Reality is bigger than all of us. The best any of us can hope to grasp is a small kernel of it. This leaves an opening for the propagandists to exploit and manipulate.
We like to believe otherwise because our puny monkey brains can grasp more than those of a parrot, or a skink or a mink.
Diving deep into reflection is nearly impossible for most of us because we're kept constantly busy with the demands of daily life. The job, the home, dealing with a deluge of often superfluous paperwork, etc. It's exhausting. Is it any wonder that people get information from the tube and just accept it as reality? That is, unless that gut instinct wells up to tell them "something isn't quite right here".
That's a powerful point about the limitations of our perception. The physicist Niels Bohr said, 'Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.'
This reminds us that our understanding of reality is always provisional and incomplete, leaving space for interpretation and, as you said, manipulation. I agree with Joshua to an extent on gut-instinct, although many in cohnitive science think gut-instinct is built upon experience :-)
I think that's true. Gut instinct can also be translated as intuition. When we have only an instant to respond to a potential threat, our past experiences inform us and we respond to that instantly. It's why we're still here.
Not to reiterate the obvious but we evolved this way because when our ancestors were living in caves, if anyone happened upon a drooling sabre toothed cat looking at us like we're dinner, we don't have much time to react.
This is also part of the reason why long term threats, such as global warming and overpowering AI don't register with the kind of force that the crack of a firearm or a loud explosion does. It's like the parable of the boiling frog - bringing the heat up gradually, it grows accustomed to every increase in temperature, and doesn't grasp that it's being killed horribly until it's too late.
'Gut instinct' picks up 'truths' way quicker than the intellect. I've bought and sold houses (involving all my capital + mortgage+ big risk) based on gut instinct.
Thank you for introducing me to Braudillard's Simulacrum:
"we become complicit in a system that no longer reflects reality but manufactures it.
"‘facts’ no longer point to an underlying truth but exist solely to reference and reinforce one another. In this world, the real is not simply distorted, it is displaced entirely,
"making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is constructed.
leading to this conclusion:
"Our sense of self is shaped not by authentic experience but by curated digital personas, algorithmic reinforcement, and media narratives designed to evoke predictable reactions..."
Keeping in mind that Simlacrum was written around 1980 Braudillard's ability to already capture what has become much more apparent 45 years on is truly impressive.
Of course, as long as we see ourselves as 'products of the world around us', B's 'Levels of thinking' apply.
However, there is also a contradiction. If a human system can manufacture a reality, then humans can ~ in theory ~ manufacture any reality (echoing the autopoiesis theory of Maturana/ Varela)
B's Level 1 only applies as long as scientist 'stick to their own rules' of being scrupulous observers etc. I think we all know that's not the case, (Max Planck made a comment somewhere about science making progress at the speed of life expectancy of the scientists ~ I'm paraphrasing here) calling into question the theoretical 'factual rigor' and "The hallmark of Level 1 is a commitment to accuracy over personal or social convenience."
So we have to ask whether there is any truly 'neutral level' at all?
The question of 'truth' seems to have gone completely down the drain in the 'post truth era'... so perhaps it's no longer helpful to ask the truth question at all.
It is easy to blame language for 'being manipulative', or 'words being used as weapons'. But if language is our symbiont, and words can be created and filled with meaning by humans at our own will and leisure, isn't it the intention and motivation that is the source of manipulation, deception, and aggression rather than the way words are used?
Baudrillard does suggest that in our hypermodern society, the distinction between the real and its representation becomes blurred. As he says, we live in a world where 'it is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself.'
Your point about humans potentially manufacturing any reality perfectly reflects Baudrillard's idea that simulation can generate a hyperreality, where the simulated becomes more real than the real. This certainly challenges the idea of a truly neutral level, as you mentioned.
It was remarkable that Baudrillard's work anticipates this blurring of truth and falsehood, where 'it is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real.' I think he was building off the back of Neil Postman, but I have found no reference to that so far.
Ultimately, Baudrillard's analysis invites us to consider that manipulation and deception may be inherent in the human condition, as you suggest, rather than solely a product of language.
