Critical thinking is one key to surviving the onslaught from the Globalist silent weapons. Eight Barriers to Critical Thinking, by Mike Saxton, PhD [Extract: "Evaluating a statement based on who said it instead of on the merits of the statement itself. In this case, people accept a statement as true, simply because they like or respect the person who said it (regardless of whether the statement is actually true). In contrast, they reject a similar statement when it comes from a person they do not respect".]
5 years on, many alt-media followers are totally unaware of the massive increase in US deaths in Spring 2020, which lasted through 2022. People call Covid a 'con'--effectively concealing the far more sordid nature of this event--which the mortality data suggests was mass-murder. Covid wasn't some variation of the classic movie The Sting--1.3 million extra people died from 2020-2022 in the US alone in this 'con game'. Data starts about halfway through this link: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2024/8/30/the-us-democide-of-2020-2022-in-a-nutshell-kjl68
Today is my 68th birthday and I've embraced that my divine mission from Goddess is to argue ;-) I've been embroiled in some humdingers lately over topics you present--no-virus and flat earth. I've been told, "Just get it through your thick skull, you stupid cunt" and told by another that I'm gaslighting and strawmanning. I've been barraged with encyclopedic references that I need to review before I dare to open my mouth. And everything seems to hinge on these issues, and whether someone is a gullible idiot who's falling for the mainstream narrative.
I know that none of these are your style, so it's a good place to present my points. My first rules for an argument, which I define as a productive disagreement, is 1) like the person you're arguing with (check!) 2) state the question 3) define the terms 4) say why it matters.
Here's how I would state the question: "Do we need to agree within the anti-vax or anti-imperial community on whether no viruses are real or the earth is not round?" Here's why I think it matters: an insistence that there are no viruses will discredit anti-vaxxers just when the consequences of the vaccine are becoming evident. An insistence that the earth is flat will discredit anti-imperialists just when the plot for global domination is undeniable.
How would you answer that question, Franklin, and why does it matter?
First off: happy birthday Tereza! Thank you for your wisdom you’ve shown to me recently and I can’t wait for even more! Wishing you nothing but the best and many more years to come ❤️❤️❤️
To your question, it matters that we question these narratives because these narratives are what’s holding up everything.
In my article, 3 methods to understand narrative, I argue that the world is held together by a mainstream narrative and a conspiracy narrative — but both narratives still support the lie (ex and 911 and Covid). The truth is actually in the unorthodox narrative which is no planes and no virus, but no one even looks this way, so the narrative continues.
This is why it’s important we question these narratives becuase this whole reality (history) is built on these false narratives
I read your article again, thanks for referring it. We all agree, certainly, that there are mainstream narratives. I think that Virginia Stoner, later in this thread, is representing that narrative on the Covid virus.
Then there are what I would call narratives to control the opposition. A conspiracy theorist is the same as a journalist, someone who's revealing hidden connections. So any narrative other than the mainstream would be a conspiracy theory, but some of those are meant to capture dissenters and herd them back to the slaughterhouse.
You and I agree completely that it's important to question the official narratives of Covid and 911. I would add the world wars and all religions. But it's hard to declare something the truth without a methodology for deciding, and even a methodology for deciding if it's worth deciding, imo.
The virus/ no-virus debate has gotten very heated. My question is 'why the heat?' I'm agnostic on the question itself, as I am on flat-earth, because I need to know why something matters before I put significant time into researching it.
My point is that either of these positions would discredit dissenters right when they're being proven right. So the net effect seems like it would keep the psyops of mandatory vaccines and One World Government going, just when an alternative might be successful.
Rather than answering with a different question, Virginia, how would you answer my question: ""Do we need to agree within the anti-vax or anti-imperial community on whether no viruses are real or the earth is not round?" I think that's the first question to answer, before jumping into the debate.
The point is, either a virus killed 1.3 million people in the US, or something else killed 1.3 million people from 2020-2022. Hopefully you are not "agnostic" on that question.
So let's use my rules for an argument on your question. We need to start with facts, yes, from census data, I assume? So you would show actuarial data that during the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, there were 1.3M more US deaths than during the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 adjusted for the population. Agreed?
