Chapter XVI: Laws And Facts, Theories And Data | The Philosophy Of Science by Steven Gussman [1st Edition]

        “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”

        — Ernest Rutherford^I

        The key dichotomy in philosophy of science, that of epistemology and ontology, gives rise to many other interesting manifestations.  One, which scientists often argue over today, are laws versus facts.  In the past, it was understood that laws—the mechanical philosophies by which the world unfolded, were fundamental and gave rise to facts (the empirical measurement of which could be used to falsify or verify such mechanical hypotheses).  This is the correct understanding, epistemologically, as it actually explains rather than merely describes the world (it describes the relationships between objects and their dynamics over time, not just the state of an object at a given time).  In this way, we may grasp causes, not just effects.

        Today, many take a naively fact-based view, as if having all available data would necessarily give you all available understanding—but the relationship between data and information is not so trivial.^II  Indeed, many brilliant people have been required to explain commonly shared data throughout the history of science.  Yet given that the cosmos is an ontology, an object, it is ultimately the case that it is a bunch of empirical facts!  After all, a consequence of determinsitic mechanics is that, upon reflection, if the past and future are in-principle predictable from the present initial conditions (indeed, from the conditions any time on the timeline), then time itself is collapsed and appears akin to a spatial dimension: to a god on the outside looking in, any deterministic, mechanical process appears as a larger static object in space-time.^III  This block universe may then be sliced up along the time-dimension to create the "frames" of a flip-book that, if watched in succession rather than all at once, would appear dynamic and changing.  Further, the correlation between information in different frames would reveal the laws by which that evolution occurred!  But in-principle, it is one un-moving 4-dimensional space-time object.

        So do laws give rise to facts or are facts simply arranged such that they have patterns and correlations that emerge when ontology is looked at one slice at a time?  Is there even a difference?  Suffice it to say that the dynamical-law view must be taken by epistemologists to get at the ontology in the first place, as epistemology is itself a process that takes place over time; meanwhile the underlying ontology, perfectly understood, is indeed a static block waiting to be discovered (but which, without god-like omniscience, cannot be understood in detail this way, at first).  You might say that the universe is in-principle made of facts and in-practice made of laws.  And yet the laws too are there, woven into the ontology if one pays attention to the patterns and symmetries threaded through the temporal dimension.

        Meanwhile, not all relationships are made equal.  A correlation between information does not necessarily imply a naive causation, between the two.  While a complete coincidence is not a terribly likely candidate, correlated variables could be causal in the reverse direction as the one more readily assumed (which could be different for different people with different preconceived notions), or otherwise both phenomena could be the effects of a common cause.^IV  Of course, to be causal, the relationship must be such that the effect occurs before the cause in time (meaning that even the block universe treats the time dimension as somehow having a special, preferred direction; although in principle this may be reversed if everything is, as the current most-fundamental laws of physics still imply, reversible); but this is not enough.  Evolutionary psychologist April L. Bleske-Rechek puts this nicely in her three criteria for establishing causality: co-varying (or correlated) variables, temporal precedence, and controlling for confounding variables.^V  While this is methodologically highly suggestive for establishing causality, I would strictly add a fourth criterion from epistemology: to be completely sure of a causal relationship (and anyway, to understand what it actually is), there must be a mechanism for the causation which makes recourse to lower causes; some things must collide or exert forces on one another.^VI

        Causation is a much tighter kind of correlation and makes a lawful rather than directly-objective view of the world seem more primary.  Theories are our models of laws giving rise to facts, they are what help us understand why the facts are the way that they are, at a given time.  Facts are what we can directly measure (unlike laws) to check the predictions of our hypothetical laws (and graduate them to theories if they pass the tests).  When it comes to actually doing scientific research, many will soon recognize the need to get back to the classical view of laws and away from a naive view that data alone will explain the world to them.^VII  Whatever the truth of a block universe, in-principle, we live in the present, only ever in possession of a thin slice of time (in a way, I might add, that has not yet been understood, scientifically), and we must first understand the world in this way before deducing the block model, thereon.  As an enterprise that gives rise only to mere facts, data is only worth its ability to falsify or suggest confirmation of a hypothesis.^VIII  Data doesn't mean anything on its own because it has no predictive quality and does not explain itself.

