Two Ways To Lie
“So if science is not required to actually prove causation, what is the difference between an assumption based solely on outcome VS an assumption based on… outcome?”
The following is a clarification of concepts partially covered in previous stacks:
There are two ways to lie:
Manipulate or distort facts
Manipulate or distort context
Human perception is a perpetual juggling act, writing the impressions of perceived facts and context in the moment into short-term memory—to be compared to impressions in long-term memory. In this way, pathways of behavior form by pairing actions in the moment with long-term outcomes—the creation of a personal prediction model, sometimes referred to as an assumption. Assumptions allow us to skip the analysis phase of perception; mostly accurate and extremely efficient, but anecdotal.
“…It is never enough to be willing to die for your family. You must be willing to live for them.”
Some consider the anecdotal nature of assumptions to be impeachable, but science has proven the analysis phase doesn’t elevate accuracy by much, compared to the effort required to draw a ‘scientific’ conclusion; especially if there is a liar involved. “Correlation is not causation.” is the disclaimer branded upon every scientific conclusion I can think of. So if science is not required to actually prove causation, what is the difference between an assumption based on outcome VS an assumption based on… outcome? Not much, but worthy of consideration.
The point: We are still simply arguing about how believable the facts are, leaving the entire branch of ‘liar’s science’; context1, to write its own story without a counterbalancing force. Statistics are not the enemy, they are useful tools, the devotion of incredible resources toward the end result of adding a few percentage points to the guessology of medicine, very important. But the moment science abandons the methodology of testing scientific assertion against anecdotal reasoning, our system exits reality for greener pastures of the matrix, because science is not perfect either. More importantly; it isn’t the science, it is how it is applied—an inherently anecdotal process.
Cement science tells us that driving down a cement road is not advisable until you are certain the cement has completely hardened. There is a small risk that upon entering a cement road, you will accidentally wreck your car and the cement. But our anecdotal reasoning tells us to drive anyway, even though we have not scientifically verified the cement to be safe in all cases. Perhaps, in the name of science, we should all begin stopping upon our approach of a cement roadway to first perform a test. Would that not increase our odds of success? But science cannot always bail us out because; in many cases, time is of the essence.
The following passage as has been used before but continues to ring true for this circumstance:
“Day 16: Saturday August 28, 2021 - Two Steps Forward”
“Doctors of the belief I am suffering ICU delirium, attempt to keep me comfortably sedated, accidentally choosing a path that does anything but. Induced comas look clean on the outside, making for a quiet ICU, but the silence deceives. Unable to completely halt the spinning wheels of the mind, sedated patients can become trapped in a frightening world of haunting delirium. My initial dose of Seroquel would likely cause no issues. But upon ratcheting-up the dosage in the face of no perceived improvement, it seems to be getting worse, continuing indefinitely despite their efforts to keep it under control.”
“Pulling the trigger on a repurposed mental health medication to reverse the haze of chemically induced hallucinations seems an anecdotal long-shot at best, a proverbial shot in the dark. Embarking upon this journey will ultimately introduce chaos to an already overwhelmingly difficult mental recovery. But from their perspective, I suspect my agitation of movement presents risks to my physical well-being.”
“Despite it being a move that will cause me incalculable future suffering, I respect the anecdotal methodology of acting in a place where little data exists, considering the stakes. I cannot disagree that the risk to reward ratio may have necessitated this step. The compassionate ICU has put everything on the line for me, leaving no stone unturned, passing no judgement on my decision to remain unvaccinated. As a society we must respect the utility of opposing ideologies, solutions borne of input from both sides. Notwithstanding moves of apparent desperation, the ICU is using what it knows in an attempt to rewrite my apparent diagnosis as a recovery mission. God bless them.”
Epilogue:
As I write my column this Friday morning, I cannot help but overhear a discussion between two women at the adjacent table, as a room full of Minnesota patrons bask within the relative comfort of a warm cafe on this atypical snowy morning, a foreshadowing of the inclement weather to arrive later this weekend. The two women continue to share candidly their thoughts regarding the trauma and grief of themselves and their families associated with the passing of their husbands. They are aware I can hear them but have no idea the impact of their words upon me.
I have kicked & punched walls, cried, screamed, had nightmares—otherwise living the imaginary journey my family would have traveled had I not returned home from the hospital. I cannot help but momentarily turn the two next to me into a three by mentally inserting my lovely wife into the discussion to my left, imagining the nightmare as she would have lived it. Anecdotal reasoning would likely assume the women are talking about the weather. Absent one key measure of context; so would science. If not for me, no one would ever have known.
Related Quote From My Book:
“What will my family do when there is no ME left? As a husband, a father, and a provider—believe me when I say: It is never enough to be willing to die for your family. You must be willing to live for them.”
A statistical result is the pairing of one universal imagined context with the perceived facts of an outcome. But statistics are subject to the same physical laws of the universe that all other branches of ‘science’ are. Increasing the certainty of an outcome can only be achieved through narrowing the imagined context, inherently decreasing its applicability, a context which may not even apply as represented.