Then we would ask the question, why? And, related to that, how? We would collect the data on those who were put on ventilators, those who were given Remdesivir, those who died from drugs, alcohol or suicide, those who had delayed medical care, those who died in car accidents (which oddly went up) and in 2021 and 2022, those who were injected--particularly those who died in the 2-3 wks immediately after and were counted as unvaccinated. That would start to make that question granular with the realm of possibilities.
Why does it matter? It certainly matters if a Covid virus psyop has been used to kill through harmful treatments--Remdesivir was deemed too lethal for use prior--and through injections with both proximal deaths and long-term increased deaths from respiratory, cardiac and cancer, as has been shown. And through social mandates that increased isolation and despair, with life-shortening consequences.
So no, I'm not agnostic on that question. There's no doubt in my mind, after the research I've done, that the Covid response was an intentional depopulation agenda, whether it responded to a naturally occurring virus that was weaponized, an escaped manufactured viral weapon, another type of bioweapon intentionally inflicted, or no virus at all. The data I've seen shows that the reaction caused the spike in deaths, not an illness.
My question to Franklin is whether it matters that everyone in the anti-vaxx community agree that no virus has ever existed. And why?
As for why it matters who murdered 1.3 million US citizens--I thought that would be self-evident.
If you have any investigations correlating aspects of the mortality data with a particular theory of cause, I'd love to see it, because so far I haven't seen any. Just a bunch of speculation--pat explanations with no mortality data to back them up--which are all over the place.
Virginia, first off - amazing work! I checked out a few of your pages and am super impressed with how you put the data together, so thank you.
It sounds like we both agree that there was democide that occurred here and I've written about that in these two articles: (they're older articles so let me know if you want a comp access to read them)
As Tereza mentioned and--I think as some of the no-virus crowd alludes too--these deaths were intentional. However, to your point, it would be difficult to prove these. But I have an idea:
For example, is it possible to look at the rates of nursing home deaths before and after covid? while the mainstream idea is to say these were deaths due to the virus, could we not say that these deaths were due to the lockdown policies which killed seniors at a higher rate?
There's also the hospital protocols during that time, which I mention in my earlier article. These policies were meant to increase death rates, but since these occured in the hospitals, with covid positive members, these were grouped as covid deaths.
Lastly, the shots rolled around in 2021. I suspect we also have some deaths here that may have been grouped under the term of "covid" deaths as well.
Seeing that we're no longer in that covid era and no longer implementing those policies, it seems that we could say that the protocols DID case 1.3million to die.
Curious to your thoughts here. And of note, I DO agree with you that there are some fake leaders in the "no-virus" movement. I have had some speculation about Kaufman myself so I to share your perspective there as someone who, as I say, spits dogma sandwhich - little bit of truth, surrounded by a whole lot of lies.
Excellent debate Franklin!I believe, with the injections, fluoridation, spraying etc, and possibly control from 5g+, people have little to no discern able skills. They get upset when confronted with,”anti narrative” talk!
How about lie creates truth, and truth confirm lies? Ya know, before some stuff exist we imagine them. They arent there yet, we lie about it. Then believe the lie until it comes forth in life. Called manasaputra i think, or in western philosophy its egregore.
So i bring an example: predictive programming. Always start with an hypothetic lie, then we build its egregore until it happens. After it happen the truth about it makes it solid real in our reality. If i got it adequatly, you are a doctor and a flat earther right? Its all good with me btw.
But i will use that as another example: i dont know if its flat or round or triangle even lol! Maybe a numerical matrix who knows. But i sure know the definition of words. Heaven and paradise. Are garden and pallissade. Quite usefull to throw fallen angels out of a garden (maybe babylone top garden) so angels are royaltys and fallen angels are peasant, can trade the words for master & slave. All these allegory are considered truth or lie? A truth that deceeive who dont understand the langage is a lie or not? I would say not.
So can allegory on flat or round earth be truth? Yes, does it mean its one of the other? No. So since you know, have you been there and confirm it? I mean antartica where the proof is possible to see?
I have been studying alexandre le breton, admiral byrd, everything i come unto! Old religion sutff! all the lores about it and i end up with that simple fact. One who knows is one who went and saw. All the others are speculator. Would you agree with that?
Ps: i LOVE debate, i watch a lot on mythvision and jubilee and many in university, the alex o connor debates too. Debates is great! Where can i see your debate? That would interest me.