But the big point you connected, at least for me, was about autopoiesis and the idea that humans can manufacture any reality, this is a key observation. It highlights a potential contradiction in Baudrillard's levels, as you pointed out. If reality is a human construct, can there be a truly neutral level? This directly challenges the possibility of a Level 1, and you're right to question whether a 'neutral level' exists at all. I wrote a while ago about David Deutsch's work on good explanations (I have a substack called https://goodexplanations.substack.com/ but have not used it... )... Deutsch said science can only ever offer good explanations, which I think aligns with what you and Joshua both say and agree with wholeheartedly.
It is difficult for me to square Thiel’s statement with his support of Vance and Trump. I’m guessing though that he would justify their distortions of reality because he believes they themselves are well-meaning or are at least instruments for achieving a good end. Presumably he does not see himself as supporting them out of cynicism and self-interest? I would wonder more broadly if most people who participate in simulacra don’t think of themselves as self-interested. They just feel that it’s a wonderful coincidence that they have found a way to deceive others while benefiting themselves and the other “good” people on the world at the same time.
I have struggled to think about Thiel's overall goal, clearly he thinks Trump is the Antichrist which will lead to Armageddon - is he (Thiel) hell-bent on blowing up government? I am beginning to think he is. Your point " they have found a way to deceive others while benefiting themselves." is so accurate...
I'm still trying to understand what is going on - but for sure most people do not engage in Level 1 thinking
My theory is that human brains have a finite capacity for perspective taking/empathy at any one time and so they eventually start triaging everyone into people worth saving and “non character players” and the like. Science is not usually like this. You can learn a system of thought in your twenties (or even teens) and use that to navigate the world for the rest of your life. Perspective taking requires constant level one thinking as you describe. It takes a level of commitment that is hard to value and maintain. Unfortunately the more we put it off, the harder it becomes (unless we get an ai technology that makes us instantly comprehensible to one another).
I agree with your perspective - fatigue sets in dependent upon the person and the situation. Very true - "the more we put it off, the harder it becomes."
I dislike the idea of heavy reliant on ai and heaven forbid ai implants but I sust=pect many will go down that path.
Thanks once more for a great and informative article!
There's one thing that bothers me, or, not to put too fine a point on it, one thing I disagree with - if I understand Baudrillard's thinking correctly, that is.
So, in extreme shorthand, our thinking is degrading because our perception of objective reality gets hidden behind ever more layers of simulations.
What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit proposition that this wasn't always so and that therefore we're 'losing' something we formerly had.
I would like to point to the fact that our interpretation of the world is, and has always been, an attempt to find a consistency - a consistent construct - that not only aims to explain but also predict. That need is as old as humanity itself. And we have found different ways to do this, the most important being religion and ideology.
Offerings had to be made to secure a successful next harvest. Penance had to be paid to be admitted to Heaven. Rooting out the evils of capitalism will bring us closer to the Worker's Paradise.
The baseline throughout human history is, it appears to me, based on superstition and false impressions of cause and effect. The baseline is defined not by lack of objective reality, nor indifference to it, but negation of it.
What's been added in the last couple of centuries is empirical thought, or science, so you will, which is fundamentally different in that it truly is based on objective and verifiable fact.
At what point, exactly, did we start losing that, I wonder, if at all? More to the point, who had constructed a consistent understanding of the world for themselves based on empirical thought, and has lost sight of it?
Because if Baudrillard is arguing that humanity has ever in significant numbers adopted a construction of reality based on objective facts or reality, I have to strongly disagree. The vast majority has always, is, and will always fall for snake oil men and false prophets.
I'd be hard pressed to believe that the number of people who truly look upon our world from a scientific perspective has declined over the last decades. In fact, I think it's still growing, although our numbers are still too small to stop the snake-oil men of our world from determining our fate.
But like I said, when it comes to snake-oil men, it takes two to tango, and the reason why scores of people now live in a world of verifiably false facts is not because they've lost sight of objective reality, but because they never saw it in the first place.
By the way, that Peter Thiel dares write about these things while helping the likes of JD Vance to power is downright obscene. But maybe that's just me...
