Knowledge sets the society's pulse. Its tempo, especially its chronology is based on knowledge units being put into a period. Otherwise the antique, the Middle Ages and the modern times could not be clearly distinguished. So the complexity of the cultural, but particularly scientific achievements handed down founds the imaginary human CV. Lack of knowledge is irrelevant in this conception. At best it is regarded as a transformandum to be turned into its positive opposite as quickly as possible. So lack of knowledge threatens to break off the tempo. That is why it must be quickly redefined as merely interrupting the temporal structure - this is expensive enough.
As we do not possess universal objective knowledge anymore (and by now have quit even wanting to possess it, since we have gained some gradual insight into the problems the Creator has to tackle), we have invented a construction which helps us convert lack of knowledge into knowledge by all means: the belief that we know something. Now, at the moment of deciding, under time pressure, we need not care for what might later turn out to be an error. Only this makes organizing companies, offices, governments, clubs or families possible. Functionally speaking it makes no difference if we really know something or only suppose we do. The only thing that matters is that we bring about a decision conscious of knowing - regardless how deceptive that might be. That there is knowledge is a helpful fiction to motivate ourselves to go on - to avoid surrendering to all the impediments we can or cannot imagine. Which means: Stating facts creates them..
Exchangeability means the borders between knowledge and belief are bilaterally pervious. It is merley a useful fiction which feigns to us there is an osmotic relationship - only knowledge could influence belief. Actually the reverse option is possible, too. Belief creates knowledge; both brainworks diffuse.
Under the label Thomas theorem this aspect entered the history of social research. It says the consequences of a situation which is only regarded to be real will inevitably turn out to be real - even if the situation itself will prove to be irreal, its estimation to be wrong. This is according to the theorem's founder, William I. Thomas. By the way, it is only by accident that the NT scepticist Thomas could have found it, too - if people really believe water can be turned into wine, they will behave so - they will get the Holy Inquisition onto those who refuse to set alleged witches on fire.
What saves the theorem from being a mere footnote in the history of culture resp. science is that it is so practical. It is apparent every day (and not only in this text which contains ideas the author wrongly considers to be correct.) The theorem is so to speak the functional free ticket for rumours of any kind. For gossip cannot be checked either, which does not contain their spreading at all. Assuming we greet a new neighbour whose lack of sociability will soon cause the wildest speculations. Above all, he might have something to hide - for instance, when he after a short nod in the staircase quickly takes to his heels. (That he just might want to catch his bus will soon be crossed out from the list of posiible explanations.) Sooner or later the rumour can make its own choice, so to speak, if the neighbour makes a career in the drug dealing, slave trading or child abusing genre.
As we can see: It is exactly avoiding communication which founds rumours. One has something to talk about, and if someone does not submit to that need, one can speculate and make up topics. Communication needs information - regardlessly if they are true or not. The same construction applies to stock exchange - probably the biggest information trading centre. A little tip here, a (dis)approving clicking of the tongue there when it comes to estimating if enterprise data is exact, and speculation is off and running. The current price indicates rumour. The fact that every participant, including the interested public, knows that, makes no difference at all. For refutation of a rumour might be a rumour itself.
So rumours are indifferent to truth. At best we can try to grade them with reference to the artificial criterion of probability (providing we do not consider the use statistics has to be a rumour). Past rumours which have been recognized as such are called legends. Those which still claim to be valid are called prejudice. Rumours concerning the future are either called forecast (on condition they are more probable) or prophety (on condition they are less probable). Present rumours are either called gossip or propaganda (if we wish to reveal them) or information. Rumours concerning a person are called reputation, image - if we spread them about ourselves or acceptance - if they are spread about us-.
The success formula of rumours refers to their amazing flexibility; they are dependent on human disseminators, it is true, but this is it. Whatever a rumour recipient consciously or unconsciously makes up additionally can be absorbed and integrated into the rumour. It works along the same line as the Invisible Hand which doe not care at all what human beings will do, as long as they do something at all. Or do not. Therefore, misunderstandings when receiving and transporting rumours will not torpedo their effect. Quite the contrary, they are an integrated system fault to prevent the system from failing, endogenous antibodies which saves the rumour from uncomplicated refutation.
Rumours especially thrive within the political realm. This is due to the respective politicians falling victim to their own rumour they are all cunning strategists. That is why we always expect an ulterior motive behind any statement. Whoever tries to tackle a rumour will soon be regarded the craftiest strategist. And it is exactly that constellation which allows to combine entirely contradictory single rumours to extensive bundles, even conspiracy theories. Even the most heterogeneous components will not thwart that complex - on the contrary, they will back it. Just in that improbable concurrence the media paranoiac aka the public will discover a conclusive logic which actually is compulsive. Immunity to contradiction results from holding it to be a rumour the opposite side has insiduously, strategically disseminated.
