https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=uNKn5d_yUrg
One of the mantras we have heard ad nauseum since the beginning of the covid situation has been that we need to follow the science. This phrase is repeated over and over by politicians, by experts, and by celebrities. This phrase must be expressed with a certain level of condescension, implying strongly that your ideological or political enemy is not following the science, and if they did follow the science, then they would naturally agree with your political position. Will people listen to scientists? We’ve heard certain political parties smugly even call themselves the party of science. We could argue all day long over who is actually following the science, and people do, pointing fingers at each other and going down the dreadful line of clickbait headlines citing some new study which suggests how their position is the one following the science. But to do that is already to miss the forest for the trees, because it is actually simply and dare I say technically impossible to simply follow the science. This is Jonathan Peugeot. Welcome to the Symbolic World. The question is far more important than just surrounding the current covid situation. It’s rather the sign of the general blind materialism which rules the common discourse. We’re wowed by the scientific priestly caste. We only need to look at the type of reverence the media placed around Dr. Fauci in the United States. But like I said, despite our officials constantly repeating this mantra, it is impossible to just follow science, at least not at the outset. When science is doing what it’s supposed to, it’s an accurate and quantifiable description of phenomena at a certain level of reality. And so because phenomena happen in a predictable pattern, then once you’ve described a phenomena accurately enough, it can be possible to produce the same phenomena with similar conditions. So think of the scientific process as producing something like a recipe book. Once you’ve identified something relevant, let’s say making a pound cake, then the recipe book will tell you what the stuff, what stuff the cake is made of. So if you follow a set process using similar quantities, you know, with certain raw materials, eggs, flour, etc., and a certain amount of time, then you should be able to reliably produce the phenomena which will be recognized, which will have the recognized qualities of a pound cake. So notice I said if you follow a set process, which of course seems to suggest that you can in fact follow science. So this is exactly where lies the problem and the blind spot which has become so common. You can only follow the science once you have identified what it is you care about, what it is you want to do, and especially what is your hierarchy of priorities within a certain context. Science cannot tell you what is important. So let’s say you decide you want to kill as many people as efficiently as possible. Well then you can follow the science to find the best procedure and tools to do so. If you want to reproduce a nuclear explosion, make people addicted to your product, create an army of robots, then science can possibly help provide a map to accomplish these measurable goals. But science has no tools whatsoever for telling you what you should do, what goals you should be aiming for. And science also cannot tell you what is the reasonable amount of resources you should spend on a certain goal. Or what else you need to sacrifice to accomplish your goal. So let’s say you want to make your pound cake, but you can only get eggs by driving 2 hours from your house. Science has no way of telling you if that is a reasonable thing to do, or if you want that pound cake enough to sacrifice that time and energy to still make it. Maybe you do. And this blindness has been the source of one of the biggest political clashes since the end of World War II. The science has provided the means of material excess, of comfort, and a throwaway culture. And now other branches of science, environmental science, is telling us to follow the science, to save the environment from the results of this other branch of science who developed their industrial thrust by following the science. And so science is a tool. Neither of these opposing narratives, neither the reason for the development of industrial civilization, or the reason for the green reduction of energy consumption, are scientific in themselves. Both paths, both mentalities, both follow the science, but they do so to their desired goal. So this whole question has reached almost absurd levels with the COVID situation. We’re constantly told to follow the science, that this or that political decision or mandate is not in fact political, but is mandated by science. At best this is the naive proposition of people who are unaware of their own frame, unaware of what motivates their action. But at worst, it is a new form of moralizing, which wants to pretend that its moral stances self-evident and as provable as 2 plus 2 equals 4. The goal is sometimes stated. At first we had a goal, we were told that we needed to prevent the medical system from being overwhelmed. But then the goalposts moved invisibly to we need to stop all people from dying at all costs. And finally, the goalpost became we need to stop this disease from being spread to anybody at all. So despite moving the goalpost, authorities continued to use the same message, follow the science, while pretending that the goal is continually obvious, it’s just taken for granted and just plainly there in the science itself. Of course, if you would follow my channel, you have bumped into this problem over and over. It’s the problem