It may seem surprising that, in a world awash of information, it's become almost impossible to figure out what's true, what's valuable, what's useful. It's not an unexpected result, if we look at some basic tenets of information theory (IT). 1/
From IT pov, what matters when recovering/understanding a message is the ratio b/w the strength of the signal carrying the message (eg radio waves) and the amount of noise distorting the signal. If the noise is high, it's more difficult, even impossible to recover the message. 2/
Communication technologies always try to increase the signal to noise ratio. They do it both by amplification of the signal and through reduction of the noise. 3/
Redundancy, i.e. repetition, has an important role in boosting the signal. High quality media (cables, optic fibers, etc.) or active noise cancellation are common methods to reduce the noise. 4/
If we look at human brains as finite information processors, IT will impose some constraints on our capacity to recover information from the bottomless information ocean around us today. 5/
IT will also impose constraints on how information societies can be organized, and which forms of organization will endure and which ones will lead to decay, dissolution or disintegration. 6/
I don't think the current form of organization, in which signal and noise are amplified indiscriminately, is sustainable. There are many forms of noise that can distort a signal (noise has high entropy). Producing and amplifying noise requires less energy (effort, money, etc). 7/
Systems tend to drift toward low energy states, so a society in which the signal and the noise are amplified indiscriminately, will become flooded by noise. Over time, information, common meaning, will become impossible to recover. 8/
That's one reasons why Russian bots spread bullshit about every topic on Earth. It doesn't matter what the bullshit is, as long as they can cheaply produce a lot of it and flood as many channels as possible. 9/
IT is also one of the reasons I've moved away from free speech absolutism. 10/
For example, a rich/powerful minority flooding the information channels with bullshit (noise) is not a neutral action. It degrades the overall capacity of the society to process useful messages. The same is true for well organized, well funded, extremist groups. 11/
IT has no social prescriptions on how to organize to reduce noise. It only tells that, absent those constraints, societies reach a point when recovery of information is impossible. The signs are we are already in a downward spiral. It'll take effort to pull ourselves back. 12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Understanding the science of the Sars-2 pandemic has been difficult enough (see 👇), but, my main interest, as a lay person, was on pandemic policies. While policies are informed by science, the relation between them isn't always straightforward.
1/🧵
2/ Let's get one thing out of the way: could we let the technocrats decide the pandemic policies?
Absolutely not!
How resources are allocated in a society, who benefits or suffers, who lives or dies as a consequence is ALWAYS a political decision.
3/ What science tells us about a topic:
* What we know today,
* What we don't know yet and which part of that looks interesting for future research (the known unknowns),
* What methods and tools we may use or invent to study the known unknowns.
My lack of expertise in infectious diseases, epidemiology or virology meant that I had to rely on other people's expertise during the Sars2 pandemic. However, from the beginning, experts had different views on the pandemic, so I had to decide which experts I should trust.
1/🧵
If you haven't suffered from the same problem, but want to understand it, imagine that your and your family's lives suddenly depended on your knowledge of farming snakes and the credentialed experts express contradictory opinions on the topic. Which experts will you trust?
2/
It sounds like an intractable problem, but there were a few basic principles that I could use to decide what information to trust.
3/
The loss of freedom has been my main concern regarding the laissez-faire response to the ongoing Sars2 pandemic. I view freedom as a collective, as explained 👇
Let's see how the failure to get rid of a dangerous pathogen violates our freedoms.
First, the obvious: outside the realm of macabre cults, being killed prematurely is seen as a severe restriction of freedom. Excess deaths (EDs) are a common statistical measure of untimely death, comparing the count of currents deaths to an average of previous years.
2/
A number of countries publish ED statistics through EuroMoMO project. +1 million EDs have been recorded in the EuroMoMo countries from 2020 until today. It affects all ages, incl. an ⬆️ in EDs in the 0-14 y.o. group, starting in the 2nd half of 2021 3/ euromomo.eu/graphs-and-map…
Notice that Prof. Doherty actually explains, in terms accessible to a lay person why Covid is not like the flu and why Covid is a more complex disease than the flu. He doesn't use his credentials, he doesn't say "I'm a Nobel laureate, therefore I'm right!" 1/
He's done the same, but in more details in the video 👇. 2/
Prof. Doherty's research has focused on the immune system, in particular how the immune system fights against viruses. He shared the 1996 Nobel in Medicine and Physiology for "discoveries concerning the specificity of the cell mediated immune defence".
3/
How Finland handled, politically, the security threat posed by the SARS2 pandemic and the security threat posed by Russia's invasion of 🇺🇦 and its aggressive stance toward neighbors could very well be the tale of two different countries.
1/🧵
When Russia attacked Ukraine in Feb. 2022, the entire political class reacted to the event and NATO membership was immediately put on the table. Two civic initiatives on the topic gathered enough signatures in record time.
2/
Media reflected the variety of opinions, from including the pro-NATO majority view, the anti-NATO minority view, and even the incoherent ramblings of the Finns party. All the parties organized internal meetings in which the party's position was discussed and voted on.
3/
A comment I hear often in private, from my friends, is that we should just listen to the public health experts. Folks like me, who've never worked in public health should stay in their lane. I explain👇when and why we have a duty to speak, esp. for the benefit of our friends.
🧵
2/ Public health (PH) is a big umbrella, which covers many domains of expertise. Those domains are studied and taught by a wide range of professionals. For some of them, the expertise outside the medical fields may be much deeper and further developed. Let's see some examples.
3/ Common sense. In the spring of 2020 China locked down Wuhan and shutdown traffic to/from few other big cities. Soon after N. Italy hospitals lost all control, under pressure from an exceptionally high number of patients infected by a novel virus.