I will argue a point that broadly should be supportive of what Steve argues today. I don’t know a good term for the technique, but in general terms it’s simply – or perhaps “complexly”? – trying to discern the motives of various factions. This is hardly a revolutionary concept. The best explanation of it I’ve seen is in Nietzsche’s writi…
I will argue a point that broadly should be supportive of what Steve argues today. I don’t know a good term for the technique, but in general terms it’s simply – or perhaps “complexly”? – trying to discern the motives of various factions. This is hardly a revolutionary concept. The best explanation of it I’ve seen is in Nietzsche’s writings, especially in his Beyond Good and Evil. There, he analyzes the “prejudices of philosophers.” Relevant to my comments today is this central concept. Often, a Thinker makes the claim that he has found The Truth. Perhaps he has. But, Nietzsche asks, the question should not be whether X is true or false. (As a side point, he makes several cases for why it may very well be impossible to actually determine such truths). Far more interesting, and possibly rewarding, would be to ask questions of the Thinker: “Why does he WANT X to be true?” What unconscious motives, instincts, drives are likely causing his behavior?
For today’s example, allow me to use a posting from another web site I follow. Here’s the post:
“Won’t make any difference to the vaccine safety nuts, but yet another review of data finds no indication that CV-19 vax are associated with an increase in serious myocarditis in younger athletes or with sudden cardiac death and that myocarditis is more common after CV-19 infection than vaccination. (BMJ Article)”
Now, remember, I am making no effort to assess the truth or falsity of these claims. What I WILL do, however, is some simple “psychoanalysis.” Some motives here are very easy to find. For example, on his web page, we learn that in addition to his other activities, he’s a consultant to the health care industry. Now, that and of itself doesn’t mean he’s a shill for Big Pharma. In fairness, he seems to present multiple viewpoints. Indeed in the cited example he offers plenty of skeptical observations. Just the same, a cyncic might assume that Roche would not wish to alienate potential employers. As such, that is a very diplomatic motive. But what if Roche is acutally convinced that the mRNA jabs are in fact highly dangerous? Perhaps not relevant here: I am interested in guessing what might motivate his behavior. And not burning bridges is a powerful inhibitor.
I haven’t even looked at the BMJ article, but I can do a “psychoanalysis” – or jumping to conclusions if you like – about likely motives. To reiterate, a lot of this is speculation. I’m trying to smoke out actual or likely motives that would make Mr. Roche, or the authors of the BMJ paper, act certain ways.
Now let’s consider the claim that the BMJ study found no difference in incidents in athletes. Remember, we are not concerned right now with the underlying truth or falseness of the issues, only what motivates a party to act a certain way.
What might motivate the authors of the BMJ study to lie? To tell the truth? There are plenty of them: not the least is that by reporting a “pro-vax” result, they ingratiate themselves with Pharma, grant grantors, the establishment medical system in general. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And in the case of a researcher, he is reliable upon future grants. If he wanders too far off into the tall weeds, he'll find himself out of money and likely, out of a career.
There are just a few primal drives operating here: for continued survival (= future income), acceptance by the peer group (= toeing the party line, not rocking the boat), perhaps maintaining self-esteem (= not alienating colleagues or the boss, perhaps the researcher has faith in the medical profession, and this colors his objectivity). About the only one missing in this case, probably, is the need for sexual reproduction. And for all I know, even it might be present, say if the lead author wants to bed the sexy wench who works in the grants office. While a lot of what I've just written is conjecture, the general principle remains: there are ALWAYS instincts operative below the conscious level and they exert a profound influence on individual and thus group behaviors.
Now, we could look at it from Steve’s anecdote perspective. Given other data points, what’s “wrong” with the BMJ study’s claims? Well, here are just a few:
There are many, many anecdotal claims of young and apparently healthy athletes who have dropped dead or had severe health issues, such as heart attacks. Damar Hamlin and Bronny James are but two recent examples. Given that such events in normal times are extremely rare, bordering on non-existent, the fact that so many have been happening to relatively famous people, in the cited cases, athletes who one would expect to be the healthiest of humans, one can make the inference that far more similar examples are happening to not-famous people, those who are rarely, if ever, in the public eye.
OK, I’m going to wrap this up. My point is that nothing can be trusted. Not one damned thing. Everybody has a hidden agenda, or at least the skeptic should assume so until proven otherwise. Sadly, it seems that nearly all institutions are captured by special interests.
Two years ago the media was bombarding us about those horrid “science deniers” and “anti-vaxxers” who were promoting “vaccine hesitancy.” What was never allowed in debate was the fact that there might well have been reasons to be hesitant about a rushed “vaccine” that wasn’t even particularly effective for its stated purpose.
I take no joy in suggesting that, to paraphrase the old joke, that you will probably fare much better believing your own “lying eyes” than that bought-and-paid-for “expert” over there.
