I want to make sure I understand what you're trying to convey. In part 1 and part 2 of these articles are you trying to convey the idea that science and religion aren't far removed from each other because we are choosing to believe in something we can't see?
Based on what I've read it sounds like you believe in germ theory (the way we're taught about viruses in primary school), vaccines, and dinosaurs. But that you acknowledge that all of these are beliefs and may not accurately reflect reality?
You mention several different theories. germ theory, host theory, terrain theory. Which theory is the one you are advocating for? I like Dr. Sam Bailey and she coauthored a book called virus-mania that I have on my 'to read' list, and I suspect it advocates for terrain theory, but I don't know what that is.
After the last two years, and hundreds of hours spent reviewing scientific literature, I have come to one overwhelming conclusion. We all are operating on belief systems. I can provide scientific literature to support pretty much any perspective someone wants to argue. Science isn't so much about discovering truth as it is reducing uncertainty.
As far as I can tell host and terrain are redundant terms for the same idea, apologies if I'm wrong on that count.
Right, if one fixates on the question of "disease" then host and germ theory are always going to come to a draw, because diseases behave mysteriously, and one is stuck in 1960 biology. I am not fixated on disease. Biology, microbiology, genetics, the immune system, evolution - viruses score hugely in explaining / being explained by the last 60 years of discoveries in theses fields and germ and host theory don't score at all. Meanwhile none of these insights into viruses and their capabilities in cells and bacterial colonies can be attacked by "ah, but how do you know it made anyone sick?" The biology has moved beyond that.
Plus, we now know we have an innate immune system and a microbiome - we are walking ecosystems, which explains why neither host nor virus should be subtracted from etiology - diseases must obviously be an interplay between both (host theory doesn't even have a rational place for those newer concepts, though I suspect its revival is greatly founded on the intuitions derived from modern understanding of the two).
Truth, regarding life and thus the universe, is like the search for the last digit of an irrational number, somehow unreachable, but approximable - only to be misled again and again.
Perhaps we should also finally leave our hands off constants in order to find truth. If the universe and life evolve (because life is simply more efficient universe, regarding the handling of energy), then also all so-called natural constants evolve. But evolution requires the complete absence of constants. Therefore, we obviously do not understand viruses, but also the universe itself. What follows from this? Of course, that truth itself is evolving.
''The best advice for not getting sick, even if you believe in viruses, is to take care of yourself. ''
Health, for each individual living being, is the slowest form of death, but disease, for life as a whole, is the fastest way to stay healthy. The bio-logical dilemma for humans is the abivalence of evolution. For the individual (human), health and disease have different dimensions and meanings than for life as a whole (as the sum of all living beings including their interactions).
Ha, not quite how I would put it as far as “health” - since life lived merely for the sake of prolonging life is not on my wish-list. Health is not about postponing death, or avoiding suffering, since those are integral parts of the human experience - more about actively pursuing the third mode, vitality.
Not to prevent death for as long as possible, for the sake of increasing life expectancy, but to be able to defy natural selection for as long as possible. And the longer this succeeds, the longer viruses thus find eloquent bio-logical arguments to convince natural selection that a living being is not yet ripe for it, the sooner disease is necessary to adjust the local ratio of energy supply and energy demand.
Only man sees it differently once again. He is not concerned with bio-logical arguments, but more and more with techno-logical, ergo bio-illogical command power, which increasingly distorts the local relationship of energy supply and energy demand and lets illness become chronic.
I think one issue is not so.much do viruses exist as ...
Did Flubah exist before we shot it into folks as a hacksxxxxine
?
Seems like we created something that wasn't there before I guess some think
I like the thing about not hearing music with your eyes and that is what is wrong with it, I'd add
Music was way so much better when we used our ears to see it
And maybe when we start interacting as reasonable members of womanity we can better understand our viruses and stand under our science instead of walking all over it arrogantly
I sure hope we figure it out soon as I've gotten to where its gotten beyond strange
Jan 11, 2022·edited Jan 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
" I believe viruses should be scored as more intuitive: I have gotten sick before, and did not imagine it."
I was young, fit and healthy and came down with the flu after kissing a girl. It's intuitive and also directly testable!
