It is forbidden to doubt, they only demand blind adherence: but it is the negation of Science

11 January 20222 years ago babelfish

For over a year and a half we no longer speak of "altruistic masks" to indicate surgical ones, and of "selfish masks" for the FFP2 type. It was not bad, as a publicity stunt, because it made the idea, probably reliable from a scientific point of view, of the different function: more markedly aimed at the protection of others, the surgical ones and more protective for themselves, the FFP2. It could be that, having made FFP2 mandatory in most situations, emphasizing the need to protect oneself first would do bad. By now the process of criminalization of the unvaccinated has begun, with their social exclusion, as they are branded as enemies of society, it would screech too much to say to the Italians: "Come on, enough with the altruistic masks, use the selfish ones from now on!". Words matter now more than ever.

All the governing action is written on the staff where those few notes above it are repeated ad libitum without any harmony. It seems that the nuances, those of sharps and flats, have been banned. You have to play that achromatic and repetitive music that the conductor likes. Lingering on the semitones is liable to be expelled from the orchestra, just as the most advanced listener who finds the music too crude and tasteless, as if playing in front of pigs, would be accompanied to the exit of the theater, amidst whistles and jeers. of the audience with a good mouth who does not want complications. We are reducing ourselves to the forced simplification of complex and variegated concepts, such as the hasty and scazzato teacher who explains to his fife-wielding pupils that there are seven notes, starting with low C and ending with high C (and it would be eight).

We live in the era of total schematization, understood as the limit to which “Science” must comply, and never let the scheme be just a simplification of easy impact; the basis of the scheme is nothing, and certainly not the complete theory. The current emergency regulations refer to schemes rather than to concrete concepts that can be schematized in tables. We cannot know who and why he created these schemes, but the important thing is that there are many alphanumeric abbreviations and many neologisms to be learned by heart without understanding the reason in the slightest. But how good and generous is the Supreme Head who spares us from explaining things we would not understand! In the beginning it was the scheme, then came the substance, it seems that it works like this.

Never as today have we been asked, even by the President of the Republic, to take sides here or there, obviously after having indicated which is the "right" party to be in. The beauty, so to speak, is that those who invite us to draconian decisions have been masters in the art of seeking the third, fourth or fifth way when it came to choosing trivially whether they should stay on the left, in the center or in the center. right. It would be enough to re-read (and very few do) what was declared by the proponents of the "good and bad" lists how many nuances of thought, how many subtleties, how many intermediate positions they invented until yesterday to clear themselves from the accusations of total inconsistency, to realize how much all this is surreal. In some ways we could say that we are metadictatorship, overcoming the unquestionable will of the ducet on duty, based on the axiom that the boss is always right. They had at least the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that they are not at all convinced of what they are imposing on us and of what they will force us to do tomorrow.

Paradoxically, for many of us it would be enough to hear us say: "Guys, we do not have a precise idea of why we are forcing you to do this and that, but we are improvising in good faith, thinking we are doing well and showing ourselves available to remedy any big mistakes. … ”Even a simple reminder of good faith would entice them to grant them a credit line, even some isolated, wildcard every now and then. But it is the arrogance of certainties based on scientific evidence, which perhaps will only be such in decades, that increasingly irritates those who already no longer know which superstar of medicine to pay attention to, that makes everything more difficult. Even this urge to consider a moron or a criminal who has some doubts can no longer be tolerated, even more so in the light of effective shots such as that of "I leave you a united country" . The reason for the doubt of Cartesian memory is now outclassed by the aphorism: "Be certain, always, you will soon turn around when they realize that you said a bullshit" . You know the televised debates, when someone, after realizing that he had said a blatant stupid thing, tries to justify himself with the inevitable "it was a provocation …" ? I'm afraid that more than one of the incurable custodians of certainties, once the disaster happened, could tell us that it was just a provocation, just to see how we would take it. And, in any case, even if they were only provocations, in the long run they would arouse perhaps excessive or disordered reactions, and I am not at all sure that by dint of insisting on displays of strength, sooner or later, the rope could break, and in the least moment indicated for dealing with certain additional emergencies.

With this bad habit, doubt, a great springboard to deepen the knowledge of anything, is already wrong in terms, or, at least, so they want us to understand. Today you need to have certainties, like the little man who, in order to demonstrate that he “never has to ask”, bought mediocre aftershave identifying himself with the contents of the denim shirt unbuttoned on the chest, which he then used hairy. It would even look like a giant marketing operation, if it weren't worse. We treat the most global epidemic in history with slogans and clichés worthy of a cheap commercial. Even Science, the one with a capital "S", today is propagated with advertising, but in the claim , at least, it is very easy to glimpse the prodest of which, while asking who benefits so much selling dogmatic certainties could lead to disturbing and too similar answers to certain historical calamities already experienced. We see too many appeals to the national union, punctually followed, in the same speech, by the clear and divisive caesura between supporters or detractors of vaccines or Green Passes not to be stung by any doubts.

Once upon a time people used to say "legitimate doubt", but it seems that doubt is no longer granted any legitimacy, even and above all by decree. It was also said that "paper sings" and that the figures cut the legs of chatter, but which card sings today, which figures are spoken about and who those numbers come from remains a mystery. However it may be and however it goes, it does not seem that we are embarking on a path full of harmony and free of contradictions. Let's not forget, at least for those who believe, that someone told us to make lambs among the wolves. But from there to let oneself be passively eaten by wolves it still passes and it would be good to remember that one of the most effective strategies of the lambs on the occasion of the attack of their predators is to immediately dissolve the flock to think each of them to save their own skin. Long live the selfish mask! To those who remind me that "united we win" I would reply, however, that in the event of a virus pandemic, being too united is not very good and that it is even forbidden.

The post Forbidden to doubt, they only demand blind adhesion: but it is the denial of Science appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .

This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL https://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/vietato-dubitare-pretendono-solo-cieca-adesione-ma-e-la-negazione-della-scienza/ on Mon, 10 Jan 2022 03:48:00 +0000.