Im a critical thinker thats for sure, stoic was the true religion before chrstianity. Like there is a stoic way, or they would say heretic... to look at all the hints left in the words to guide us. What i learn bout this is... we are all always wrong. Would you agree with that to?
As pierre abelard said: tout est relatif, il n'y a que cela d'absolu.
Heres a last tought for the doc in you. I think medecine is a gain of function as poison is. Both worked together. So none could be used it would give the same results. If we take the no virus exist idea this makes sense. If we think we cant get sick but only reduce our immune system by bad living the solution aint in medecine.And logicaly med brings poison that brigns med back. Cycle of life, money made that way, lie born of it, finaly it turns truth. And today we work on that pile of lie to find truth, what irony we in huh? Hehehe
And i rade your remark about people banning you, i never ban and hope you wont shut me down for having this talk with you. That would be counterproductive. Know that i really appreciate all who works like you to help humanity and i havent even yet gave my point of view on any subject(i tried lol). Just pointing out question we could ask ourselves. I am sure you got some good answer to give so i asked.
Thank you for not just writing truth, but for wielding it. For those walking through the trenches of profound suffering and sacred responsibility, your voice matters more than ever. There are veryyyyy few of us writing from the motherhood front lines of severe and profound autism. We’re living it every single day.
I admire your thesis that critical thinking was severely affected by COVID. I would say it had taken a dive long before that. This is a phenomenon that has been in the works for a while and came in concert with the demise of civil discourse. They both are suffering for two main reasons: 1) schools teach what to think, not how to think. 2) people have turned away from facts as a support for their argument and declared all facts subservient to feelings. Feelings are the currency of the moment. Until those two things change, we will struggle with something as elegant as the Socratic method.
Babies in my day had mobiles of sun, moon and planets hovering over their cribs not to mention lies throughout the grades. You were told, for example, that the sun is 93 kajillion miles away from the earth so the only way to pass a science test is to parrot this nonsense or you will fail. Critical thinking and logic is out the window buttressed by the fact that children have no way to refute what they're told. Their parents were duped as were their grandparents and maybe the only family members capable of intervening in this nonsense died in futile wars on purpose. Basically the brainwashing and absense of truth enstupidate the world. So who would be behind such a massively successful worldwide (yes, the whole world in lockstep) plan? The dupe will come to mind on purpose but dig deeper for the real one. This has been going on for a looong time.
Correlation and causation cannot be equated and should not be equated in any specific case even when agreement is found.
Correlation
========
Correlation is statistical.
Correlation is an analysis of a number of purportedly similar cases.
Statistically, x causes y
- some of the time, n percent of the time.
Statistically, x does not cause y
- some of the time, the inverse of n percentage of the time.
Statistics are never exact. No single case is "statistical."
Therefore:
Statistical correlation:
- cannot prove causation,
- cannot prove not causation,
In any specific case.
Note: more statistical evidence, or stronger statistical evidence does not change the statistical nature of correlation. 90 percent correlation cannot prove causation in 10 cases. 99.999 percent correlation cannot prove causation in 100,000 cases.
Causation
=======
Causation is actual. Causation is about a specific case. Causation is not statistical.
x caused y - in this case
x did not cause y - in this case
"All the time" and "Never"
==================
"All the time" is not a statistic, it is "every single case," it is causation, not correlation.
"Never" (AKA 'cannot cause') is "not in any case." It is negative causation, not negative correlation.
Judgements
=========
Statistical judgements are correlations between cases. They can be useful general guidelines, but cannot be proven valid nor invalid in any single case.
Causal judgements are applied to specific cases. They are not statistical, they are not "correlations." Every individual case must be judged on its own, independent of statistics, independent of statistical correlations.
Causal judgements are required to produce correlations.
Correlation judgements cannot be used to prove causation nor to prove not-causation.
Preventstives
==========
Prevention is statistical.
We can never prove that a preventative actually prevented any single case. That case does not exist.
Individual cases are actual.
We can prove that a preventative DID NOT prevent a specific case, because the case exists.
Cures
=====
Cures are actual. "Cured by" proves the cause. A cure proves causation by addressing a present cause, not a statistical cause, and thus producing a cured status.
"Not cured by" does not prove the cause, nor does it prove any "not cause" it only proves that the attempted curative action did not successfully address the cure cause.