        There exists here (as in many places in science) a tension between a practical or utilitarian view, and the first-principles view.  Sometimes, researchers or engineers have a different normative motive than raw-truth-seeking or understanding.^IX  Take for example, medicine, in which the goal is (first, to do no harm, but otherwise) to help alleviate the pain or even cure the ailment of one's patient.  Many such treatments and interventions are what they call, “evidence-based,” but which are not really theoretical science: their effectiveness is suggested by randomized, double-blind, controlled trials to but the mechanism is often barely understood or otherwise speculative.^X  It is prudent to follow through with such practical means when one has raw empirical reason to believe that they may achieve a goal (it would be supremely foolish to deny cancer patients a life-saving drug just because we couldn't yet explain why or how it works), but it is not a sterling example of the scientific world-view.  Similarly, while in-principle we would have perfectly even evidentiary standards, in-practice, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” and simple claims require relatively simple evidence; the sky is blue, and we all had good reason to believe it was blue even without the kind of strenuous scientific rigor that was required to convince us of the existence of, say, gravitational waves.^XI  One must avoid being too much of a perfectionist: at some point, we must provisionally believe a claim or not based on the evidence available, because we would otherwise need to wait an eternity for certainty.

        It appears to generally be the case that dynamic systems trump stases.  This is perhaps one of the underlying philosophical reasons that capitalist economies are more stable and prolific than communist economies:^XII systems allow for imperfect equilibrium-seeking (such as the complex biological systems which evolve to keep certain values such as body temperature hovering around a certain point, an equilibrium-seeking process known as homeostasis).^XIII  By contrast, a stasis demands utopian perfection, with no room for error (and since there are more erroneous stases than not, these are more likely to be the ones expressed in reality when rigidity is demanded).^XIV  Likewise, the scientific method is a systematic, procedural epistemology, whereas most alternatives are dogmatic stases which assume that they are already in possession of all knowledge, rather than lay out a means to perfect and change a provisional body of knowledge.

        This has a bearing on how we view education and intelligence, as well.  Is a smart person one who can regurgitate mere facts through rote memorization—in the worst case merely making the right noises associated with the mainstream “correct” ideas of their time?  Or is it about raw processing power—the ability to engage with and manipulate mental concepts?  Whither judgment or creativity?  Whether or not “intelligence” is the best term, IQ appears to be a real quantity which correlates with real-world outcomes,^XV and it seems to me, is best understood as raw-processing power.  But how one uses that processing power matters a great deal!  One may learn and perform the scientific method or otherwise create and partake in elaborate myths.  Even avoiding myth and staying on a factual path, one may plainly memorize the right answers of the past—but this cannot be the process that led to the discovery of such facts, back then.  The true scientist must have a good enough working memory to consider the interactions of known provisional facts and laws from the past; the IQ to understand such facts as mechanical concepts rather than as mere truisms or received wisdom; the creativity to manipulate this information in new ways and make new testable conjectures; and the curiosity to value the truth—an interest in the actual correct answer that describes the world as it is.^XVI  One needs pattern recognition to notice the empirical evidence as it is, but also an ability to generalize (or extrapolate) from these facts to laws so as to make predictions about similar systems elsewhere, before the empirical data is available.^XVII  One must seek a working knowledge (as opposed to a trivial knowledge) of the world, not a rote memorization of previously discovered provisional facts.  This requires iterated study with no end (it is better to achieve this by reading many books on the same topic once, than to study the same flash cards over and over) with an emphasis on explanatory mechanisms over naked facts.  What does it mean to “know” that about 90% of American homicides are committed by men,^XVIII if one knows nothing of the evolutionary history of violent male mate-competition mediated in part by such hormonal chemicals as testosterone?  The statistic does not explain itself, and when people assume that it does, they are led astray (perhaps, to the naive belief that this information implies that males are culturally taught to be violent when it is clear the result is an expression of nature despite the opposite upbringing in the modern civilized world).^XIX  Not only is such an understanding of the world a richer and more fulfilling kind of knowledge in itself, but it is only those who posses understanding who may have any chance at contributing to knowledge, as hypotheses and theories allow for new predictions (rote memories, on the other hand, might at best net you a free beer at trivia night).^XX  One in a possession of a working knowledge of the world may continue to make sense of it even when otherwise novel facts (anomalies, from the standpoint of provisional theories) rear their heads.  And they may more responsibly navigate the provisional body of knowledge in other fields they are not yet familiar with; one who has not developed a working knowledge of medicine, is probably better off not Googling symptoms and diseases, because they will lack the bedrock tools to make heads-or-tails of what they are reading, and may be led well-astray (many of us have direct, first-hand experience of this).  Those with a working knowledge participate rather than spectate in our discovery and understanding of the cosmos.

