alimonti, et al, European Physical Journal Plus, A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming
It’s for the common good.
“Gnosis
“Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation”
TWKB have been blessed with uncommon knowledge. They are prescient, see the next apocalypse that’s just over the horizon. You can’t. You didn’t go to the right schools/perform the right rituals.
As the poignant examples above make amply self-evident, TWKB don’t give a fuck about truth.
Truth only has value, to them, if it supports the narrative. If it doesn’t, it is suppressed/censored/maligned/misrepresented.
We have lost science.
"I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like. That’s not the way science should work."
Patrick T Brown, The Free Press, I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published