that I had in my discussion with Brett Weinstein, where science was posited as the top of the hierarchy of meaning. It’s the blind spot in my discussion with rationality rules, where moral arguments were made as if their ultimate purpose were evident, while simultaneously being incapable of framing, of naming, or even seeing that purpose before invoking this or that example or consequence. All of these conversations are in a different way than we usually mean it. They are blinded by science. Honestly thinking they are objective, though blind to their presuppositions. Being they are objective and scientific, they take their unseen presuppositions as self-evident truths which all good people or people who have good intentions should be able to see. And so those of us who question this or that moral position can find ourselves in dangerous situations, because if one takes their point of view as self-evident, this inevitably means that those who do not share this perspective are doing so out of ill will, or with purposeful and utilitarian denial of science. That’s why we always hear a note of contempt every time a political figure or public figure says follow the science, or when they suggest that their political opponents refuse to follow the science. Accusing someone of not following science is akin to accusing them of breaking a divine command. Science is of course objective, non-ideological, and so to not to follow science is to go against reality itself. It’s a sin, properly speaking, for those who think like this. Of course all the while the inquisitor is hiding, or maybe even unaware of the true purpose of his actions. That is why I say there is imminent danger right now. As for the reality of safety versus danger, of saving lives versus providing opportunity, most societies have always had to find ways to balance these extremes. It’s not easy, of course, but this is an inevitable discussion that we should be able to have without those who want to have the discussion being accused as being science deniers or being insensitive and evil. If the goal of human society was only to save lives, we would not go rafting or mountain climbing or even get on the highway. We know that intuitively, but despite that we’re suddenly paralyzed by this strange illusion that safety in protecting our bodies is the only value that matters. Of course it would be absurd to say that it does not matter. Of course it matters. We should care for the physical wellness of those around us. But it cannot be our only guiding value. Safety cannot be accomplished at the expense of every other value which constitute the human experience, value like community, exchange, adventure, risk taking, and especially worship. Every time you get into a car, you risk your life. At every moment you are in a car, you could die in a few seconds. And this is in no way under your control. You’re also at the mercy of other drivers. In the United States, for example, the rate of death per car is about 12.4 per 10,000. But there are also 4 million people who are seriously injured by car crashes. Road crashes are in fact the leading cause of death in people between 1 and 54 years old. Now we could reduce the death and injury rate of car crashes very easily. We could simply stop all private cars from going on the road. Done. Or we could reduce the speed on the highway at 20 miles per hour. I mean, I bet that would bring down the car death toll and injury to nearly zero. It would work, but we’re not going to do it. So why aren’t we going to do it? I mean, why wouldn’t we do it? Am I saying that getting to my hair appointment or to some, you know, to go to the mall is more important than people dying? So we intuitively understand that in order to live our lives, we incur risks of dying. Of course, car crashes and infectious diseases are not the same, and we certainly need to care for the weak and the elderly. But my point is rather to feature our willingness to accept the constant risk of dying at any second every day, and intuitively knowing that safety cannot become the only value which drives our society. We must be very wary of those who refuse to even have the discussion, insisting that the very discussion is immoral because it doesn’t follow the science. We have to be more aware of what a human being is and not let that go to the side in a society that is built only on one single value, a value of safety or security. A human person is more complex, has other values, other purposes, and some are actually more important than our safety. I hope you enjoyed this discussion on the symbolic world. As you might have noticed, I am in a new space. I am back in my home since the flood in 2019. But you can also notice that I am not yet set up. I’m really struggling to set up my office. The stores are all closed. We’re on lockdown and the stores are also out of everything. I can’t even find a desk the right size for the office. I’m kind of floating around trying to get everything installed and trying to get everything right. But very soon things will be better. You notice the camera is better. The sound will also be better. The lighting will be better. So I’m really excited to see what 2021 is going to offer us in terms of insanity. Hopefully I’ll be able to comment on it as best I can. I want to thank everybody for your support. As you know, everything I’m doing here is thanks to your support. And so if you’re interested in supporting the podcast, these videos, go to the symbolicworld.com slash support. You’ll find ways to support it there. You can also buy some of my designs, different designs that I’ve made on Teespring. And so thanks everybody. And I’ll talk to you very soon.