IMO you could falsify host theory with a clean (controlled) environment, a healthy body with anything it desires to maintain host integrity, then sustain that for a month or so to prove host theory health plausible, then introduce gender of your choice infectee and falsify it within a week of a kiss.
That was summarised as a comment in my interaction in a comment recently: host theory is falsifiable but nobody has tried. Or maybe I have missed something fundamental.
I was stoked to see your Part 1 a few days later.
The flat earther dude tried to falsify flat earth (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51602655), it's just that his rocket did not negotiate reentry protocols sufficiently to allow repeated tests. But at least he tried. Lots of other flat earth falsifying tests could be done. When you dig deeper, lots of 666 stuff starts popping up, ignoring the oscillation of the earth's tilt in the process. Then you see the (terrain theory / flat earth / 666 etc) Venn diagram is almost a circle.
I would like to reiterate Denise Donning's appreciation of your writing and wit - it resonates with my own sense sense of humour. The t-rex protocol to avoid truther detection elicited audible chuckles here.
Pretty sure you could falsify host theory just by putting on wet socks every day. What is the “expelled toxin” that comprises the resulting athlete’s toe? I am being over-simplistic of course.
Jan 11, 2022·edited Jan 11, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
NB: I have never read Popper, but mention "falsifiability" like a religious devotee. Am planning to read some in the coming months, and may have nfi what I am talking about.
I so love your writing (and your wicked but subtle wit). Your table is missing a column: "Life is but a dream." You know, everything is real but nothing is true. This way we can all have our cake and eat it, too. Don't like the way life is going? Dream another dream.
Space constraints. But otherwise, a powerful addition, and one that may indeed hold the answer. Last night I dreamed that another substack posted a treatise on an obscure, 11th Century monastic text that turns out to perfectly depict why the scientific pursuit will never result in knowledge that isn't corrupted by our human nature - the sum of my anxieties (hilariously, it was a Berenson post in my dream). Luckily, that truth was not real.
Some thoughts regarding isolation and purification:
https://theinfectiousmyth.com/coronavirus/IsolationVersusPurification.php
I want to make sure I understand what you're trying to convey. In part 1 and part 2 of these articles are you trying to convey the idea that science and religion aren't far removed from each other because we are choosing to believe in something we can't see?
Based on what I've read it sounds like you believe in germ theory (the way we're taught about viruses in primary school), vaccines, and dinosaurs. But that you acknowledge that all of these are beliefs and may not accurately reflect reality?
You mention several different theories. germ theory, host theory, terrain theory. Which theory is the one you are advocating for? I like Dr. Sam Bailey and she coauthored a book called virus-mania that I have on my 'to read' list, and I suspect it advocates for terrain theory, but I don't know what that is.
After the last two years, and hundreds of hours spent reviewing scientific literature, I have come to one overwhelming conclusion. We all are operating on belief systems. I can provide scientific literature to support pretty much any perspective someone wants to argue. Science isn't so much about discovering truth as it is reducing uncertainty.
As far as I can tell host and terrain are redundant terms for the same idea, apologies if I'm wrong on that count.
Right, if one fixates on the question of "disease" then host and germ theory are always going to come to a draw, because diseases behave mysteriously, and one is stuck in 1960 biology. I am not fixated on disease. Biology, microbiology, genetics, the immune system, evolution - viruses score hugely in explaining / being explained by the last 60 years of discoveries in theses fields and germ and host theory don't score at all. Meanwhile none of these insights into viruses and their capabilities in cells and bacterial colonies can be attacked by "ah, but how do you know it made anyone sick?" The biology has moved beyond that.
Plus, we now know we have an innate immune system and a microbiome - we are walking ecosystems, which explains why neither host nor virus should be subtracted from etiology - diseases must obviously be an interplay between both (host theory doesn't even have a rational place for those newer concepts, though I suspect its revival is greatly founded on the intuitions derived from modern understanding of the two).
Truth, regarding life and thus the universe, is like the search for the last digit of an irrational number, somehow unreachable, but approximable - only to be misled again and again.
Another afterthought:
Perhaps we should also finally leave our hands off constants in order to find truth. If the universe and life evolve (because life is simply more efficient universe, regarding the handling of energy), then also all so-called natural constants evolve. But evolution requires the complete absence of constants. Therefore, we obviously do not understand viruses, but also the universe itself. What follows from this? Of course, that truth itself is evolving.
