If you’re coming to the Rational Ground conference this weekend in San Diego I’ll have signed copied of my new book you can buy on site. And, of course, as promised - if you sign up for an annual subscription here I’ll send you a signed copy as they become available.
Isn't it ironic that throughout the pandemic the people that were saying "the Science™ is in" and "follow the Science™ had so little science in which to follow or show as evidence. Ask them for clarity "on the science" and they could not give it. They would say condescending things like "Oh, it's out there, I don't have the time to show it to you." All of these responses were meant to drive an emotional response. Instead, many of us inevitably ended up "showing" the data. Like the great graphs by Ian Miller, or a number of scientific papers on the efficacy of masks, as well as articles concerning the process of how vaccines traditionally tested.
The trap then was to ask "the source" of the article, and when you stated that it was an article that was in dissent to the prevailing narrative, media bias and fact checking sites already had those sites (like Rationalground) as misinformation sites. Save the fact that much of the data came from the CDC and other institutions that were purporting this narrative.
But that was all the narrative police had to do. They knew most people would not bother to read further, to fact check the fact checkers, or to read a scientific study. In fact, to do so you would be scoffed at. They would discard people eduacting themselves as watching "one youtube video" or digging deep to find some far out conspiracy theory.
Anyone paying attention during the pandemic should have realized that "the science" was based on what was deemed politically useful for the desired narrative at that time. The complete flip flop on masking alone should have given that away.
Isn't it ironic that throughout the pandemic the people that were saying "the Science™ is in" and "follow the Science™ had so little science in which to follow or show as evidence. Ask them for clarity "on the science" and they could not give it. They would say condescending things like "Oh, it's out there, I don't have the time to show it to you." All of these responses were meant to drive an emotional response. Instead, many of us inevitably ended up "showing" the data. Like the great graphs by Ian Miller, or a number of scientific papers on the efficacy of masks, as well as articles concerning the process of how vaccines traditionally tested.
The trap then was to ask "the source" of the article, and when you stated that it was an article that was in dissent to the prevailing narrative, media bias and fact checking sites already had those sites (like Rationalground) as misinformation sites. Save the fact that much of the data came from the CDC and other institutions that were purporting this narrative.
But that was all the narrative police had to do. They knew most people would not bother to read further, to fact check the fact checkers, or to read a scientific study. In fact, to do so you would be scoffed at. They would discard people eduacting themselves as watching "one youtube video" or digging deep to find some far out conspiracy theory.
Anyone paying attention during the pandemic should have realized that "the science" was based on what was deemed politically useful for the desired narrative at that time. The complete flip flop on masking alone should have given that away.
What if you already signed up for an annual subscription before now? :-)