I appreciate you raising that crucial point about whether Baudrillard implies a 'lost' objective reality. It's a really important nuance.
I agree that Baudrillard isn't suggesting there was a golden age of pure, unmediated truth. As you point out, human interpretation has always shaped our understanding of the world. Religious and ideological constructs have historically played a major role, often based on belief and perhaps 'superstition,' as you put it.
You're right to highlight that empirical thought and science represent a significant shift toward verifiable facts. Your question, 'At what point, exactly, did we start losing that...?' is a key one. It prompts us to consider whether it's less about losing a past reality and more about the changing nature of how we perceive and interact with the world now.
I also think you make a strong point about the role of 'snake oil salesmen and false prophets.' Baudrillard's ideas certainly resonate with the current environment of misinformation and manipulated narratives. It's a valid critique to ask whether the core issue is a loss of objective reality or a susceptibility to these kinds of influences, which, as you note, has been a long-standing human tendency.
As to Thiel... I am still at a loss to figure him out, despite watching tens of hours of his video interview, reading his book and essays. What he says contradicts considerbly from what I read 'about him' and yet - he is clearly the puppet master of many in the current US government, this is cause for alarm - he elicits a warning, maybe we should believe the warning, because it seems likely they will execute on it at some stage!
I would suggest reading the three books (if you have only time to read one, read the last one in the list) below to get a better perspective of where we are possibly heading since the three groups supporting Trump have different agendas, except that all have one common agenda: reducing the regulation and government bureaucracy to minima. The Republicans are split between tech-libertarians (like Thiel, Elon Musk), Maga populists (like Steve Bannon), and old-style conservatives.
I am not trying to say that one of the things mentioned in these books is the future of the US, but the damage that has been done so far and/or planned will require several decades of recovery:
Yes, for sure those three books neatly describe what the intentions are - although I have avoided the first two, mainly because I felt Curtis Yarvin was too extreme and not held in enough 'credit' in the administration / MAGA camp, I was wrong - I started to read his substack recently. On Balaji Srinivasan, I felt he was too much on crypto and have little trust in crypto (but big belief in Blockchain). A few years ago I watched some interviews with Balaji but just did not 'subscribe' to his ideals. Now I see what he is aiming at - clearly they all have one thing in common - blow up the current government infrastructure and rebuild it the way they lay out in their essays, talks, etc.
I was reluctant to spend time on reading them, but feel I should to know what we can do to ensure civilization thrives... as we know keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. Only when you know what they are up to can you rationally oppose it. I will read them.
As I understand the world - and I know I'm simplifying to the extreme here, but that's only to get to my point - religion, ideology and science are constructs to make sense of the world, or, as I like to call them, 'consistent frameworks of interpretation.'
Unfortunately, humans being humans, frameworks serve a secondary purpose - to create hierarchy within societies.
The misanthrope might say - 'to keep people in their place', while the philanthropist might say 'to help people find their place', but either way, frameworks have an element of control and power to them.
Science is obviously a powerful framework. It has brought us great wealth, prosperity and prolonged health. More importantly, people with a scientific education end up - for the most part - at the top of the foodchain, so to speak.
I think it is this success that's detested by groups of people all over the Western World, e.g. MAGA. I think that that's why they speak of 'alternate' facts, and want to tear down science's institutions - the Universities.
My point being - there's not so much a backlash against empirical thought, which wasn't much understood to begin with, but against science's place in our society, which is perceived as one of power and control.
The irony is that the most powerful proponents of said will to destruction have all enjoyed an Ivy league education. But then some members of the Russian aristocracy joined the Russian Revolution...
I question the whole concept of 'objective reality' in the first place; even within science. The history of science is the history failed theories of how things work. At best, science is only a short-term guesstimate trying to explain certain data (ref: "Science - The Very Idea" Steve Woolgar, 1988). What we do have though is subjective experience and I find a 'field-theory of the mind' based on that more interesting.
As for Peter Thiel, I agree with you - though I don't follow 'the news' any more.
I agree. We are incapable of perceiving objective reality, because we seek and think to find patterns where there are none. The paradox is that without seeing patterns where there are patterns, we wouldn't have survived as a species...