''The best advice for not getting sick, even if you believe in viruses, is to take care of yourself. ''
Health, for each individual living being, is the slowest form of death, but disease, for life as a whole, is the fastest way to stay healthy. The bio-logical dilemma for humans is the abivalence of evolution. For the individual (human), health and disease have different dimensions and meanings than for life as a whole (as the sum of all living beings including their interactions).
Ha, not quite how I would put it as far as “health” - since life lived merely for the sake of prolonging life is not on my wish-list. Health is not about postponing death, or avoiding suffering, since those are integral parts of the human experience - more about actively pursuing the third mode, vitality.
Not to prevent death for as long as possible, for the sake of increasing life expectancy, but to be able to defy natural selection for as long as possible. And the longer this succeeds, the longer viruses thus find eloquent bio-logical arguments to convince natural selection that a living being is not yet ripe for it, the sooner disease is necessary to adjust the local ratio of energy supply and energy demand.
Only man sees it differently once again. He is not concerned with bio-logical arguments, but more and more with techno-logical, ergo bio-illogical command power, which increasingly distorts the local relationship of energy supply and energy demand and lets illness become chronic.
I think one issue is not so.much do viruses exist as ...
Did Flubah exist before we shot it into folks as a hacksxxxxine
?
Seems like we created something that wasn't there before I guess some think
I like the thing about not hearing music with your eyes and that is what is wrong with it, I'd add
Music was way so much better when we used our ears to see it
And maybe when we start interacting as reasonable members of womanity we can better understand our viruses and stand under our science instead of walking all over it arrogantly
I sure hope we figure it out soon as I've gotten to where its gotten beyond strange
The twilight zone theme music
Doo.doo Doo Doo
Doo Doo Doo doo
" I believe viruses should be scored as more intuitive: I have gotten sick before, and did not imagine it."
I was young, fit and healthy and came down with the flu after kissing a girl. It's intuitive and also directly testable!
IMO you could falsify host theory with a clean (controlled) environment, a healthy body with anything it desires to maintain host integrity, then sustain that for a month or so to prove host theory health plausible, then introduce gender of your choice infectee and falsify it within a week of a kiss.
That was summarised as a comment in my interaction in a comment recently: host theory is falsifiable but nobody has tried. Or maybe I have missed something fundamental.
I was stoked to see your Part 1 a few days later.
The flat earther dude tried to falsify flat earth (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51602655), it's just that his rocket did not negotiate reentry protocols sufficiently to allow repeated tests. But at least he tried. Lots of other flat earth falsifying tests could be done. When you dig deeper, lots of 666 stuff starts popping up, ignoring the oscillation of the earth's tilt in the process. Then you see the (terrain theory / flat earth / 666 etc) Venn diagram is almost a circle.
I would like to reiterate Denise Donning's appreciation of your writing and wit - it resonates with my own sense sense of humour. The t-rex protocol to avoid truther detection elicited audible chuckles here.
Pretty sure you could falsify host theory just by putting on wet socks every day. What is the “expelled toxin” that comprises the resulting athlete’s toe? I am being over-simplistic of course.
Oh god I had pictures of sterile white bunkers and food deliveries and and yes wet socks works.
Occam approves.
NB: I have never read Popper, but mention "falsifiability" like a religious devotee. Am planning to read some in the coming months, and may have nfi what I am talking about.
(not attacked to Germ Theory Dogma) = not attached?
Caught me. I get paid according to Scrabble tile values.
attaqid!
I so love your writing (and your wicked but subtle wit). Your table is missing a column: "Life is but a dream." You know, everything is real but nothing is true. This way we can all have our cake and eat it, too. Don't like the way life is going? Dream another dream.
Space constraints. But otherwise, a powerful addition, and one that may indeed hold the answer. Last night I dreamed that another substack posted a treatise on an obscure, 11th Century monastic text that turns out to perfectly depict why the scientific pursuit will never result in knowledge that isn't corrupted by our human nature - the sum of my anxieties (hilariously, it was a Berenson post in my dream). Luckily, that truth was not real.
There is such a thing as too much Substack.
I truly think I had a Berenson dream too. Ok guys maybe we need an intervention.
Oh, I'm going to laugh about that all night. Thank you!