        As with math and physics, one, here too, hopes for a unification of law and fact such that the thing becomes one coherent law-fact whole which cannot be denied.  The system would be so tightly self-explanatory that the laws would be features of the object, and the features of the object equally the expression of laws.  Once again (because simulation, emulation, and the real thing are so highly related), computer science really puts this dichotomy on display when one gets to thinking about storage and computation, the two main pieces of hardware in a computer being memory and the processor; one cannot really have one without the other.^XXI  Mathematics is our best example of this kind of thing, as arithmetic is a little symbolic computer: an operator is like a law and an operand is like a fact; the entire expression is like a little block-universe.

        My bias is always in favor of lawful, dynamical systems, but it must be noted that without stored numbers to perform calculations on, a processor would have exactly nothing to process; no output can be had without input.  Further, the processor itself is made of objects: mechanisms are abstract and need some objective substrate to be implemented within: each moving part in machine is a static object on its own, but performing an operation in concert when assembled as a machine.  Likewise, without a processor, storage would be useless—just a bunch of information trapped in whatever initial conditions it happened to start in, no dynamic changing, and no use.  One cannot have input or output without a machine to receive and return information.  So one can see that it is the particular assemblage of objects such that their interactions transform other objects known as inputs, into outputs, that makes a machine what it is.  Here, it is clearer than ever that mechanisms are about special structures that beget other structures and breed regularity.  The universe appears to be just such a thing!

        At the most fundamental scientific level we're in possession of, you again see this dichotomy.  The fundamental laws of physics are known as forces; these forces are responsible for the interactions between the fundamental objects, called particles.  On the one hand, particle physicists have started to see forces as mediated by the exchange of force-carrying (virtual) particles, between the interacting objects!  On the other, they've begun to see particles as less rigid, more like excitations in vast energy fields spread throughout space, associated with the type of particle in question (all electrons simply being a particular amplitude in a single frothing sea, for example).^XXII  In this sense, perhaps more important than wave-particle duality, is law-object duality: are we glimpsing in particle physics just such a unification, the beginnings of a solution to this most fundamental law-fact dichotomy?^XXIII

        One can almost think of theories as the interface (or bus) between epistemology and pure ontology.  Theories explain and therefore predict ontological facts.  I consider such laws a part of ontology, because they are the expression of the regularity of the world that makes science possible; in some sense, it is the regularity of the world that is the world, perhaps even moreso than the facts given rise to.  Science is about explanation.

        To the scientist, the discovery of a law is the greatest achievement in the philosophical tradition.  Discovering a new kind of object is also impressive, particularly if it was first the prediction of laws, or first principles.  Discover what no one else sees to be excellent, what no one can see to achieve genius.^XXIV  Sometimes, the new object is so exotic that it stimulates a deeper understanding of current laws and perhaps even the discovery of new ones (such has been the case and the hope with black holes, for example).  So while I endorse Rutherford's quote that, “all science is either physics or stamp-collecting,” in spirit—the difference between description and explanation is important—I would not take this too literally as an indictment of fields of research or topics of study.  What might otherwise appear to be “stamp-collecting” can turn out to be a “physics” if carried out properly.  One example of such theoretical taxa is the periodic table of the elements.^XXV  This periodic table is not a mere arbitrary collection; its structure illustrates an underlying theory of chemical atoms.  The atoms on it from left-to-right ascend, each adding a proton (rendering a more massive nucleus).  The elements in the same columns have similar outer electron clouds (which determines the shape of the atom).  While it is believed the periodic table is reaching completion, this was not always so!  One of the great strengths of the table is that when constructed with its theoretical rules, there were blank spaces left which served as straight-forward predictions of there-to-fore unknown atoms expected to have certain characteristics based on their position on the table.  In just this way, germanium, halfnium, and astatine, for example, were discovered.

