- Culture Issues: Synopsis
- Culture Issues: 1) the lack of a basic scientific Culture: the inability to discern between true and false
- Culture Issues: 2) The need to reporting information to a (really) scientific dimension
“The truth has given way to credibility, facts to statements that sound authoritative without involving any authoritative information” Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism
Today we live in a socio/cultural situation
in which it is possible to develop
a strong manipulation of information
which does not allow people
to find valid scientific information
to understand how things really are
This applies both to citizens and to those responsible for institutions.
Much of Western Society’s problems stem from the lack of a basic Scientific Culture* that allows people to understand what is good and what is bad for them.
In this condition, people are unable to make decisions that are functional to their lives themselves, and therefore expect the imposition of their behavior from the top.
This condition derives from many factors, including the loss of “traditional culture” in School education. This Culture, developed for millennia by Man with a scientific process of trial and error correction, is what until a few decades ago has allowed the human being to be able to look after himself.
Today this condition of lack of Culture is maintained by the Maintream media, which mostly adheres to interests that are profoundly different from those of the People.
The inability of people to get an idea of what is right and what is wrong to do in their life is caused by the fact that
today we are no longer used
to look for information
that allow us to understand reality,
but we rely on the explanations of others.
This approach, of course, exposes us to the danger of taking truthfully explanations which in reality have no scientific basis (they are devoid of ). Or information disclosed by false “experts” who only have special skills in knowing how to convince others (they are precisely supported by the Mainstream media which has more than interest in following this way of exposing things).
We are not necessarily critical of the current information system: what we want to highlight is the obvious risk incurred when much of the “official” information comes from non-scientific sources; and in particular the seriousness of the risk when it comes to information concerning the “what we must do” for our life.
Today, following the events related to Coronavirus, it emerges clearly (scientifically scientifically demonstrable) how – this time even at the highest levels of government and scientific Institutions – when they tell us “how things are”, and therefore “what we must do “
a part of the “experts”
disclose information without scientific support,
(which are devoid of )
There are many cases, but the most significant example is perhaps that of the statistical data on the Coronavirus epidemic: the evident proof of how a part of the data is bogus is in the fact that
these “experts” – despite being all part of scientific institutions officers – contradict each other.
This shows, precisely in an unequivocal way, that there are some scientific institutions that lie (it is obvious as if there are two parts of the institutional sources that contradict each other from the point of view of scientific data, one of the two is divulging false information).
The specific case concerns the information on the basis of which drastic measures have been taken to treat Coronavirus disease; and socially restrictive measures ().
While some institutions – such as the World Health Organization, or WHO – have reported a death rate of 3.4% of Coronavirus patients, other scientific authorities spoke of a “normal flu”, albeit with rather painful symptoms (this is the thesis that is emerging now , with hindsight).
The seriousness of this “inaccuracy” of the information provided by the highest international body of Medicine is that the drastic measures have been taken on the basis of which will have negative repercussions on Society for a long time.
Another contradiction of the institutions, in this case at the political level, shows us how some of these institutions follow policies prive of : the strategies of reaction to the Coronavirus epidemic of the Governor of the state of New York and that of the Mayor of New York City are incompatible with each other: the first said that it was necessary to follow the “herd immunity” methodology, according to which isolation extended to the whole population becomes a big problem to overcome the epidemic. But the second resorted to drastic segregation measures (while the former justified it properly scientifically, the latter relied on demagogic justifications).
(note the responsibilities of the institutions in these cases even if the falsehoods are disclosed involuntarily, however, this is information from which the health of the people derives, and the functioning of the company).
The problem is that in the current situation of “inaccuracy” of information – that is, the disclosure by institutions of information without a scientific substantiation – there is a risk that information will be manipulated based on interests that are not those of the well-being of citizens. Or
it becomes possible for the Mainstream media
to filter information
– with censorship and denigration actions –
of information that may be important
for people’s health, and for social security.
SOME CAUSES OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF DISCERNING BETWEEN TRUE AND FALSE
This situation of disclosure of information without induces institutions and individuals to take incorrect measures – is caused by at least two reasons:– which many times turns out to be false, and
1) the manipulation of information by officer channels
2) the lack of information (scientific) of the “alternative” points of view to those of the institutions
1) the manipulation of information by official channels
The lack of a basic Scientific Culture* – situation that derives primarily from one Lacking school education, which is then maintained by many channels of the so-called “scientific publication” –
makes people lack the necessary knowledge
to evaluate the actual scientific validity of the information.
The problem is that in this socio-cultural condition the Mainstream media (as illustrated in the next chapter) can allow itself to censor and denigrate information of fundamental importance.
Holistica was born precisely to help clarify,
on a purely scientific level
the validity or absence of scientificity
of the information available.
The information on this site is
– exhaustively documented according to the canons of instituzional Science
– accompanied by a debate that allows anyone to refute the published information.
Two evidences on information manipulation
Deepening the analysis of the information available today at the institutional level – with a strictly scientific approach – at least two evidences emerge:
● the fact that much “official” information contradicts the facts ().
Manipulation in this case means divulging groundless news.
This emerges precisely in the case of statistics disclosed by global organizations regarding Coronavirus which, as has been said, contradict each other (in this case one of the two pieces of information is certainly false).
The problem is not indifferent, since the institutions have imposed treatments on people with this method, and also social attitudes (such as lockdown).