Well said Joshua. David Deutsch said the best science can deliver is "good explanations." I should have referenced that, great reminder.
And so true Michiel, we may not have survived without being able to see patterns and Baudrillard saw that, he said certain patterns help to keep the massess in check - and "People have the desire to take everything, to pillage everything, to swallow everything, to manipulate everything. Seeing, deciphering, learning does not touch them. The only massive affect is that of manipulation."
Agreed..., and when we say "seeing patterns", to me this includes the question "where have I felt like this before?" and suddenly one is thrown back to a scenario from the past (or a film scene) where something good/bad happened. In that sense recognising patterns can be both vital .. as a warning (6th sense) and also as confirmation one is one the right path / making the right decision. Patterns are a critical guide. But the recognition of them is all in subjective experience, not least because they are 'tailor-made' to one's personal journey through life.
The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio said: 'We are not thinking machines that feel; we are feeling machines that think.'
This highlights how our emotions and past experiences are deeply intertwined with our cognitive processes, including pattern recognition. It's not just about objective analysis; our subjective experiences play a significant role, as you wonderfull expressed.
Thank you for the Damasio quote. The flip in orientation carries much insight. In Synchronosophy, the eight 'faculties' of consciousness are of equal value, though tasked with differing 'responsibilities' - a heterarchy, not a hierarchy. Mind you, several centuries of feelings (realm of the Instinct) being labelled as not only lesser, but belonging to our hunter-gatherer past and therefore no longer needed in the Age of Rationality (Intellect/thinking), Damasio's quote needs much airplay.
Reality is bigger than all of us. The best any of us can hope to grasp is a small kernel of it. This leaves an opening for the propagandists to exploit and manipulate.
We like to believe otherwise because our puny monkey brains can grasp more than those of a parrot, or a skink or a mink.
Diving deep into reflection is nearly impossible for most of us because we're kept constantly busy with the demands of daily life. The job, the home, dealing with a deluge of often superfluous paperwork, etc. It's exhausting. Is it any wonder that people get information from the tube and just accept it as reality? That is, unless that gut instinct wells up to tell them "something isn't quite right here".
That's a powerful point about the limitations of our perception. The physicist Niels Bohr said, 'Every sentence I utter must be understood not as an affirmation, but as a question.'
This reminds us that our understanding of reality is always provisional and incomplete, leaving space for interpretation and, as you said, manipulation. I agree with Joshua to an extent on gut-instinct, although many in cohnitive science think gut-instinct is built upon experience :-)
I think that's true. Gut instinct can also be translated as intuition. When we have only an instant to respond to a potential threat, our past experiences inform us and we respond to that instantly. It's why we're still here.
Not to reiterate the obvious but we evolved this way because when our ancestors were living in caves, if anyone happened upon a drooling sabre toothed cat looking at us like we're dinner, we don't have much time to react.
This is also part of the reason why long term threats, such as global warming and overpowering AI don't register with the kind of force that the crack of a firearm or a loud explosion does. It's like the parable of the boiling frog - bringing the heat up gradually, it grows accustomed to every increase in temperature, and doesn't grasp that it's being killed horribly until it's too late.
'Gut instinct' picks up 'truths' way quicker than the intellect. I've bought and sold houses (involving all my capital + mortgage+ big risk) based on gut instinct.
Thank you for introducing me to Braudillard's Simulacrum:
"we become complicit in a system that no longer reflects reality but manufactures it.
"‘facts’ no longer point to an underlying truth but exist solely to reference and reinforce one another. In this world, the real is not simply distorted, it is displaced entirely,
"making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is constructed.
leading to this conclusion:
"Our sense of self is shaped not by authentic experience but by curated digital personas, algorithmic reinforcement, and media narratives designed to evoke predictable reactions..."
Keeping in mind that Simlacrum was written around 1980 Braudillard's ability to already capture what has become much more apparent 45 years on is truly impressive.
Of course, as long as we see ourselves as 'products of the world around us', B's 'Levels of thinking' apply.
