Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stevanovitch's avatar

He likely believes his own BS and was hired as a useful idiot. Which he is, and then some! Lets b careful not to be fixed into the GoF narrative of fear for the “next bug”. No such animal did ever nor will exist. We been fooled, folks. Twice.

Next bug will be on a plate, not sneezing out past a faucidiaper.

Expand full comment
Robert's avatar

There's been a lot of commentary on JW's glib affect, but medical people talk casually about things that outsiders would deem horrific. It's their day to day reality, and they speak of it as such.

And after a few drinks, if you're pursuing sex, you'll communicate differently than if you were being interviewed by a reporter.

So, the response to that aspect is overblown.

[One way to do this, would be to infect bivalent-vaccinated animal models with current virus lineages, and observe which escape mutations emerge.]

Whether it's mathematical models or in vivo experiments in a controlled laboratory environment, I can't see how either, or a combination of the two, could possibly hope to replicate what might happen in the REAL world, with its uncontrolled setting and endless variables, and unpredictability of both people, circumstances, and events.

From that perspective, "science" appears to be a pretend game, a fantasy: even if you can narrow variables to one, what bearing does that have on REAL life?

What real predictive value does it offer?

"We made this happen in a lab, we ran this simulation on a computer, we created a model, so now we know that despite her staggering anti-charisma, Hillary Clinton will beat Donald Trump, and a kajilion people will die from COVID, despite its infinitesimal death rate."

Back up a claim with the magical spells such as "laboratory experiment" or "funfair model," and somehow we disengage our intellect.

Humans are endlessly fascinated by those who predict the future. "Here are my Top 10 predictions for 2023," and most people lean in for a listen.

But whether it's soothsayers or psychics, astrologers or prophets, Fed watchers or stockpickers, economists or scientists, they all seem on equal footing:

Different methods, same track record.

Abysmal.

What we do have irrefutable evidence of is that expert predictions are often less inaccurate than those from laypeople. That's been tested a number of times and is well-established.

People crave certainty in times of trouble, but confidence- and even expertise- is not correlated with accuracy.

Even if the prediction is "backed by science."

Expand full comment
48 more comments...

No posts