Further Reading

Friday, 20 January 2023

After a long drive toward a dead end, we have reached it

Harris, a UCLA neuroscience PhD and (most famously) a critic of religious faith as an assault on rational thought, spent 2021 and 2022 attacking critics of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA products, like the biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Listen to one of those attacks here. Now, finding his views wrong, he finds his views to be correct: 

"Had Covid been worse, you know, just enough worse to really get our attention, to really be undeniable, we would have had a different political conversation around it."

If enormous numbers of children had died — "if kids were dying by the hundreds of thousands from Covid" — and if the vaccines had been extraordinarily effective, then anti-vaxxer sentiment wouldn't have been tolerated, and critics of the vaccines would not now be viewed as people who got the question right, and people like Sam Harris who were vicious critics of vaccine skeptics in 2021 and beyond would be vindicated and celebrated.

If all of reality had been completely different, Sam Harris would not have been wrong, so Sam Harris is therefore not wrong.

We've reached the leading edge of the inflection point, and people who've been aggressively wrong for two-plus years are trying to create the magical scenario in which being wrong wasn't being wrong. The sins Harris assigns to Weinstein and Heying here aren't about factual correctness, but are rather about ritual performance: They failed to recite the catechism at the moment when the righteous faithful were deeply committed to recitation. They betrayed a priesthood by the social aggression of bad timing. They were 'right wrong' — they delivered factual correctness by an improper mechanism and at the wrong stage of the ritual cycle...<<<Read More>>>...