Month: March 2022

Practical Conspiracy (Theory) 2: Predictions

by

We looked at the function of theories and possible (conspiracy) theories for understanding the Corona crisis in the last blog. I said there that an important function of theories and theoretical models is prediction. In concrete terms, this means thinking about what else would have to happen or should follow if a theory were true.

This is how scientific theories are tested: So-called “predictions” are derived, i.e. consequences from the theory, which are then tested empirically or experimentally. Over 350 experimental predictions have been derived from quantum theory, they have been tested experimentally and in no case has the experimental test disproved the theory. Therefore, this theory is considered one of the best confirmed theories in science.

How does such prediction and testing work? An example from the Corona vaccination strategy: If it is true that the mRNA vaccines cause blood clots, as vaccination critics say, then one would have to find signs of this in the blood diagnostics, namely d-dimers. These are cleavage products of fibrin, a protein product that is formed during blood clotting. According to my personal unsystematic questioning of various doctors, this is the case: after Covid-19 vaccinations, such d-dimers are found more frequently, especially when people report problems.

Read more

Practical Conspiracy (Theory)

by

Conspiracy Theories in the Corona Crisis

Theories

“There is nothing more practical than a theory“, Einstein is supposed to have said. Whether real or well invented, this saying is good. This time, I want to shed light on the function of theories in normal science, but also in the Corona crisis, where – stay the hell away from me – people shout “conspiracy theory!”.

So, what is the “useful” thing about a theory? Theories in the broadest sense guide our perception. They express what we expect based on our prior knowledge. The everyday theory that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is such a bundled experience. The bundling of previous experiences into an expectation according to which we act is useful, or, to speak with Einstein, practical. For it saves us from having to develop everything all over again. Perception without theory hardly works, or at least only in specially purified states of consciousness. Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, spoke of the fact that we have to leave out all our pre-conceptions (i.e. “theories”) if we want to perceive reality as it is [1]. This is a noble call, which is also made again and again by the spiritual meditation traditions: to let go of mental conditioning in order to perceive what is completely in the moment. If you meditate a lot, you can do that from time to time. But it would be too exhausting to do it all the time. We are also historical beings and bundle our experience – individual and cultural – into inner models of the world. In science, such models are called “theories”.

Read more

Either – Or? Neither

by

Thoughts and new data on vaccination, lockdowns and other oddities in the Covid-19 debate

The highest good is health, they say. I am not sure if that is true. More precisely, whether this sentence is true probably depends on how we define health. Common definitions assume the absence of disease. More recent thinking tends to suggest that one can live well even with illness, provided one can do what is important. Perhaps, above all, a certain freedom is necessary for this? Namely, freedom from fear – which usually prevents us from doing what we would like to do. Freedom from material worries – which also restrict you a lot. Freedom from worries about the future – which are not exactly helpful either. So maybe freedom is at least as important as health, or more precisely, an important aspect of health? How would we characterize a person who is physically healthy in a cell awaiting the execution of his death sentence, even though he may have been innocently convicted? Healthy? Suffering? That, too, may not be so easy to determine.

With this little thought experiment, I am pointing out that the much-used practice of setting values against each other is not helpful. You cannot set health against freedom and vice versa. The “either-or” style of thinking, as I have often pointed out, almost always leads astray when it comes to complex questions. For the “either-or” that we know from the two-valued, Aristotelian logic which computers use, only helps in solving very firmly defined questions that can be described within a framework of propositional logic. The deep questions of life are usually more complex and require a style of thinking that is inclusive, or dialectical, or perhaps complementary. [1]. In other words, a style of thinking that is capable of thinking about and is somehow including the opposite and thus finding either something new or a synthesis.

Read more