I think the difference now, is that there has grown up a largely empty science that claims to know a lot more than it really does. Computer modelling makes it a lot worse because models are utterly opaque - there is no reasoning that can be followed, and no way to check what the model spews out.
This means for example, that the likely spread of the virus in the absence of lockdowns, the value of masks, the risks of picking up the virus from a park bench, are all decided by a small group of obsessive people with very little real-world judgement or common sense.
Such people may never even realise that infections play a part in the death of people who are utterly compromised by whatever is really killing them - they operate in a bubble created out of their computer models. Dr. Kendrick likes to say, "there is no such thing as saving a life because we all die, the best you can do is give them more time". That might sound like pure pedantry until you see the magnitude of the goof not realising it has lead us into. A person with terminal cancer cannot be 'saved' by anything short of a miracle, but nurses who know better are being forced into pretending they should try. I'll bet some patients are actually put on a ventilator to keep them going until they can die of cancer a day or two later! Even then they will be recorded as COVID deaths!
Computer modeling lets people pretend to predict/control/understand all sorts of things - climates - the spread of a virus in a population that is consciously trying to limit the spread - the evolution of the galaxy - the big bang, etc etc. Nowadays the output can be presented in a very persuasive way, but that just makes them worse.
David
I won't argue with any of that David. The mis-use of computer models is rampant. The scene has come to resemble some kind of sorcery, in the bad and fake sense of the term.
That said, science has always claimed to know more than it does, as has religion and all other ruling bodies. Then again, the guy with grease under his nails that you meet at the pub also thinks he's a genius and will tell you the answers to all the problems of the world. He gets smarter with every beer.
People are the same as they have always been and they are the same at all levels of society.
I think you (and Alex and others) want something you can never have. Let's assume a Bell Curve distribution for human characteristics. I know that some things fall into other distribution forms, but let's assume a Bell Curve for ease of discussion. Intelligence - you have only a small percent of the population that is truly gifted. Ethics - you have only a small percent of the population is truly ethical. Logical thinking - A small percent of the population deploys logical thinking consistently and well. Wisdom - only a small percent of the population is wise.
What is the overlap of the positive 3 standard deviations sections of the curves (intelligence, ethics, logical, wise)? We're down to only a tiny percent of the population. A very rare person embodies all of the characteristics. By far fewer than the total number of scientists and politicians out there. So, by default, based on the pool from which scientists and politicians can be chosen from, there are going to be a lot of less than smart, ethical, logical and wise people filling the open positions in the scientific and political communities.
That is, of course, true in any profession. Just it's more of a problem in science and politics. If a ditch digger is not smart, it doesn't matter as long as he digs the ditch where he's told to. He can even be a terribly unethical person, but, as far as his work goes, he's either digging the ditch correctly or not and anyone can observe which is the case. Don't dig the ditch right and he's fired. Otherwise, he can keep his lack of ethics out of the work place and in his personal life. Science and politics however are much more challenging to know if the lack of ethics has spilled over into the work place.
If you don't grasp these concepts, then I suppose it does make some sense explain all the messed up situations you see as being the result of conspiracies. Conspiracies assume a higher level of logical thinking, intelligence, dedication, wisdom and even ethics ( a twisted form, like fealty to the conspiracy) than 99.8% of people can muster.
