Science and Faucism

[myata]

First off, no negative connotations are made or intended; it follows a well established linguistic pattern in constructing terms.

What is science? Science pursues knowledge about the objective reality, that can be confirmed in empirical test and withstand critical questioning. These are two essential elements that ensure that a statement becomes scientific knowledge that can be used and relied on in further investigation of the reality.

Faucism claims to be science, and rides under its banner. But is it, when looked at objectively and impartially?

Anything that is science, any claim, hypothesis, premise or statement has to be presented for an open, unconstrained critical debate and cannot be claimed as scientific knowledge until and unless all relevant questions have been answered.

Let's consider one example: "vaccines are good. They have to be instilled on the population by many, or eventually, any means".

Is it science or faucism? Could be an interesting debate. But there are empirical facts that also matter in deliberation on this question. Consider coerced and mandatory vaccinations: they are promoted under the premise that vaccination creates safer environments, both essential and those used by choice, workplaces, residences, performances, exercise and sport facilities and so on. Coerced vaccinations, rules and policies, both public and private were made under this premise, creating such environments. And now, the empirical experience is telling us that it may not be so. That fully vaccinated environments can produce outbreaks too, and not as an unusual and isolated exceptions.

There was a way to approach this question scientifically: find a way to learn what is going on in the reality; at what rate vaccinated get infected in the community, and yes there's sufficient evidence that there's a strong benefit in reducing severity of the disease in those infected, but that's a different unrelated point because the premise was that fully vaccinated environments are safe against infection. Make decisions and create policies based on confirmed scientific knowledge, not on a premise. And now direct empirical experience, recorded facts contradict it.

In any scientific case that would mean the end; a negative result that is certainly a result too. The premise is proven wrong and another hypothesis should be considered. But what has it done to the faucist agenda?

Very little. Quietly, with more than a year of delay from the time when it was first possible, limited testing is being implemented in some areas including vaccinated environments. Why, in presumably safe vaccinated environments? When was an open critical debate of the premise and policies based on it and justified by it? No answer.

So does faucism looks like science and rises to its criteria and standards? Can the two be used synonymosly? The facts are out here. Your call.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you have a single study/cite to provide?  The questions you pose are addressed in published studies but you seem to prefer engaging in rhetorical discourse.

 

That's fine, but it's weird for you to go this way, because you decry this very thing right?

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, myata said:

The facts are out here. Your call.

Right, so we can go look things up if we want to know the truth. Makes sense.

Of course, the medium is the message when comes to Google.

That's why I prefer Bing, Yahoo, Duck Duck Go

/s

I find it much like when the Greeks consulted the oracle of delphi, it's all about the question. The "-covid" argument in a google query is a powerful tool that they haven't eliminated (yet).

...

Like my pappy said, science is like alcohol. Perfectly fine, in moderation...   

I see politics as the problem in society. It is the contaminant, the poison tincture getting slipped into our martini when we're looking the other way. Whatever politics mingles, with gets watered down and becomes a thing that is vile. It is politics we must keep in a sealed jar, to only be opened under strict conditions. In the hands of a wise man it heals. In the hands of a fool, death.

Politics is not a thing to be feared, but a tool that we choose to use wisely, or not. It should not be revered. Trample upon its remains, burn it to ash. Then we can move forward in life.

[myata]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

because you decry this very thing right?

You may be missing the point. A decision, policy etc is science based if in its foundation is a statement or theory confirmed by empirical evidence and stood critical questioning. It requires validation by science first, then policy, not the other way around, something found out as a result of wrong policy. And no, there's nothing wrong with asking and rising questions. As soon as you start ignoring them, or avoid, limit etc, then begins deviation from science to faucism. And of course, in the history of science related to politics of the day it wouldn't be anything new.

[myata]

21 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Politics is not a thing to be feared, but a tool that we choose to use wisely, or not. It should not be revered. Trample upon its remains, burn it to ash. Then we can move forward in life.

Well, I'd like to focus less on politics but on "matters and issues of public interest". And I think as relates to decisions and policies based on reason and science in such matters we are getting into a dead end, specifically on the issue of credibility and trust. Humans are exceptional in a) denying inconvenient reality; b) ignoring it and c) creating alternative more convenient and comfortable narratives. And d) now we have social networks. So how do we keep rational focus and trust in the matters important for the whole society?

The notion of the day has "consensus of experts", "panel of experts" and such. But is equivalent to science always and in all cases? Not really. A panel can be scientific; and it can be faucist. And without a good deep look you wouldn't know one from another. So how do you decide to trust or not? Not to mention that "a consensus of experts" is impossibly difficult to define.

