The change in the government’s approach to the regulatory management of Covid-19 has brought slogans such as “believe in science” and “trust scientists” back into public debate. It is no different from any (very revered) religious belief, so “science” is elevated to a divinity to be venerated indiscriminately, by a group of saints and preachers. In his name, beatifications, beatifications, daughters of self, and (cultural) trials are promoted that remind those who are condemned to be destitute William Piazza And the Gian Giacomo Mora. On the other hand, there was no shortage of antichrist, heirs Alessando de Apontecoand countless individual “fads” the fruit of arrogance, this is a sign of our time, of “knowing what you do not tell us” in pure style Napalm 51.
In a somewhat hasty way, the message conveyed by the media and institutions can be immediately summarized in Be happy people to quia. Certainly, in comedyAnd Virgil spoke of the existence of God and not of human events, even if tragic, but the meaning of thinking does not change. “People” do not understand and cannot understand, so it is completely useless to become too thin: they must be put in a position in which they believe, obey and fight (the virus).
To discover the analysis of emotions, one did not have to wait for artificial intelligence, the TV series was enough
by Andrea Monti
Perhaps, in practice, this option (if it was a choice and not the result of an unscrupulous necessity) was the only possible option in the state of perpetual emergency in which Italy finds itself. There has never been time to bring the entire nation to such a level of knowledge as to develop consciousness as to understand what is necessary to do, and why one should take a risk – which is vaccination – is not actually calculable but necessary to run in spite of everything.
Now is the time for an energy emergency, and after the Russian-Ukrainian incident, the text repeats itself: nuclear, crackingthe long-term sustainability of a battery-based system…complex themes being celebrated again in public rituals by the new ranks of saints, orators, and charlatans who have replaced those who were there before.
On the one hand, as mentioned, this phenomenon is facilitated Individual arrogance by pretending to know without knowing. On the other hand, it is justified by the factual facts that encountered complex problems no one you may know everything What is needed to make informed decisions, not even the various “committees of experts”. However, this does not legitimize the transformation of science into its antithesis, i.e., into a system of belief that cannot be verified to a large extent, to be accepted because ipse Dixit.
This will not happen if we abandon the ideal that turns people into ephemeral ghosts to whom we attribute wise virtues and divine powers. In other words, there are “politicians” not “politics”, “rulers” not “government”, “scholars”, not “science”, in fact, science written in lowercase.
These revelers, stripped of the sacred veil that gives them a transcendent appearance, remain “only” persons, and therefore the message they convey must be valued. This means, in other words, that, as Francesco Carrara wrote in his book Criminal Law Course Program It was published in 1867 on the “Experts” on Criminal Trial: “…their credibility depends not so much on the person or the saying, as on the greater or lesser criteria of truth which science or the art they claim offer.”
Carrara’s words Echoing Platowhen you are in Georgias He makes Socrates say: “…when there is disagreement on a point, and when one does not realize that the other speaks well and clearly, one becomes angry, and each thinks that the other is speaking out of envy against him, competes for the best and abandons research on the proposed subject In the discussion.And some, even, end up separating most of the time?It is dishonest, having insulted each other and having said and heard such things about themselves that those present regretted that it was worthwhile to come and listen to such persons”.
Therefore, a possible solution to the dilemma between ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’ lies not only in increasing one’s knowledge in terms of the amount of information. What is also required is to master the way of reading reality that allows it to be understood, and to manage the smokescreens raised by ignorance, political necessity and individual partisan interest.
The scientific method – understood as a critical approach to problems – is not the only one that offers this possibility and does not necessarily need to be applied always and in any case. Nevertheless, it is an indispensable tool in the toolbox of thought for building thinking capable of resisting the blows of superstition and ill will, helping to keep us free, not only in the mind.
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