Consipiracy theories are probably booming because the way they are organized is that up to date: a complex consisting of elements (in this case claims) loosely strung together, a rhizome, a network without central control, beginning and ending. A flabby something, extraordinary flexible, indestructible. What distinguishes them from mere fiction, though is their claim to be real. This claim serves to transform improbability into truth - suddenly we seem to justly assume what is unjustified.
As we do not possess universal objective knowledge anymore (and by now have quit even wanting to possess it, since we have gained some gradual insight into the problems the Creator has to tackle), we have invented a construction which helps us convert lack of knowledge into knowledge by all means: the belief that we know something. Now, at the moment of deciding, under time pressure, we need not care for what might later turn out to be an error. Only this makes organizing companies, offices, governments, clubs or families possible. Functionally speaking it makes no difference if we really know something or only suppose we do. The only thing that matters is that we bring about a decision conscious of knowing - regardless how deceptive that might be. That there is knowledge is a helpful fiction to motivate ourselves to go on - to avoid surrendering to all the impediments we can or cannot imagine. Which means: Stating facts creates them..
Exchangeability means the borders between knowledge and belief are bilaterally pervious. It is merley a useful fiction which feigns to us there is an osmotic relationship - only knowledge could influence belief. Actually the reverse option is possible, too. Belief creates knowledge; both brainworks diffuse.
Under the label Thomas theorem this aspect entered the history of social research. It says the consequences of a situation which is only regarded to be real will inevitably turn out to be real - even if the situation itself will prove to be irreal, its estimation to be wrong. This is according to the theorem's founder, William I. Thomas. By the way, it is only by accident that the NT scepticist Thomas could have found it, too - if people really believe water can be turned into wine, they will behave so - they will get the Holy Inquisition onto those who refuse to set alleged witches on fire.
What saves the theorem from being a mere footnote in the history of culture resp. science is that it is so practical. It is apparent every day (and not only in this text which contains ideas the author wrongly considers to be correct.) The theorem is so to speak the functional free ticket for rumours of any kind. For gossip cannot be checked either, which does not contain their spreading at all. Assuming we greet a new neighbour whose lack of sociability will soon cause the wildest speculations. Above all, he might have something to hide - for instance, when he after a short nod in the staircase quickly takes to his heels. (That he just might want to catch his bus will soon be crossed out from the list of posiible explanations.) Sooner or later the rumour can make its own choice, so to speak, if the neighbour makes a career in the drug dealing, slave trading or child abusing genre.
As we can see: It is exactly avoiding communication which founds rumours. One has something to talk about, and if someone does not submit to that need, one can speculate and make up topics. Communication needs information - regardlessly if they are true or not. The same construction applies to stock exchange - probably the biggest information trading centre. A little tip here, a (dis)approving clicking of the tongue there when it comes to estimating if enterprise data is exact, and speculation is off and running. The current price indicates rumour. The fact that every participant, including the interested public, knows that, makes no difference at all. For refutation of a rumour might be a rumour itself.
So rumours are indifferent to truth. At best we can try to grade them with reference to the artificial criterion of probability (providing we do not consider the use statistics has to be a rumour). Past rumours which have been recognized as such are called legends. Those which still claim to be valid are called prejudice. Rumours concerning the future are either called forecast (on condition they are more probable) or prophety (on condition they are less probable). Present rumours are either called gossip or propaganda (if we wish to reveal them) or information. Rumours concerning a person are called reputation, image - if we spread them about ourselves or acceptance - if they are spread about us-.
The success formula of rumours refers to their amazing flexibility; they are dependent on human disseminators, it is true, but this is it. Whatever a rumour recipient consciously or unconsciously makes up additionally can be absorbed and integrated into the rumour. It works along the same line as the Invisible Hand which doe not care at all what human beings will do, as long as they do something at all. Or do not. Therefore, misunderstandings when receiving and transporting rumours will not torpedo their effect. Quite the contrary, they are an integrated system fault to prevent the system from failing, endogenous antibodies which saves the rumour from uncomplicated refutation.
Rumours especially thrive within the political realm. This is due to the respective politicians falling victim to their own rumour they are all cunning strategists. That is why we always expect an ulterior motive behind any statement. Whoever tries to tackle a rumour will soon be regarded the craftiest strategist. And it is exactly that constellation which allows to combine entirely contradictory single rumours to extensive bundles, even conspiracy theories. Even the most heterogeneous components will not thwart that complex - on the contrary, they will back it. Just in that improbable concurrence the media paranoiac aka the public will discover a conclusive logic which actually is compulsive. Immunity to contradiction results from holding it to be a rumour the opposite side has insiduously, strategically disseminated.
Consipiracy theories are probably booming because the way they are organized is that up to date: a complex consisting of elements (in this case claims) loosely strung together, a rhizome, a network without central control, beginning and ending. A flabby something, extraordinary flexible, indestructible. What distinguishes them from mere fiction, though is their claim to be real. This claim serves to transform improbability into truth - suddenly we seem to justly assume what is unjustified.
No comments:
Post a Comment