Causation always includes correlation. Correlation may be indicative of causation, but isn't necessarily. Establishing correlation is always the first step to establishing causation, since if there is no correlation, then there cannot be causation.
I don’t think so. Causation is about single events. where A caused B, if we use the word “correlation” but that’s just wordsmithing. It’s not correlation, it’s causation. Why call it correlation? Calling it correlation adds no value and only creates a common confusion.
Causation is actual. Correlation is statistical.
Note: we might say that an observation of causation is based on our faith belief that A caused B, and correlation is based on our statistical faith that A causes B.
Correlation validates causes, not caused. Correlation cannot prove cause in any case. Causation is proof of cause.
When we test two events, we can get 100 percent correlation between cause and effect. But on a single event, calling it correlation is superfluous. It’s causation.
Websters: correlation: “the state or relation of being correlated. specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone.”
Causation does not include correlation. Every single event is “causation.” Every single event has a cause and a set of consequences. Causation is about the event. Independent of observer and observation, independent of other events.
Correlation about multiple events, groups of events - intentionally selected by the observer - about observation, a result of human observations and mathematical actions, independent of cause and effect.
Causation is true - or it’s not causation. Correlation can be zero or 100 percent, and still be wrong or false, still not be causation. They are independent concepts.
I was just stating the simplified relationship between correlation and causation, which was standard when I studied statistics in grad school some 30+ years ago. It wasn't really a commentary or refutation of anything in particular you wrote--which was a little hard to follow, TBH. I never said correlation and causation were the same thing, because they aren't.
Critical thinking is one key to surviving the onslaught from the Globalist silent weapons. Eight Barriers to Critical Thinking, by Mike Saxton, PhD [Extract: "Evaluating a statement based on who said it instead of on the merits of the statement itself. In this case, people accept a statement as true, simply because they like or respect the person who said it (regardless of whether the statement is actually true). In contrast, they reject a similar statement when it comes from a person they do not respect".]
https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/notice-to-readers-sunni-and-shia?r=hkcp6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
thats almost all of our state controlled media...its got a grop and even when proven wrong a million times over peple prefer to be duped then wrong
Quite so bj jp - this is the beginning of Part 2 of my book serialised here, now at 44 episodes: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/the-financial-jigsaw-part-2-preface?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
5 years on, many alt-media followers are totally unaware of the massive increase in US deaths in Spring 2020, which lasted through 2022. People call Covid a 'con'--effectively concealing the far more sordid nature of this event--which the mortality data suggests was mass-murder. Covid wasn't some variation of the classic movie The Sting--1.3 million extra people died from 2020-2022 in the US alone in this 'con game'. Data starts about halfway through this link: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2024/8/30/the-us-democide-of-2020-2022-in-a-nutshell-kjl68
Today is my 68th birthday and I've embraced that my divine mission from Goddess is to argue ;-) I've been embroiled in some humdingers lately over topics you present--no-virus and flat earth. I've been told, "Just get it through your thick skull, you stupid cunt" and told by another that I'm gaslighting and strawmanning. I've been barraged with encyclopedic references that I need to review before I dare to open my mouth. And everything seems to hinge on these issues, and whether someone is a gullible idiot who's falling for the mainstream narrative.
I know that none of these are your style, so it's a good place to present my points. My first rules for an argument, which I define as a productive disagreement, is 1) like the person you're arguing with (check!) 2) state the question 3) define the terms 4) say why it matters.
Here's how I would state the question: "Do we need to agree within the anti-vax or anti-imperial community on whether no viruses are real or the earth is not round?" Here's why I think it matters: an insistence that there are no viruses will discredit anti-vaxxers just when the consequences of the vaccine are becoming evident. An insistence that the earth is flat will discredit anti-imperialists just when the plot for global domination is undeniable.
How would you answer that question, Franklin, and why does it matter?
First off: happy birthday Tereza! Thank you for your wisdom you’ve shown to me recently and I can’t wait for even more! Wishing you nothing but the best and many more years to come ❤️❤️❤️
To your question, it matters that we question these narratives because these narratives are what’s holding up everything.
In my article, 3 methods to understand narrative, I argue that the world is held together by a mainstream narrative and a conspiracy narrative — but both narratives still support the lie (ex and 911 and Covid). The truth is actually in the unorthodox narrative which is no planes and no virus, but no one even looks this way, so the narrative continues.
