One thing I have been thinking about is what (I think) the experience of reading FPTM has taught me "by osmosis" so to speak: it is just so incredibly hard to stay on track when you want to find out something about something complex. It is so easy to fall into emotional thinking, looking for "quick fixes", thinking you know an answer already and so on. And it won't do to just accuse those "asleep" of following authorities or the mainstream. It is just as hard and dangerous in "alternative land".
If you want a chance you must really, REALLY want to know the truth. And Laura showcases this so brilliantly in her book. Never ever does she make a claim that is not backed up by either facts or meticulous, coherent thinking processes. Never ever does she allow herself to jump to conclusions, suffering the glorious consequences of taking seriously even the worst kind of research in the hope that some small puzzle piece might be in there, or some inspiration to look into a new direction. Never dismissing anything out of hand.
Keeping our emotional triggers at bay is crucial for getting to the bottom of things. Just because someone tells a lot of demonstrable nonsense or uses something for nefarious purposes doesn't mean that there is not something true in there. Just because you don't like a certain theory, a certain person, or a certain "school" - especially if it is for good reasons! - this doesn't give you permission to dismiss it or automatically assume the opposite must be true.
We all have our assumptions and "things we think we know". Often for good reasons. But that can not be an excuse to take shortcuts.
Going about it like that is brutal, because it brings us face to face with the fact that we actually know so little, and a lot of what we think we know we just got from others, or established as fact because of emotional thinking, identification, laziness or to avoid really difficult stuff. Realizing that is true humility.
To use some examples from Covid land where I felt this pull of "taking shortcuts": just because so much fear-mongering is going on doesn't mean that Covid is "just the flu" and there can't be serious issues with it. Just because of all the abuse and profiteering connected to vaccines doesn't mean that vaccines are all-bad. Just because Science has been guilty of peddling nonsense about viruses doesn't mean they don't exist or that virologists don't do valid research. Etc. etc. Now, what if I REALLY wanted to answer one of those questions, say whether a Tetanus vaccine is actually a good idea, and if so for whom? I would have to go on a major research spree, looking in detail at the raw data of tons of studies, learn a bunch about research methodology and the black hole called statistics, possibly sociological issues, questioning the validity of all the research I find to establish which is actually accurate or what parts of it anyway, learn about the biographies of famous researchers and their possible conflicts of interest, learn how those vaccines work anyway and their history, read a bunch of microbiology textbooks and the critics of said textbooks, look at the "vaccine-critical" side in detail and what they came up with and what they got right or wrong... What I cannot do is read the next best "critic" or "pro-vax study" or article or book and be done with it. What I cannot do is dismiss the arguments of what I "feel" to be the "wrong side". You get the point.
Reading FTPM really has brought home that point to me perhaps for the first time - because it shows the process. It boils down to the question: do we just want to play around? Or do we really WANT to get to the bottom of things?
If you want a chance you must really, REALLY want to know the truth. And Laura showcases this so brilliantly in her book. Never ever does she make a claim that is not backed up by either facts or meticulous, coherent thinking processes. Never ever does she allow herself to jump to conclusions, suffering the glorious consequences of taking seriously even the worst kind of research in the hope that some small puzzle piece might be in there, or some inspiration to look into a new direction. Never dismissing anything out of hand.
Keeping our emotional triggers at bay is crucial for getting to the bottom of things. Just because someone tells a lot of demonstrable nonsense or uses something for nefarious purposes doesn't mean that there is not something true in there. Just because you don't like a certain theory, a certain person, or a certain "school" - especially if it is for good reasons! - this doesn't give you permission to dismiss it or automatically assume the opposite must be true.
We all have our assumptions and "things we think we know". Often for good reasons. But that can not be an excuse to take shortcuts.
Going about it like that is brutal, because it brings us face to face with the fact that we actually know so little, and a lot of what we think we know we just got from others, or established as fact because of emotional thinking, identification, laziness or to avoid really difficult stuff. Realizing that is true humility.
To use some examples from Covid land where I felt this pull of "taking shortcuts": just because so much fear-mongering is going on doesn't mean that Covid is "just the flu" and there can't be serious issues with it. Just because of all the abuse and profiteering connected to vaccines doesn't mean that vaccines are all-bad. Just because Science has been guilty of peddling nonsense about viruses doesn't mean they don't exist or that virologists don't do valid research. Etc. etc. Now, what if I REALLY wanted to answer one of those questions, say whether a Tetanus vaccine is actually a good idea, and if so for whom? I would have to go on a major research spree, looking in detail at the raw data of tons of studies, learn a bunch about research methodology and the black hole called statistics, possibly sociological issues, questioning the validity of all the research I find to establish which is actually accurate or what parts of it anyway, learn about the biographies of famous researchers and their possible conflicts of interest, learn how those vaccines work anyway and their history, read a bunch of microbiology textbooks and the critics of said textbooks, look at the "vaccine-critical" side in detail and what they came up with and what they got right or wrong... What I cannot do is read the next best "critic" or "pro-vax study" or article or book and be done with it. What I cannot do is dismiss the arguments of what I "feel" to be the "wrong side". You get the point.
Reading FTPM really has brought home that point to me perhaps for the first time - because it shows the process. It boils down to the question: do we just want to play around? Or do we really WANT to get to the bottom of things?
).
).
