Opinions don't equal facts

While all opinions have the right to be held, it is demonstrably an utter nonsense to claim they are all are equal in credibility, gravatos or real value. The problem I have with Most of the Media commentators is that they are NOT SCIENTISTS much less Specialists and do NOT use Scientific methods i.e. look at the facts and goe where THEY lead. Rather they tend to use what is know as Motivated Reasoning ( i.e. start with a conclusion and pick/seek evidence that supports their predetermined emotionally based opinion) and techniques to discount inconvenient facts. One thing the general public, arm-chair experts,non practising scientific researchers in the discussed specialization and the media generally is that they all are there for other purposes than COMPLETE and ACCURATE INFORMATION. The commercial media is about supporting their business model, to make profit (the point of any commercial business) then there are the proselytes those whose role it to gain converts to a political party, ideology or religion. All of there have the mindset to gain followers. In order to achieve these ends they lie (by omission) or spin (distort the real known facts) NB opinions ARE NOT FACTS. As someone who was involved (albeit peripherally )with complex research (involving multiple disciplines) then, seeing what journalists and personalities said/wrote, I was constantly dismayed how distorted their utterances were. By stripping the context and conditions/caveats out for simplicity (general readability/interest provocation) and allowing their sensationalising or bias to permeate the resultant opinions were distorted at best, misleading if not inconsistent with the factual observed results or downright rubbish at worst. Likewise both the real extrapolated conclusions and those of the commentator were rarely consistent. Put it simply I've read extensively on brain science, neuro-psychology and surgery, but for me to then to preform surgery or challenge an expert in the field would be ludicrous. 10+ years of intense training, years of hands on experience, tops any of the above commentariat hands down. Lets get real the days of the polymath the alleged genius of old are LONG gone. The science knowledge involved in some areas today is so involved, complex sophisticated and specialised that it is impossible for a general science qualification like mine (some 26years old) to be even half way sufficient to second guess with areas of research etc of today. Simply put most of these specialisations and researched knowledge, even information techniques/ tools didn't exist when I gained my qualifications. One simply can't be up to the mark in all fields/specialisations. (Moore's Law turbo-ed and on speed) One recent Science Nobel laureate (tongue firmly in his cheek) stated in a speech that because of his award he was qualified to talk on any scientific topic (paused for and got laughter). The relevance here is that the specialist knowledge is so fine and nuanced that it's true import can't be accurately 'dumbed down' for the inexperienced to dispute intelligently/meaningfully. Much Academic debate over presented papers is on methodologies and statistical analysis and their significances. The commentariat generally hasn't or can't be engaged at this level. So what hope the average man understanding the significance or relevance of say a dissenting paper. In short they tend to see thing in black or white perspective WHICH IT ISN'T. I have no problem with opinions HOWEVER, I do object strenuously when that OPINION is proselyted as an Absolute truth. P.S. I never claim Authority on anything but myself. I simply add information. The emotion(belief) is up to the reader.

Why Do we deny the truth

Leon Festinger a celebrated Stanford University psychologist wrote "A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." Believe it or not The good professor was referring to his now taught, famous Psychological 1950's Case Study (into a doomsday sect and an alien saviour for the believers of the time known as the Seekers)1 2, so it's hardly new or cutting edge stuff. When their prophecy of the Earth's destruction failed to happen on cue the believers were at first shaken. (The important bit) they began to “justify” the lack of action in terms of because THEIR faith the 'beings upstairs' had decided to spare the earth from destruction . There is one more interesting change that took place, instead continuing their previous keeping to themselves as Festinger put it “ their sense of urgency was enormous”. Whether it was despite or Because of the total failure of what they believed they became far more strident in their views and proselyted aggressively to the point they became social martyrs to their cause. Sound familiar? It should because the similarities with belief structures like Adventism, Scientology, Mormonism, Jonestown “Heaven’s Gate”, Waco's Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo or Anthropomorphic Climate Change (AGW) et al the principals remain the same. All the above have clear evidence of what is known motivated reasoning a product of modern Neuroscience research. The sociologist Andrew Perrin of the University of North Carolina stated that was essentially about starting with a conclusion that one hoped to reach and then selectively evaluating evidence in order to reach that conclusion. Sadly this 'Motivated Reasoning ( read 'motivated JUSTIFICATION') isn't restricted to esoteric issues. The same principal can be seen in everything from 911, racism to vaccines. Neither is it restricted to the intellectually unsophisticated, the uneducated or the plain old 'dumb' (what ever that is). The Political Scientist Arthur Lupia (University of Michigan) has explained it in terms of the subliminal instinct ' fight-or-flight'. This doesn't only apply to predators but also to data i.e. we have a natural predilection more readily accept that information that we are comfortable with and reject that which we don't. The short hand definition for the mechanism is often defined as Conformational Reasoning. This mechanism also helps to explains why people of a particular belief, tribe, village town , country ethnicity etc in terms of the adage 'birds of a feather stick together'. This goes to explain many of their choices like which news paper, TV station , team etc. It is certain that all the above BANK (in both senses of the word) this. They all choose and modify their opinions cater to that demographic... to make them think in terms of We (as in ownership of, defined by). It is important to note that I said predilection not a hard wired absolute. Behavioural psychologist scientists and neuroscientists have developed very strong evidence that our genetics also add to the mix as do variables like Conditioning (nurture ), and circumstances. What also needs to be understood is that Science or reality abhors Absolutes. In other words there are as many variations in the mix as there are people, there simply isn't one size fits all. Science is predicated on statistics (aggregation) of many people and circumstances and can only give a MASS trend or Probability . These are or should be described as a percentage that is from greater than zero and less than 100%, or implicit in any defining conclusions to do other wise is both bad science or BS. In the context of the topic this means one can say that there is a high probability that the above applies to a majority of deniers but it is less sound to define ALL DENIERS . What isn't covered in this blog are those who deliberately use the above factors and the skills of the propagandist, con artists, PR, party politicians and some Businesses et al for selfish personal gain... these I call (professional) denialists .