This is why it’s important we question these narratives becuase this whole reality (history) is built on these false narratives
Hope this helps and lemme know your thoughts: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/3-key-methods-to-decode-official
I read your article again, thanks for referring it. We all agree, certainly, that there are mainstream narratives. I think that Virginia Stoner, later in this thread, is representing that narrative on the Covid virus.
Then there are what I would call narratives to control the opposition. A conspiracy theorist is the same as a journalist, someone who's revealing hidden connections. So any narrative other than the mainstream would be a conspiracy theory, but some of those are meant to capture dissenters and herd them back to the slaughterhouse.
You and I agree completely that it's important to question the official narratives of Covid and 911. I would add the world wars and all religions. But it's hard to declare something the truth without a methodology for deciding, and even a methodology for deciding if it's worth deciding, imo.
Thank you, Franklin!
Any interest in discovering what killed 1.3 US citizens from 2020-2022, if it was not a virus? Nothing like it has happened since Spanish flu.
The virus/ no-virus debate has gotten very heated. My question is 'why the heat?' I'm agnostic on the question itself, as I am on flat-earth, because I need to know why something matters before I put significant time into researching it.
My point is that either of these positions would discredit dissenters right when they're being proven right. So the net effect seems like it would keep the psyops of mandatory vaccines and One World Government going, just when an alternative might be successful.
Rather than answering with a different question, Virginia, how would you answer my question: ""Do we need to agree within the anti-vax or anti-imperial community on whether no viruses are real or the earth is not round?" I think that's the first question to answer, before jumping into the debate.
The point is, either a virus killed 1.3 million people in the US, or something else killed 1.3 million people from 2020-2022. Hopefully you are not "agnostic" on that question.
So let's use my rules for an argument on your question. We need to start with facts, yes, from census data, I assume? So you would show actuarial data that during the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, there were 1.3M more US deaths than during the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 adjusted for the population. Agreed?
Then we would ask the question, why? And, related to that, how? We would collect the data on those who were put on ventilators, those who were given Remdesivir, those who died from drugs, alcohol or suicide, those who had delayed medical care, those who died in car accidents (which oddly went up) and in 2021 and 2022, those who were injected--particularly those who died in the 2-3 wks immediately after and were counted as unvaccinated. That would start to make that question granular with the realm of possibilities.
Why does it matter? It certainly matters if a Covid virus psyop has been used to kill through harmful treatments--Remdesivir was deemed too lethal for use prior--and through injections with both proximal deaths and long-term increased deaths from respiratory, cardiac and cancer, as has been shown. And through social mandates that increased isolation and despair, with life-shortening consequences.
So no, I'm not agnostic on that question. There's no doubt in my mind, after the research I've done, that the Covid response was an intentional depopulation agenda, whether it responded to a naturally occurring virus that was weaponized, an escaped manufactured viral weapon, another type of bioweapon intentionally inflicted, or no virus at all. The data I've seen shows that the reaction caused the spike in deaths, not an illness.
My question to Franklin is whether it matters that everyone in the anti-vaxx community agree that no virus has ever existed. And why?
Excess death numbers are here, calculated 4 different ways: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2024/8/30/the-us-democide-of-2020-2022-in-a-nutshell-y2bmz
As for why it matters who murdered 1.3 million US citizens--I thought that would be self-evident.
If you have any investigations correlating aspects of the mortality data with a particular theory of cause, I'd love to see it, because so far I haven't seen any. Just a bunch of speculation--pat explanations with no mortality data to back them up--which are all over the place.
Virginia, first off - amazing work! I checked out a few of your pages and am super impressed with how you put the data together, so thank you.
It sounds like we both agree that there was democide that occurred here and I've written about that in these two articles: (they're older articles so let me know if you want a comp access to read them)
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/how-covid-19-protocols-killed-millions
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/democide-and-menticide
As Tereza mentioned and--I think as some of the no-virus crowd alludes too--these deaths were intentional. However, to your point, it would be difficult to prove these. But I have an idea:
For example, is it possible to look at the rates of nursing home deaths before and after covid? while the mainstream idea is to say these were deaths due to the virus, could we not say that these deaths were due to the lockdown policies which killed seniors at a higher rate?