I think to take this forward, we need to come with a way, method and mechanism of direct citizen participation in these matters and decisions. Something along the lines of juries in judiciary but of course very much modified. Citizens take time to examine the matter of interest; citizens can ask any questions and obtain support of experts as much as it's needed; and then citizens make their conclusions. Not someone faraway in a high tower, trust it blindly or leave it. Maybe it could work better for future pandemics and climate change, at least I can't see any damage. Just some thoughts.

Edited December 10, 2021 by myata

[H B Lowrey]

On 12/9/2021 at 2:31 PM, myata said:

You may be missing the point. A decision, policy etc is science based if in its foundation is a statement or theory confirmed by empirical evidence and stood critical questioning. It requires validation by science first, then policy, not the other way around, something found out as a result of wrong policy. And no, there's nothing wrong with asking and rising questions. As soon as you start ignoring them, or avoid, limit etc, then begins deviation from science to faucism. And of course, in the history of science related to politics of the day it wouldn't be anything new.

There's no such thing as "Faucism", and there's nothing scientific about Roger Stone/Donnie Trumpish questions that do nothing but foment chaos and have nothing to do with the scientific method.  I suggest you all learn to digest the primary peer-reviewed research for yourselves.  Mental masturbation such as this leads nowhere but back to where it began.  Some questions are not worth researching at all.

[myata]

Sectarianism, appeals to powers to settle arguments, exclusion and unscientific suppression of contradicting views is nothing new in the history of science. Sure "this question isn't worth researching" is a good example. Maybe because they are also common human behaviors? If you are not aware of such instances and episodes, maybe it's you who need to educate themselves?

[H B Lowrey]

4 minutes ago, myata said:

Sectarianism, appeals to powers to settle arguments, exclusion and unscientific suppression of contradicting views is nothing new in the history of science. Sure "this question isn't worth researching" is a good example. Maybe because they are also common human behaviors? If you are not aware of such instances and episodes, maybe it's you who need to educate themselves?

No one needs to go back and resettle questions science has answered and accepted.  But if you'd like to revisit bloodletting with leeches for example, you can certainly repeat that experiment if you must.

[Infidel Dog]

17 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:

There's no such thing as "Faucism"

Well, it's a relatively new term and as such the concrete definition has yet to establish itself. I'm not opposed to Myata's definition where it's a pretense of science without any actual science but I think the Urban Dictionary's attempt describes what people think of when they hear the term better:

Quote

Faucism

The belief that government should take unilateral control over the lives of an entire nation under the guise of an unending national emergency. Often, faucist look towards a figurehead who has no personal accountability and cannot be disposed from their office. The figurehead does not dictate policy and only repeats talking points, but is used as a shield from all criticism. Scholars believe faucism is more akin to a religion than a political movement (ie, belief in an infallible force, the gospel of the figurehead must be spread, holding contradictory beliefs without evidence).

By either definition though "Faucism" is not science. That's a constant and I believe that was the main point of the OP.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[H B Lowrey]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Well, it's a relatively new term and as such the concrete definition has yet to establish itself. I'm not opposed to Myata's definition but I think the Urban Dictionary's attempt is closer to what people think of when they hear the term:

By either definition though "Faucism" is not science. That's a constant and I believe that was the main point of the OP.

"The belief that government should take unilateral control over the lives of an entire nation under the guise of an unending national emergency."

Who coined this nonsense?  And then, who "believes" this?

This is merely further sodomizing the use of language.

[myata]

5 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

By either definition though "Faucism" is not science.

It is not. The cornerstones of science are openness, transparency, critical questioning and empirical validation. It means that any and all correctly formulated questions have to be answered fully and openly till an argument is defended or rejected. It means that any claimed results have to agree with empirical experience in every trial.

There's nothing scientific in "we think you have to do this but can't tell you why". "Oops that was yesterday and now we think different, but you still have to do this". Bureaucracy develops in and around science just as easily as elsewhere. And one thing bureaucracy does not enjoy is critical questions.

[Infidel Dog]

10 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:

"The belief that government should take unilateral control over the lives of an entire nation under the guise of an unending national emergency."

Who coined this nonsense?  And then, who "believes" this?

This is merely further sodomizing the use of language.

I don't know. Neologisms happen. Always have. Always will. I think a better example of butt-fucking the English language would be that thing they do when they  simply suggest words or terms now mean something superior beings such as themselves would prefer they did. You know like what you just did, thinking you were clever talking about "sodomizing the use of language." That's not what neologisms are. They're accepted use. They're how language grows. They're why dictionaries add new words every year.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Infidel Dog

[H B Lowrey]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know. Neologisms happen. Always have. Always will. I think a better example of butt-fucking the English language would be that thing they do when they  simply they suggest words or terms now mean something they would prefer they did. You know like what you just did, thinking you were clever talking about "sodomizing the use of language." That's not what neologisms are. They're accepted use. They're how language grows. They're why dictionaries add new words every year.