However, there is also a contradiction. If a human system can manufacture a reality, then humans can ~ in theory ~ manufacture any reality (echoing the autopoiesis theory of Maturana/ Varela)
B's Level 1 only applies as long as scientist 'stick to their own rules' of being scrupulous observers etc. I think we all know that's not the case, (Max Planck made a comment somewhere about science making progress at the speed of life expectancy of the scientists ~ I'm paraphrasing here) calling into question the theoretical 'factual rigor' and "The hallmark of Level 1 is a commitment to accuracy over personal or social convenience."
So we have to ask whether there is any truly 'neutral level' at all?
The question of 'truth' seems to have gone completely down the drain in the 'post truth era'... so perhaps it's no longer helpful to ask the truth question at all.
It is easy to blame language for 'being manipulative', or 'words being used as weapons'. But if language is our symbiont, and words can be created and filled with meaning by humans at our own will and leisure, isn't it the intention and motivation that is the source of manipulation, deception, and aggression rather than the way words are used?
Baudrillard does suggest that in our hypermodern society, the distinction between the real and its representation becomes blurred. As he says, we live in a world where 'it is the real, and not the map, whose vestiges persist here and there in the deserts that are no longer those of the Empire, but ours. The desert of the real itself.'
Your point about humans potentially manufacturing any reality perfectly reflects Baudrillard's idea that simulation can generate a hyperreality, where the simulated becomes more real than the real. This certainly challenges the idea of a truly neutral level, as you mentioned.
It was remarkable that Baudrillard's work anticipates this blurring of truth and falsehood, where 'it is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real.' I think he was building off the back of Neil Postman, but I have found no reference to that so far.
Ultimately, Baudrillard's analysis invites us to consider that manipulation and deception may be inherent in the human condition, as you suggest, rather than solely a product of language.
But the big point you connected, at least for me, was about autopoiesis and the idea that humans can manufacture any reality, this is a key observation. It highlights a potential contradiction in Baudrillard's levels, as you pointed out. If reality is a human construct, can there be a truly neutral level? This directly challenges the possibility of a Level 1, and you're right to question whether a 'neutral level' exists at all. I wrote a while ago about David Deutsch's work on good explanations (I have a substack called https://goodexplanations.substack.com/ but have not used it... )... Deutsch said science can only ever offer good explanations, which I think aligns with what you and Joshua both say and agree with wholeheartedly.
It is difficult for me to square Thiel’s statement with his support of Vance and Trump. I’m guessing though that he would justify their distortions of reality because he believes they themselves are well-meaning or are at least instruments for achieving a good end. Presumably he does not see himself as supporting them out of cynicism and self-interest? I would wonder more broadly if most people who participate in simulacra don’t think of themselves as self-interested. They just feel that it’s a wonderful coincidence that they have found a way to deceive others while benefiting themselves and the other “good” people on the world at the same time.
I have struggled to think about Thiel's overall goal, clearly he thinks Trump is the Antichrist which will lead to Armageddon - is he (Thiel) hell-bent on blowing up government? I am beginning to think he is. Your point " they have found a way to deceive others while benefiting themselves." is so accurate...
I'm still trying to understand what is going on - but for sure most people do not engage in Level 1 thinking
Theil could very well be in denial. He's just as much of a psychopathic oligarch as Musk, Zuck, Bezos, Andreessen, et al.
My theory is that human brains have a finite capacity for perspective taking/empathy at any one time and so they eventually start triaging everyone into people worth saving and “non character players” and the like. Science is not usually like this. You can learn a system of thought in your twenties (or even teens) and use that to navigate the world for the rest of your life. Perspective taking requires constant level one thinking as you describe. It takes a level of commitment that is hard to value and maintain. Unfortunately the more we put it off, the harder it becomes (unless we get an ai technology that makes us instantly comprehensible to one another).
I agree with your perspective - fatigue sets in dependent upon the person and the situation. Very true - "the more we put it off, the harder it becomes."
I dislike the idea of heavy reliant on ai and heaven forbid ai implants but I sust=pect many will go down that path.
Loved this.
Inject this into my veins.