In the case of Coronavirus 2020 perhaps the most significant false information is that of the statistics on the mortality of the sick, which derive precisely from data manipulation.
Such information is not in fact based on objective data. The “licenses” that the disseminators (both the media and the institutional organizations) take in this case are many. Among the others:
– these statistics, to define the mortality rate of the disease, do not take into account all people suffering from Coronavirus, but only those in whom the disease has manifested itself in a serious way.
– these statistics do not consider the dead due to Coronavisrus, but more generally take into consideration the deaths that “had Coronavirus” (but that were also afflicted with other serious pathologies).
It is based on this manipulated information that
drastic decisions have been made
like those of the .
While in South Korea, where it was based on the number of people who actually contracted the virus,
statistics have shown that
Coronavirus was a “simple influence”,
and that the epidemic
could have been eradicated
without taking extraordinary measures.
Furthermore, if you analyze the disclosure of information based on purely scientific considerations (informations recognized at the level of official institutions), it emerges that
● some information now censored and disparaged by the Mainstream media is actually information with , and therefore of great importance for the health of the human being (and for social security).
In this case, manipulation means selecting the information that is disclosed based on non-objective criteria.
It is noted that particularly advanced forms of censorship are used today, since these are no longer developed by decisions of heads of governmental bodies, thus becoming easily identifiable by the public (as was the case with Obama who prevented certain terms from being used by law used against terrorism). Today much of the censorship is entrusted to algorithms (also appropriately manipulated).
In fact, today Google, Facebook and Twitter censor what is not compatible with institutional information.
On Google important information is buried under thousands of links. And on social media, the posts and accounts of those who, even without breaking the regulations from the platform, are considered to be “outside the box” are eliminated.
Because of this today
people only know
a part of the truths determining their existence.
How is it possible to know how things really are if alternative information to institutional information is missing from the panorama of information available? (we talk about information based on scientific topics).
In this case, it should be noted, the functioning of the Democracy° is demolished. In fact, people are not only unable to make the optimal choices for their existence, but they are also unable to understand whether the parliamentary representatives they elected have done a good job. So who to choose in the next election.
Bear in mind that in the current socio-cultural dimension people not only do not understand the “alternative” point of view in its essence. But they are not even able to understand the “explanations” of the institutional bodies (this would seem to be the purpose of the institutions).
In such a condition
Citizens end up “believing”
with an act of faith.
Which makes citizens extremely vulnerable: it exposes them to the risk of accepting for good (in terms of care and social solutions) that may not be in line with their actual interests.
2) the lack of (scientific) information of the “alternative” points of view to those of the institutions
What is missing today is basically a real scientific culture (at least at a basic level) that allows people to understand the truthfulness of the information disclosed by the media.
And in this situation – as anticipated in the previous paragraphs – the Mainstream media ends up, in many cases, taking advantage of the situation to filter, manipulate the information disclosed based on interests that do not correspond to those of people’s health.
The problem is that based on that information
people have to make important decisions
about their life
(this is information on which depends the choice of treatment depends, or of a social attitude that has an important influence on the quality of their life). Note that the institutions also depend on this information to define important policies.
See the case of the extremely restrictive measures taken by Governments without there being a real need (as demonstrated by the cases of South Korea and Taiwan – mentioned previously – where the problem was solved without the issuing of strong measures).
The induction of a “spontaneous censorship” by Crowd based on widespread denigration
It should be noted that censorship is now also developed in a more subtle way than traditional top-down methods:
today it is also induced
a “spontaneous” censorship at Crowd level,
by entering the “information viruses” of the denigration
in the information channels.
Note the subtlety of the operation: in this way, a widespread denigration of “alternative” information compared to institutional information develops, an action that places a psychological barrier in people’s consciousness with respect to them.
The effectiveness of this system is based on the fact that alternative information, as far as its validity is based on scientific criteria (as it is in the case of Homeopathy), are attacked on an emotional level. That is, a non-rational plan on which it is not possible to counter a logical* rational level (simple redericks are used aimed at fomenting hatred towards such arguments).
This is the method described by some Soviet dissidents: accusations that are not based on rational elements, and therefore cannot be countered.
A significant example of these accusations: at an institutional level in Italy it is stated, during the events of Coronavirus 2020 “alternative medicine is as alternative to real medicine as it is a flying carpet compared to a parachute” Roberto Burioni (Professor of Microbiology and Virology at the Vita-Salute San Raffaele University and “scientific popularizer” on the Mainstream media).
A statement that brings a scientific argument (the validity of Homeopathy, scientifically demonstrated in multiple locations) on an abstract level, that of fairy tales, on which no rational argument can be developed.
Note how in this case the organs of institutional medicine should intervene punishing this doctor for the fact that there is one of his ranking members who denigrates a branch of the institution,
This free denigration – operated on an emotional level in which it is possible to create conditions of pre-conceptual refusal of certain subjects – leads to an obvious phenomenon of “bottom-up censorship” (spontaneous banning): any information that somehow mentions methodologies of treatments alternatives to institutional ones is spontaneously banned in people’s minds.
Because of this censorship of “alternative” information (we speak of that based on scientific arguments)
today people don’t know that
there are real possibilities,
on an individual level,
to resort to prevention and treatment methods
different from the institutional ones.
(this also applies to the treatment of diseases such as that of Coronavirus)
Holistica has the task of recovering
“alternative” information on human health,
and to publish them in an organic system
in which them are easily accessible