When considering whether to admit dark data to the data stores available to our algorithm, we can ask what would be different if we did not know this information, even if there is good reason to believe it to be true.
Given what we now know about this virus, our ancestral trust in God would have served us must better than our actual course of action that instead trusted humans acting beyond the boundary they should not have crossed.
It is conceivable that our faith in science over observations could return the human condition to where it was at after the fall of the bronze age, only the mysterious monuments would need to be explained by even bigger giants. The risk of this happening is significant even if it is unlikely.
My previous post outlines the ideas I have about a fantasy government of data and urgency as it relates to the COVID19 situation. Here, I want to contrast different approaches to governing.
The current government’s obsession over the absolute numbers ignores the fact that when this is over, these casualties will only be numbers. In the future, our government will have to contend with the remaining survivors. At that time, the survivors will judge the government’s wisdom in prioritizing dark data over the observations available to it.
The dark data observations are actually assertions that the present world obeys the expectations for how the world operates according to very small number of people’s (often just one) understanding. This presents the opportunity for those same individuals to force the simulated world to the way that best conforms to their wishes. No one else will know whether the tests are for actual science or for some agenda.
I believe our ancestors approach science-guidance very differently. I believe this came from there being a culture that encouraged everyone to participate in the practice of science and collect of new evidence that undermines old science. This older culture is similar to the automated government of data and urgency. The automated approach emphasizes data representing recent observations from reliable sensors of objects that are not biased by rules based on preconceptions.
The science for how to deal with COVID19 is clear, and it clearly goes against all common sense. This may be a time when the best response to scientific recommendation is to dismiss it as ridiculous.
The current democratic government is run by politicians, bureaucrats, and electorate who all are gaslighted into distrusting their own observations that disprove the original explanations and projections. We need to ignore what we are seeing and continue on the original plan because it was based on infallible science, science we know is proven because we can replicate the experiments that prove it.
The biggest failing of science in the current COVID situation is its inability to react to new evidence that its original conclusions were wrongly decided, and the assurances to governments were incompetent. We implicitly accept that any initial science-based decisions attains some law-like status that is automatically presumed to be true until there is overwhelming evidence that it is wrong. In particular, such decision making does not permit a simple apology for making a mistake following new data that clearly disproves the original science.