Alternative(s) and or solution(s) ?

In my last I argued that 'rights' in general and FoS in particular, are subjective culturally (group) based aspirations. I also argued that these groups were statistically predictable (within an accepted error margin) where as the individual isn't.

Individuals they have the innate capacity to accept virtually any solution, Where as a Group must either be single focused (all else is subordinate or suborned to that single goal) or subjected to so many accommodations that the goals are so vague and ethereal as to be open for manipulation or manipulative self serving interpretation. Arguably this is an unwanted artefact.

It is a truism of life that for every yin there is a yang, “there is no such a thing as a free lunch”, more specifically for every “solution” has consequences. The skill or wisdom (the benefit of all) is to think beyond the momentary goal to the consequences and chose the option that best mitigates the bad consequences.

Nature in one sense is over time very efficient, in that attributes that have no use in survival in either the individual species and all species are eliminated. One only needs to consider the Koala. It has the brain the size of a walnut virtually no cerebrum or frontal cortex (where we make decisions), it doesn't need one. Its survival attributes are hard wired and is perfectly suited to survive in the niche it evolved for.

We on the other hand evolved with both, mind you both have their limitations. Investigating these limits is an interesting field of human research. This research has shown that an average human has the capacity for about 150 real relationships (in varying degrees) .

(the average on the social media like Facebook is somewhere between 25 and forty). Imagine trying to keep up to date with 150 people in any meaningful way? How many of us are still in intimate contact with good neighbours 10 years after? Once a year Christmas cards, facebook? Are these real contacts/relationships? Even extended families only work works well in limited geography.

Interestingly enough this number is well represented in nature too.

A road less travelled in this line of thinking is how this tendency towards 'myopic focus' and its consequences affects us as a community and or in the worst case scenario, species survival. What isn't generally understood or even considered are what these limitations say about the human condition.

Perhaps the most pernicious consequence of “unnatural groupings*”(UG) is we tend to abrogate our responsibility to act and make decisions wisely.

UG(s) are exclusively artificial to benefit a selected minority. They include Governments, to P&Cs and they tend to be ideologically/power driven.

At this point I would mention that only humans have the notion of responsibility, beyond that of the potential breeding group.

I wonder given evolution's efficiency what are the links between the above facts? And what they might represent by way of more appropriate alternatives (solutions) to our problems.

What do you reckon?

Freedom of Speech right or aspiration

“Individuals I like it's people I'm not so sure about” _{examinator ant}

Huh? You say. “Isn't that an oxymoron?”

Not really, have you ever wondered why 'good people' ( otherwise peaceable individuals) do/commit such horrendous crimes as part of a group ?

I'm reasonably sure that everyone is at some level aware of such behavioural issues as.

Nuremberg Defence.

Interrogation and commanded torture experiment.

Prisoner and Guard experiment

Lynch mob syndrome

Copenhagen syndrome

or more prosaically why sensible youth go 'stupid' in a group.

While all the above are all different and as such are often explained by different conclusions. However, they do interestingly enough, share common more basic factor(s).

Essentially the above linking factor is that we are a social species and the consequences there of.

There is/has been some interesting research into the differences between the actions of individuals and those of people (group). (Perhaps Isaac Asimov SF writer and a top ten Biochemists, was into something with “Psychohistory “ in his famous Foundation series)

This is the basis of my questioning 'The right of Freedom of speech” as an absolute.

Karl Mannheim in 1936 said “Only in a quite limited sense does the individual create out of himself the mode of speech and of thoughts we attribute to him. He speaks the language of the group; he thinks in the manner in which his group thinks.”

Joshua Epstein ( 1999) amplified this with “When I'd had my coffee this morning and went upstairs to get dressed for work , I never considered being a nudist for the day..... when joining my colleagues for lunch I never consider eating my salad barehanded; without a thought, I use(d) a fork.”

Epstein's work has successfully linked physics theories and mass behaviour.

In essence we as a mass are driven/ bound by community mores. Which are statistically predictable.

On this basis alone Absolute Freedom of speech as a right is nonsense. Rather it is a subjective aspiration.

Notwithstanding, a lawyer may argue their case based on existing laws and precedents, case history etc. however, such arguments are subject to changes in the law which are, again, based on community mores. These community mores are subject to change by the mass.

On a practical level we tend not to think too hard about issues other than to blend our behaviour with that of the Mass/community/culture/religion we most identify with.

Consequently we are neither free or able to allow for absolute freedom of speech in a society. Clearly that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't strive as near as practicable to achieve FOS.

Any comments?