Ep 67 To Trust or Not to Trust the Experts? #iatrogenics #Predictions

The Mindcrime Liberty Show discusses what is an expert, do they exist and whether we should trust them if they do? Are experts merely an extension of a ruling class/ruling mantra in order to keep them in power? Are Michel Foucault and Thomas Kuhn right about science?  On some areas they might be.

We at the Mindcrime Liberty Show hold that you can best demonstrate expertise in fields/activities which have a physical good and some amount of skin in the game.  For example carpenters have to build structures that work.  One could philosophically quibble with what "work" means but in a way one knows what works and doesn't.  Chefs and bakers make food which tastes good and doesn't make one sick.  Again, one could quibble with taste and to some extent sickness but there is some standard that can be demonstrated.  Helicopter mechanics and manufacturers have to build relatively safe and reliable helicopters.  As Nassim Taleb points out, there is a statistical relationship between helicopter mechanics who must fly on the helicopter at random and the helicopters safety record.  So if one combines a testable product with skin in the game its quite clear that there are experts.  There also probably can be experts in fields like literature, history or film.  One is merely knowledgeable about known knowledge about a given topic and subfield using relatively known standards.

The problem occurs in areas outside of these narrow yet important areas, and of course in the gray zone middle. For one thing, social science prediction and computer modelling has no real testable proposition per se other than the future lived reality against their respective model and past data.  Even if the past data is correct, if the future doesn't meet the modelers predicted outcome (lets say an election forecast or death forecast if no one is wearing a mask) then is the data/modeler wrong or was there some additional missed variable?  Or are certain phenomena just unknowable or un-understandable? There obviously isn't any skin in the game or testable product outside of what the future is when it comes to most social science.   The limitations in many social sciences are quite clear.  Some of the more hard sciences it’s also unclear as well.  What exactly counts as evidence and what isn't evidence. Can layman or renegades interpret the texts or only certain accredited institutions?  In that past year and counting one particular hard science has taken over.  

 As far as doctors and various other medical professionals themselves are concerned, are they experts?  It is quite clear that in the past doctors and various other medical "experts" have behaved badly on behalf of their patients.  The patients at times have gotten sicker while in hospitals than outside of hospitals -  everybody should read up on the phenomena of iatrogenics or harm done by the healer.  Furthermore, clinics and hospitals themselves have a political ideology behind them which is quite clear to many of the founders of these organizations.   The rise of mass hospitals occurred at the same time as the rise of mass schooling, mass prisons and mass armies.  Mass hospitals are a very modern institution for better or worse.  Hospitals themselves are drab prison like buildings with mostly hideous utilitarian architecture.  Doctors (like educators) are some of the least criticized authorities and are generally viewed by most "normies" as being trustworthy and only operating on behalf of the greater good which is clearly demonstrably false. 

We at the Mindcrime Liberty Show  hold that doctors probably can cure broken legs and bones but then again there is more or less a physical product to show the results.   When it comes to other procedures such as preventing a contagious disease which was probably created by them in a lab (but for political and career reasons won't say anything...i.e. they are not merely operating out of pure good) what would "success" look like?  Its relatively easy to spot a working helicopter or a good cook but what exactly is a good empirical epidemiologists?  

It seems as if to the mainstream if the cases or deaths go up the vaccines, masks and mandates all work! If these numbers go down they work too!  One can see this quite well with Tom Woods (https://www.covidchartsquiz.com/) which may explain the opposite phenomona but then again where is the testable product and might there be a missing variable (let’s say natural immunity)? Or maybe Alex Berenson is right and virus gonna virus?  Its not entirely clear what the answer is but the American Medical establishment has stated that if one spreads misinformation based on the acceptable narrative they will lose their license.   To quote Upton Sinclair- It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. https://www.fsmb.org/advocacy/news-releases/fsmb-spreading-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-may-put-medical-license-at-risk/