Wish I wrote this article.
Thank you so much
Thanks once more for a great and informative article!
There's one thing that bothers me, or, not to put too fine a point on it, one thing I disagree with - if I understand Baudrillard's thinking correctly, that is.
So, in extreme shorthand, our thinking is degrading because our perception of objective reality gets hidden behind ever more layers of simulations.
What bothers me about this perspective is the implicit proposition that this wasn't always so and that therefore we're 'losing' something we formerly had.
I would like to point to the fact that our interpretation of the world is, and has always been, an attempt to find a consistency - a consistent construct - that not only aims to explain but also predict. That need is as old as humanity itself. And we have found different ways to do this, the most important being religion and ideology.
Offerings had to be made to secure a successful next harvest. Penance had to be paid to be admitted to Heaven. Rooting out the evils of capitalism will bring us closer to the Worker's Paradise.
The baseline throughout human history is, it appears to me, based on superstition and false impressions of cause and effect. The baseline is defined not by lack of objective reality, nor indifference to it, but negation of it.
What's been added in the last couple of centuries is empirical thought, or science, so you will, which is fundamentally different in that it truly is based on objective and verifiable fact.
At what point, exactly, did we start losing that, I wonder, if at all? More to the point, who had constructed a consistent understanding of the world for themselves based on empirical thought, and has lost sight of it?
Because if Baudrillard is arguing that humanity has ever in significant numbers adopted a construction of reality based on objective facts or reality, I have to strongly disagree. The vast majority has always, is, and will always fall for snake oil men and false prophets.
I'd be hard pressed to believe that the number of people who truly look upon our world from a scientific perspective has declined over the last decades. In fact, I think it's still growing, although our numbers are still too small to stop the snake-oil men of our world from determining our fate.
But like I said, when it comes to snake-oil men, it takes two to tango, and the reason why scores of people now live in a world of verifiably false facts is not because they've lost sight of objective reality, but because they never saw it in the first place.
By the way, that Peter Thiel dares write about these things while helping the likes of JD Vance to power is downright obscene. But maybe that's just me...
I appreciate you raising that crucial point about whether Baudrillard implies a 'lost' objective reality. It's a really important nuance.
I agree that Baudrillard isn't suggesting there was a golden age of pure, unmediated truth. As you point out, human interpretation has always shaped our understanding of the world. Religious and ideological constructs have historically played a major role, often based on belief and perhaps 'superstition,' as you put it.
You're right to highlight that empirical thought and science represent a significant shift toward verifiable facts. Your question, 'At what point, exactly, did we start losing that...?' is a key one. It prompts us to consider whether it's less about losing a past reality and more about the changing nature of how we perceive and interact with the world now.
I also think you make a strong point about the role of 'snake oil salesmen and false prophets.' Baudrillard's ideas certainly resonate with the current environment of misinformation and manipulated narratives. It's a valid critique to ask whether the core issue is a loss of objective reality or a susceptibility to these kinds of influences, which, as you note, has been a long-standing human tendency.
As to Thiel... I am still at a loss to figure him out, despite watching tens of hours of his video interview, reading his book and essays. What he says contradicts considerbly from what I read 'about him' and yet - he is clearly the puppet master of many in the current US government, this is cause for alarm - he elicits a warning, maybe we should believe the warning, because it seems likely they will execute on it at some stage!
I would suggest reading the three books (if you have only time to read one, read the last one in the list) below to get a better perspective of where we are possibly heading since the three groups supporting Trump have different agendas, except that all have one common agenda: reducing the regulation and government bureaucracy to minima. The Republicans are split between tech-libertarians (like Thiel, Elon Musk), Maga populists (like Steve Bannon), and old-style conservatives.