See Edward L Bernays and Lee Atwater.

[Infidel Dog]

Don't just pretend to be brilliant with secret knowledge. Show me what you're talking about.

[H B Lowrey]

On 12/9/2021 at 3:26 PM, myata said:

Well, I'd like to focus less on politics but on "matters and issues of public interest". And I think as relates to decisions and policies based on reason and science in such matters we are getting into a dead end, specifically on the issue of credibility and trust. Humans are exceptional in a) denying inconvenient reality; b) ignoring it and c) creating alternative more convenient and comfortable narratives. And d) now we have social networks. So how do we keep rational focus and trust in the matters important for the whole society?

The notion of the day has "consensus of experts", "panel of experts" and such. But is equivalent to science always and in all cases? Not really. A panel can be scientific; and it can be faucist. And without a good deep look you wouldn't know one from another. So how do you decide to trust or not? Not to mention that "a consensus of experts" is impossibly difficult to define.

I think to take this forward, we need to come with a way, method and mechanism of direct citizen participation in these matters and decisions. Something along the lines of juries in judiciary but of course very much modified. Citizens take time to examine the matter of interest; citizens can ask any questions and obtain support of experts as much as it's needed; and then citizens make their conclusions. Not someone faraway in a high tower, trust it blindly or leave it. Maybe it could work better for future pandemics and climate change, at least I can't see any damage. Just some thoughts.

We're seeing how this all helps keep COVID alive, circulating and tossing off variants, yeah.

[myata]

13 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:

No one needs to go back and resettle questions science has answered and accepted.

Wrong too. It's not because "it's not needed" but because everyone who desires to check and confirm an answer or theory can do that at will any time. There are no "settled questions" in science; there's knowledge that satisfies the empirical test until or unless it is failed or shown to have a limited domain of validity.

[H B Lowrey]

2 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Don't just pretend to be brilliant with secret knowledge. Show me what you're talking about.

Behave in the same manner you demand of others and we might be able to take it up from there.

[Infidel Dog]

I gave you a link to a definition of Faucism. What more do you want?

 

[H B Lowrey]

Just now, myata said:

Wrong too. It's not because "it's not needed" but because everyone who desires to check and confirm an answer or theory can do that at will any time. There are no "settled questions" in science; there's knowledge that satisfies the empirical test until or unless it is failed or shown to have a limited domain of validity.

I seriously doubt any scientist needs to repeat that, but you can if you like.  You can also drink bleach and shove a light bulb up your ass if you contract COVID because Don brought up that question.  I don't mind.

[H B Lowrey]

Just now, Infidel Dog said:

I gave you a link to a definition of Faucism. What more do you want?

 

Nothing circular like that thanks.

[myata]

2 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:

Don brought up that question

So you have nothing of substance to add and think that fetching a reference to Don du jour would somehow make it less obvious?

[H B Lowrey]

3 minutes ago, myata said:

Wrong too. It's not because "it's not needed" but because everyone who desires to check and confirm an answer or theory can do that at will any time. There are no "settled questions" in science; there's knowledge that satisfies the empirical test until or unless it is failed or shown to have a limited domain of validity.

Yes and no.  Reinventing the wheel or rediscovering penicillin isn't really how science works.  Is science over time self-correcting in the event of new knowledge?  But of course.  Still, no one needs to revisit bloodletting with leaches.  But you can if you like.  

[H B Lowrey]

1 minute ago, myata said:

So you have nothing of substance to add and think that fetching a reference to Don du jour would somehow make it less obvious?

Folks actually did that, and died.

[myata]

1 minute ago, H B Lowrey said:

Still, no one needs to revisit bloodletting with leaches.

And again you're showing complete misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Only because empirical test can be repeated any time by anybody we can distinguish knowledge from arbitrary random garbage. The moment we decide that there are absolute truths that do not need to and cannot be tested the very foundation of the science will erode.

[Infidel Dog]

6 minutes ago, H B Lowrey said:

Nothing circular like that thanks.

How is that circular? You said there was no such thing as Faucism. Being a nice guy, I tried to help you out of your ignorance by giving you a link to a definition of Faucism. You claimed I didn't give you links to information. I showed you I did. That's not circular logic. That's evidence of you being consistently incorrect.

Are you trying to prove my point about how there are certain types who just redefine definitions in their heads to confirm what they'd like to believe.