OK, you grey eminences, awaken from your dogmatic slumbers and ponder this -
It's been an education watching Campbell's evolution in this unfolding
drama. Steadfastly truthful throughout, he has followed, as must we
all, the 'evidence' provided by his authorities, in whom he thereby
demonstrated his trust. "Science is about trying to find out what is the
nature of reality" he exclaims, laying bare his credo, but equally laying
bare the core problem science cannot reach: it's all ultimately based
on trust! He asks whom (or what) do we follow, "science, or scientific
officers? There's a big...difference." Really?
Because this opens the entire can of worms - beyond the scope of his
video - which addresses his statement about the purpose of science.
What, in the final analysis, is the difference between science and
scientists? Is Dr. Campbell now going to experiment directly on bat
viruses, furin cleavage sites, and what have you, so as to sidestep the
fallibility of scientists?
No, he isn't. And even if he did, would we then infallibly learn the truth?
From him? He'd be just another scientist! To be faithful to the belief that
there's a difference between science and scientists we'd have to do our
own experiments too! The only infallible yardstick of truth is direct
experience. Everything else has to pass through the medium of fellow
humans - whom we have to trust. And verification? This returns us to the
beginning. It's a circular argument. All ultimately relies on trust. And trust
assumes truth. And truth is experience, and... Round and round.
The goal of science - to uncover objective truth - is unachievable.
Scientific papers? Written by human beings. Data? Compiled by human
beings. (Yup - even data are suspect: no less than the British Office of
National Statistics has right now been caught with its pants down,
manipulating death stats to favour the C-19 vaccinated.) Apply better
safeguards, you say? Conducted by whom? The Lancet? Discredited.
The police? Puh-lease! The judiciary? Surely you jest.
The entire project depends on trust. It isn't about a supposed objective
science at all. It's about morality!
Even bloody Piers Morgan has a point, when he excuses his venomous
condemnation of the unvaxxed by claiming that he was simply articulating
what the 'experts' had said. Indeed he was - he was following his trusted
authorities, which were flawed, if not actually corrupt (there's another
distinction we need to explore). The integrity of the authority structure is
paramount, and based on trust, which is ultimately unverifiable,
direct experience.
The authority structure is fallible? So what else is new? Morality turns out
to be the only absolute guide to human behaviour, and that's internal and
unmeasurable - beyond the purview of science, at least as presently
conceived.
____________
Pablo
No comments:
Post a Comment