There's also the hospital protocols during that time, which I mention in my earlier article. These policies were meant to increase death rates, but since these occured in the hospitals, with covid positive members, these were grouped as covid deaths.
Lastly, the shots rolled around in 2021. I suspect we also have some deaths here that may have been grouped under the term of "covid" deaths as well.
Seeing that we're no longer in that covid era and no longer implementing those policies, it seems that we could say that the protocols DID case 1.3million to die.
Curious to your thoughts here. And of note, I DO agree with you that there are some fake leaders in the "no-virus" movement. I have had some speculation about Kaufman myself so I to share your perspective there as someone who, as I say, spits dogma sandwhich - little bit of truth, surrounded by a whole lot of lies.
Phenomenal work with this piece here too: https://www.virginiastoner.com/writing/2025/3/24/what-a-top-no-virus-leader-was-saying-about-us-deaths-in-2020
Excellent debate Franklin!I believe, with the injections, fluoridation, spraying etc, and possibly control from 5g+, people have little to no discern able skills. They get upset when confronted with,”anti narrative” talk!
How about lie creates truth, and truth confirm lies? Ya know, before some stuff exist we imagine them. They arent there yet, we lie about it. Then believe the lie until it comes forth in life. Called manasaputra i think, or in western philosophy its egregore.
So i bring an example: predictive programming. Always start with an hypothetic lie, then we build its egregore until it happens. After it happen the truth about it makes it solid real in our reality. If i got it adequatly, you are a doctor and a flat earther right? Its all good with me btw.
But i will use that as another example: i dont know if its flat or round or triangle even lol! Maybe a numerical matrix who knows. But i sure know the definition of words. Heaven and paradise. Are garden and pallissade. Quite usefull to throw fallen angels out of a garden (maybe babylone top garden) so angels are royaltys and fallen angels are peasant, can trade the words for master & slave. All these allegory are considered truth or lie? A truth that deceeive who dont understand the langage is a lie or not? I would say not.
So can allegory on flat or round earth be truth? Yes, does it mean its one of the other? No. So since you know, have you been there and confirm it? I mean antartica where the proof is possible to see?
I have been studying alexandre le breton, admiral byrd, everything i come unto! Old religion sutff! all the lores about it and i end up with that simple fact. One who knows is one who went and saw. All the others are speculator. Would you agree with that?
Ps: i LOVE debate, i watch a lot on mythvision and jubilee and many in university, the alex o connor debates too. Debates is great! Where can i see your debate? That would interest me.
Im a critical thinker thats for sure, stoic was the true religion before chrstianity. Like there is a stoic way, or they would say heretic... to look at all the hints left in the words to guide us. What i learn bout this is... we are all always wrong. Would you agree with that to?
As pierre abelard said: tout est relatif, il n'y a que cela d'absolu.
Heres a last tought for the doc in you. I think medecine is a gain of function as poison is. Both worked together. So none could be used it would give the same results. If we take the no virus exist idea this makes sense. If we think we cant get sick but only reduce our immune system by bad living the solution aint in medecine.And logicaly med brings poison that brigns med back. Cycle of life, money made that way, lie born of it, finaly it turns truth. And today we work on that pile of lie to find truth, what irony we in huh? Hehehe
And i rade your remark about people banning you, i never ban and hope you wont shut me down for having this talk with you. That would be counterproductive. Know that i really appreciate all who works like you to help humanity and i havent even yet gave my point of view on any subject(i tried lol). Just pointing out question we could ask ourselves. I am sure you got some good answer to give so i asked.
D'un CH.I.Q type
Beautiful Franklin - Great Exposure!
Thank you for not just writing truth, but for wielding it. For those walking through the trenches of profound suffering and sacred responsibility, your voice matters more than ever. There are veryyyyy few of us writing from the motherhood front lines of severe and profound autism. We’re living it every single day.
I admire your thesis that critical thinking was severely affected by COVID. I would say it had taken a dive long before that. This is a phenomenon that has been in the works for a while and came in concert with the demise of civil discourse. They both are suffering for two main reasons: 1) schools teach what to think, not how to think. 2) people have turned away from facts as a support for their argument and declared all facts subservient to feelings. Feelings are the currency of the moment. Until those two things change, we will struggle with something as elegant as the Socratic method.
