The consensus v. the consensual

Don’t tell God anything is impossible. Gentle reader and writer have, and can have, no idea about such things. But we can have a hold on what is possible, or likely, under earthly conditions on an average day. One might call that “knowledge”; or “science,” as some do. Example:

We are no more likely to be rid of the Internet, than of nuclear weapons, in our future. I cannot write about the unforeseeable, because it is unforeseeable. But within my limited purview, I might speculate on how these two nightmares might be moderated. I don’t think either can be made less dangerous. The best one can hope is for some growing appreciation of how much damage they can do, when used gratuitously.

Having no degree in either field, I try not to write what will be contradicted by an expert. On the other hand, “expert” has become a murky concept. Once we had to distinguish only between demonstrated credible experts, and villains. Common sense could usually tell them apart. But with the growth of our “sophistication,” the category of villainy has been much expanded. We have a category of institutionally credentialled experts who aren’t exactly liars, but more like what Harry G. Frankfurt defined as “bullshitters.” They struggle to remain plausible, but are using their expertise to advance interested views. And, having such motives — in opposition to the plain pursuit of truth — they seek publicity, and angle to obtain it.

As Dr Frankfurt hinted, in his short philosophical treatise on this topic (On Bullshit, 2005), these can be, and usually are, more trouble than old-fashioned liars. For a real liar knows he is lying, and can be caught out. By comparison, the modern media expert avoids what is strictly checkable, not only to protect himself, but from indifference for truth. He is, according to me, the intellectual descendant of the mediæval Nominalists, adumbrating words, not realities. While less intelligent than his predecessors, he carries on the tradition of saying that something is true because he says so.

“Consensus science” is of this nature. In it, truth can be negotiated, or imposed. While the weather next Saturday will be known to the living, a prediction for much later in the century has no meaning. From the number of variables in play, I can tell you with certainty, that woke “climatologists” are talking bosh; and every signature on their consensus I may add to my list of persons to ignore. This is elementary stuff: and I do try to stick to what is elementary, and foreseeable.

The success rate, for elaborate predictions, remains, at this point in our history, zero-point-zero. But it is becoming so also for the present, and past. The Batflu, here, is current primary example. Owing to obvious manipulation, we cannot know much about its effects. In rough terms, we can know that they are exaggerated, because almost every expert has a vested interest in getting the numbers up, and those who disagree will be punished. The same is true for all the popular remedies, including such nonsense as mangle-wearing, and obsessive social distancing. No legitimate research lies behind either, so we must assume the purposes for various lockdown orders are not actually the Batflu.

It has spread everywhere, by now, and the fact that almost nothing can be done about that, can be put to the advantage of our social engineers. By pretending that they can control it, they have their excuse for controlling us.

But we can’t know about the past of this epidemic, either. By concealing or confusing the origin of the virus, Red Chinese rulers were acting in their own interest; yet also in the interest of the Western expert class. In this field, as in so many others, origins are vital to the facts going forward. They must cultivate vagueness, even on cause and effect of vaccines. For how can they control people, who know, fairly clearly, what is going on?

Be afraid, be very afraid, is all that they will tell us, for the foreseeable future.