When you hear someone in the news talking about science, that isn't science. That's someone's interpretation of science, and it has the same level of credibility as a political opinion, which is low.
None of us are "following the science." We are following people who tell us they can accurately interpret science and create rational policy from it. Sometimes they are right. But you and I can't tell in advance which times those people are right. We only imagine we can.
Are the people interpreting science for us usually right, usually wrong, or something closer to a coin toss? You and I have no idea.
"Science" -- as it is used by the public and politicians -- has become something closer to a con game. The "real" science is behind a curtain and unavailable to the public. What we see are humans telling us what to think about the science, backed by studies we can't judge.
Science is similar to religion in the sense that we depend on designated experts to explain to the ignorant masses -- that's us -- how to think about it.
That's why I've come to see anyone screeching "follow the science" as operating at a low level of awareness. We all WANT to follow the science. It just isn't a thing. The best we citizens can do is choose which "explainer" to believe. That gives us the illusion of being smart.
You don't need to stream into the comments to sciencesplain to me what science is and how it works. Assume I know that, and assume you're missing the point if you are leaving that type of comment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I have seven remaining unanswered questions about the security of our election systems.
1. Has there ever been a large scale election fraud that was only discovered by chance?
And if so, does the opportunity for a similar fraud still exists?
2. Could a hacker with "God Access" to election systems change a national election result in a big way that would be undetectable via recount, audit or any other method?
I thought I had a mouse in the house because I saw droppings. But I searched for it with my compass and proved there was no mouse. Now I feel better.
I was worried my car was low on oil because a dashboard message said it was. But I used a blood pressure monitor to determine the oil level is fine. Now I feel better.
I was concerned about potential crime in my neighborhood, so I researched it with a barometer and saw no criminals in my zip code. Now I feel better.
Here are six easy ways to know you live in a propaganda bubble and the Fake News Industry is malicious:
1. The Fake News tells you Trump is "lying" about the election being stolen as opposed to actually believing it, the way tens-of-millions of his supporters do. The Fake News mind-reading act is propaganda.
2. The Fake News tells you all of the election fraud claims have been rejected by courts. But where is the master list of all the (non-crazy) claims and which court rejected them and why? If that list doesn't exist, assume you have been fed propaganda, not news.
Here's a big dog that isn't barking: I've been saying in public since the election that the design of our system doesn't just ALLOW potential fraud, it GUARANTEES it. By design. Because it is both feasible (we have learned) and the potential gain is enormous.
Under those conditions, a reasonable person with even modest experience in life understands that massive fraud HAD to have happened. You don't need to observe it to know it with certainty.
By analogy, if I drop ice cream on a hot sidewalk in summer, I don't need to stay and observe it to know it melted. I can walk away and be equally certain. Our election system (all of it) is like that ice cream. Don't tell me I have to show you proof it melted. It melted.
If we can't audit our nation's vote-counting software because the company claims it is proprietary information, I'm totally cool with that. But obviously the election has to be thrown out in whole for that very reason. I see no room for compromise on this point.
Who agreed to a no-audit deal with an election software company? Name ANYTHING you have ever heard that is dumber. Literally anything. You can't.
Will the Supreme Court give a free pass to an election that was non-transparent BY DESIGN? Accidental would be one thing, but non-auditable voting machines are not an accident.
As a public service, I’m going to give you a way to trigger your anti-Trump family members into severe cognitive dissonance over the holidays.
When your uncle says Trump botched the coronavirus response and killed a quarter-million people, don’t just argue that Trump did great on vaccines. Instead. . .
Pace your uncle by agreeing the outcome so far is dreadful and Trump probably lost the election because of it. Then spring the trap...