Babies in my day had mobiles of sun, moon and planets hovering over their cribs not to mention lies throughout the grades. You were told, for example, that the sun is 93 kajillion miles away from the earth so the only way to pass a science test is to parrot this nonsense or you will fail. Critical thinking and logic is out the window buttressed by the fact that children have no way to refute what they're told. Their parents were duped as were their grandparents and maybe the only family members capable of intervening in this nonsense died in futile wars on purpose. Basically the brainwashing and absense of truth enstupidate the world. So who would be behind such a massively successful worldwide (yes, the whole world in lockstep) plan? The dupe will come to mind on purpose but dig deeper for the real one. This has been going on for a looong time.
u mean instagram...yep...
Re: "correlation ≠ causation" notes.
TLDR:
Correlation is statistical.
Causation is actual.
Correlation and causation cannot be equated and should not be equated in any specific case even when agreement is found.
Correlation
========
Correlation is statistical.
Correlation is an analysis of a number of purportedly similar cases.
Statistically, x causes y
- some of the time, n percent of the time.
Statistically, x does not cause y
- some of the time, the inverse of n percentage of the time.
Statistics are never exact. No single case is "statistical."
Therefore:
Statistical correlation:
- cannot prove causation,
- cannot prove not causation,
In any specific case.
Note: more statistical evidence, or stronger statistical evidence does not change the statistical nature of correlation. 90 percent correlation cannot prove causation in 10 cases. 99.999 percent correlation cannot prove causation in 100,000 cases.
Causation
=======
Causation is actual. Causation is about a specific case. Causation is not statistical.
x caused y - in this case
x did not cause y - in this case
"All the time" and "Never"
==================
"All the time" is not a statistic, it is "every single case," it is causation, not correlation.
"Never" (AKA 'cannot cause') is "not in any case." It is negative causation, not negative correlation.
Judgements
=========
Statistical judgements are correlations between cases. They can be useful general guidelines, but cannot be proven valid nor invalid in any single case.
Causal judgements are applied to specific cases. They are not statistical, they are not "correlations." Every individual case must be judged on its own, independent of statistics, independent of statistical correlations.
Causal judgements are required to produce correlations.
Correlation judgements cannot be used to prove causation nor to prove not-causation.
Preventstives
==========
Prevention is statistical.
We can never prove that a preventative actually prevented any single case. That case does not exist.
Individual cases are actual.
We can prove that a preventative DID NOT prevent a specific case, because the case exists.
Cures
=====
Cures are actual. "Cured by" proves the cause. A cure proves causation by addressing a present cause, not a statistical cause, and thus producing a cured status.
"Not cured by" does not prove the cause, nor does it prove any "not cause" it only proves that the attempted curative action did not successfully address the cure cause.
To your health, Tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure
Causation always includes correlation. Correlation may be indicative of causation, but isn't necessarily. Establishing correlation is always the first step to establishing causation, since if there is no correlation, then there cannot be causation.
I don’t think so. Causation is about single events. where A caused B, if we use the word “correlation” but that’s just wordsmithing. It’s not correlation, it’s causation. Why call it correlation? Calling it correlation adds no value and only creates a common confusion.
Causation is actual. Correlation is statistical.
Note: we might say that an observation of causation is based on our faith belief that A caused B, and correlation is based on our statistical faith that A causes B.
Correlation validates causes, not caused. Correlation cannot prove cause in any case. Causation is proof of cause.
When we test two events, we can get 100 percent correlation between cause and effect. But on a single event, calling it correlation is superfluous. It’s causation.
Websters: correlation: “the state or relation of being correlated. specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone.”
Causation does not include correlation. Every single event is “causation.” Every single event has a cause and a set of consequences. Causation is about the event. Independent of observer and observation, independent of other events.
Correlation about multiple events, groups of events - intentionally selected by the observer - about observation, a result of human observations and mathematical actions, independent of cause and effect.
Causation is true - or it’s not causation. Correlation can be zero or 100 percent, and still be wrong or false, still not be causation. They are independent concepts.
I was just stating the simplified relationship between correlation and causation, which was standard when I studied statistics in grad school some 30+ years ago. It wasn't really a commentary or refutation of anything in particular you wrote--which was a little hard to follow, TBH. I never said correlation and causation were the same thing, because they aren't.