I am not trying to say that one of the things mentioned in these books is the future of the US, but the damage that has been done so far and/or planned will require several decades of recovery:
1. Patchwork: A Political System for the 21st Century - https://tinyurl.com/mut8r64c
2. The Network State: How To Start a New Country - https://tinyurl.com/ytufv3yr
3. The Assault on the State: How the Global Attack on Modern Government Endangers Our Future - https://tinyurl.com/dcwd345x
Yes, for sure those three books neatly describe what the intentions are - although I have avoided the first two, mainly because I felt Curtis Yarvin was too extreme and not held in enough 'credit' in the administration / MAGA camp, I was wrong - I started to read his substack recently. On Balaji Srinivasan, I felt he was too much on crypto and have little trust in crypto (but big belief in Blockchain). A few years ago I watched some interviews with Balaji but just did not 'subscribe' to his ideals. Now I see what he is aiming at - clearly they all have one thing in common - blow up the current government infrastructure and rebuild it the way they lay out in their essays, talks, etc.
I was reluctant to spend time on reading them, but feel I should to know what we can do to ensure civilization thrives... as we know keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. Only when you know what they are up to can you rationally oppose it. I will read them.
As I understand the world - and I know I'm simplifying to the extreme here, but that's only to get to my point - religion, ideology and science are constructs to make sense of the world, or, as I like to call them, 'consistent frameworks of interpretation.'
Unfortunately, humans being humans, frameworks serve a secondary purpose - to create hierarchy within societies.
The misanthrope might say - 'to keep people in their place', while the philanthropist might say 'to help people find their place', but either way, frameworks have an element of control and power to them.
Science is obviously a powerful framework. It has brought us great wealth, prosperity and prolonged health. More importantly, people with a scientific education end up - for the most part - at the top of the foodchain, so to speak.
I think it is this success that's detested by groups of people all over the Western World, e.g. MAGA. I think that that's why they speak of 'alternate' facts, and want to tear down science's institutions - the Universities.
My point being - there's not so much a backlash against empirical thought, which wasn't much understood to begin with, but against science's place in our society, which is perceived as one of power and control.
The irony is that the most powerful proponents of said will to destruction have all enjoyed an Ivy league education. But then some members of the Russian aristocracy joined the Russian Revolution...
I question the whole concept of 'objective reality' in the first place; even within science. The history of science is the history failed theories of how things work. At best, science is only a short-term guesstimate trying to explain certain data (ref: "Science - The Very Idea" Steve Woolgar, 1988). What we do have though is subjective experience and I find a 'field-theory of the mind' based on that more interesting.
As for Peter Thiel, I agree with you - though I don't follow 'the news' any more.
I agree. We are incapable of perceiving objective reality, because we seek and think to find patterns where there are none. The paradox is that without seeing patterns where there are patterns, we wouldn't have survived as a species...
Well said Joshua. David Deutsch said the best science can deliver is "good explanations." I should have referenced that, great reminder.
And so true Michiel, we may not have survived without being able to see patterns and Baudrillard saw that, he said certain patterns help to keep the massess in check - and "People have the desire to take everything, to pillage everything, to swallow everything, to manipulate everything. Seeing, deciphering, learning does not touch them. The only massive affect is that of manipulation."
Agreed..., and when we say "seeing patterns", to me this includes the question "where have I felt like this before?" and suddenly one is thrown back to a scenario from the past (or a film scene) where something good/bad happened. In that sense recognising patterns can be both vital .. as a warning (6th sense) and also as confirmation one is one the right path / making the right decision. Patterns are a critical guide. But the recognition of them is all in subjective experience, not least because they are 'tailor-made' to one's personal journey through life.
The neuroscientist Antonio Damasio said: 'We are not thinking machines that feel; we are feeling machines that think.'
This highlights how our emotions and past experiences are deeply intertwined with our cognitive processes, including pattern recognition. It's not just about objective analysis; our subjective experiences play a significant role, as you wonderfull expressed.
Thank you for the Damasio quote. The flip in orientation carries much insight. In Synchronosophy, the eight 'faculties' of consciousness are of equal value, though tasked with differing 'responsibilities' - a heterarchy, not a hierarchy. Mind you, several centuries of feelings (realm of the Instinct) being labelled as not only lesser, but belonging to our hunter-gatherer past and therefore no longer needed in the Age of Rationality (Intellect/thinking), Damasio's quote needs much airplay.
...a heterarchy I like that a lot. Life would be so much better if more people realized this and adopted it.