I will argue a point that broadly should be supportive of what Steve argues today. I don’t know a good term for the technique, but in general terms it’s simply – or perhaps “complexly”? – trying to discern the motives of various factions. This is hardly a revolutionary concept. The best explanation of it I’ve seen is in Nietzsche’s writings, especially in his Beyond Good and Evil. There, he analyzes the “prejudices of philosophers.” Relevant to my comments today is this central concept. Often, a Thinker makes the claim that he has found The Truth. Perhaps he has. But, Nietzsche asks, the question should not be whether X is true or false. (As a side point, he makes several cases for why it may very well be impossible to actually determine such truths). Far more interesting, and possibly rewarding, would be to ask questions of the Thinker: “Why does he WANT X to be true?” What unconscious motives, instincts, drives are likely causing his behavior?
For today’s example, allow me to use a posting from another web site I follow. Here’s the post:
https://healthy-skeptic.com/2023/08/16/coronamonomania-lives-forever-part-219/
Here’s the precise claim I wish to comment upon:
“Won’t make any difference to the vaccine safety nuts, but yet another review of data finds no indication that CV-19 vax are associated with an increase in serious myocarditis in younger athletes or with sudden cardiac death and that myocarditis is more common after CV-19 infection than vaccination. (BMJ Article)”
Now, remember, I am making no effort to assess the truth or falsity of these claims. What I WILL do, however, is some simple “psychoanalysis.” Some motives here are very easy to find. For example, on his web page, we learn that in addition to his other activities, he’s a consultant to the health care industry. Now, that and of itself doesn’t mean he’s a shill for Big Pharma. In fairness, he seems to present multiple viewpoints. Indeed in the cited example he offers plenty of skeptical observations. Just the same, a cyncic might assume that Roche would not wish to alienate potential employers. As such, that is a very diplomatic motive. But what if Roche is acutally convinced that the mRNA jabs are in fact highly dangerous? Perhaps not relevant here: I am interested in guessing what might motivate his behavior. And not burning bridges is a powerful inhibitor.
I haven’t even looked at the BMJ article, but I can do a “psychoanalysis” – or jumping to conclusions if you like – about likely motives. To reiterate, a lot of this is speculation. I’m trying to smoke out actual or likely motives that would make Mr. Roche, or the authors of the BMJ paper, act certain ways.
Now let’s consider the claim that the BMJ study found no difference in incidents in athletes. Remember, we are not concerned right now with the underlying truth or falseness of the issues, only what motivates a party to act a certain way.
What might motivate the authors of the BMJ study to lie? To tell the truth? There are plenty of them: not the least is that by reporting a “pro-vax” result, they ingratiate themselves with Pharma, grant grantors, the establishment medical system in general. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And in the case of a researcher, he is reliable upon future grants. If he wanders too far off into the tall weeds, he'll find himself out of money and likely, out of a career.
There are just a few primal drives operating here: for continued survival (= future income), acceptance by the peer group (= toeing the party line, not rocking the boat), perhaps maintaining self-esteem (= not alienating colleagues or the boss, perhaps the researcher has faith in the medical profession, and this colors his objectivity). About the only one missing in this case, probably, is the need for sexual reproduction. And for all I know, even it might be present, say if the lead author wants to bed the sexy wench who works in the grants office. While a lot of what I've just written is conjecture, the general principle remains: there are ALWAYS instincts operative below the conscious level and they exert a profound influence on individual and thus group behaviors.
Now, we could look at it from Steve’s anecdote perspective. Given other data points, what’s “wrong” with the BMJ study’s claims? Well, here are just a few:
There are many, many anecdotal claims of young and apparently healthy athletes who have dropped dead or had severe health issues, such as heart attacks. Damar Hamlin and Bronny James are but two recent examples. Given that such events in normal times are extremely rare, bordering on non-existent, the fact that so many have been happening to relatively famous people, in the cited cases, athletes who one would expect to be the healthiest of humans, one can make the inference that far more similar examples are happening to not-famous people, those who are rarely, if ever, in the public eye.
OK, I’m going to wrap this up. My point is that nothing can be trusted. Not one damned thing. Everybody has a hidden agenda, or at least the skeptic should assume so until proven otherwise. Sadly, it seems that nearly all institutions are captured by special interests.
Two years ago the media was bombarding us about those horrid “science deniers” and “anti-vaxxers” who were promoting “vaccine hesitancy.” What was never allowed in debate was the fact that there might well have been reasons to be hesitant about a rushed “vaccine” that wasn’t even particularly effective for its stated purpose.
I take no joy in suggesting that, to paraphrase the old joke, that you will probably fare much better believing your own “lying eyes” than that bought-and-paid-for “expert” over there.