        A more complex example comes from biological taxonomy: the evolutionary tree of life showing the inherited relationship of all species.  This theoretical taxonomy is more complex because evolution is far more continuous (versus the discrete whole-proton difference between contiguous atoms)—species are a feather-edged concept (made more sharp by many of the in-between forms not existing concurrently).  And yet biologists nonetheless find it useful to organize all organisms in terms of domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and finally, species.^XXVI  One frustrating aspect of the response to the covid-19 pandemic was how often someone (even experts) would utter some version of, “this is a completely novel virus, we know nothing about,” often followed by some unlikely speculation^XXVII (from downplaying the virus, early on;^XXVIII to doubting that masks would reduce the chances of transmission;^XXIX to doubting that natural infection would confer immunity;^XXX to sparking rumors of so-called “long” or “long-haul” covid, where every imaginable disease symptom was implicated, and it was speculated that these could last perhaps indefinitely beyond the clearing of the infection;^XXXI to speculating that perhaps covid-19 infection prevented through vaccination might, somehow, still transmit between and beyond these un-infected people;^XXXII to assuming each new variant is immunity-escape;^XXXIII to denying the possibility of a lab-leak origin for the SARS-COV-2;^XXXIV and even to arguing that it's somehow wrong-headed to close one's borders to the epicenter-nation^XXXV).  The truth is, by the time we had heard about this pathogen, it was called a, “novel coronavirus,” meaning we already knew quite a bit about this object from the get-go^XXXVI—more than was known about the Spanish Flu in 1918, let alone what was known by Europeans or Amerindians of smallpox, during those centuries-ago early contacts.  Consider the following Wikipedia passage:^XXXVII

        Coronaviruses are a group of related RNA viruses that cause diseases in mammals and birds.  In

        humans and birds, they cause respiratory tract infections that can range from mild to lethal.  Mild

        illnesses in humans include some cases of the common cold (which is also caused by other viruses,

        predominantly rhinoviruses), while more lethal varieties can cause SARS, MERS and COVID-19,

        which is causing the ongoing pandemic.  In cows and pigs they cause diarrhea, while in mice they

        cause hepatitis and encephalomyelitis.

        Coronaviruses constitute the subfamily Orthocoronavirinae, in the family Coronaviridae, order

        Nidovirales and realm Riboviria.^[3][4]  They are enveloped viruses with a positive-sense single-

        stranded RNA genome and a nucleocapsid of helical symmetry.^[5]  The genome size of

        coronaviruses ranges from approximately 26 to 32 kilobases, one of the largest among RNA

        viruses.^[6]  They have characteristic club-shaped spikes that project from their surface, which in

        electron micrographs create an image reminiscent of the stellar corona, from which their name

        derives.^[7]

Notice that most, if not all of those citations pre-date the covid-19 pandemic (this prior knowledge is how the new virus was classified so quickly—the novel virus was like other known viruses, yet different in important ways).  That is quite a lot of “nothing” to know—you and I lack the pre-requisite knowledge to even understand all of what was instantly known of this virus.  So let us focus on the obvious: we knew SARS-COV-2 was a respiratory virus—like influenza but potentially (and then shown, actually) more deadly.  While we have never been very careful to avoid colds or flus, we were certainly not perplexed by our catching those.  From the time we were children, we often saw people come to school or work, coughing and sneezing, and groaned, assuming that we might catch it by breathing near them for extended periods of time (notice that the particulars about whether the given pathogen aerosolize or merely travels through the air in water droplets, is largely sophistry from the point of view of the average person, who either way would reduce their chance of catching SARS-COV-2 by covering their mouths and noses, at little cost, if done rationally).^XXXVIII  We realized that if we had caught a cold or flu, that we needn't be worried about catching it back from someone else (as when one's co-habiting family member catches the virus from you and is sick after you have recovered).  We didn't scratch our heads and go about getting nets and cages like we were catching an animal; our familiarity with airborne respiratory viruses immediately suggested that we would want to wear masks indoors, avoid large in-door crowds, and hope for the development of a vaccine to grant immunity without incurring the risk of infection.  Of course, as all knowledge is provisional, and life is complex, any one of these assumptions could turn out to be different in the case of this virus (though my view of the last three years is that all of these assumptions held).  Suffice it to say that, if as little was known of SARS-COV-2 / covid-19 as was so popular to say earlier on in the pandemic, I doubt that we would have witnessed the fastest-ever development of effective vaccines in history.^XXXIX  More generally, if I were to throw a dart at a phylogenetic tree, and it were to land somewhere “between” species, there is much provisional knowledge that one would already have about such an organism as might exist, there (though, unlike in the more fundamental field of chemistry, doing so does not necessarily predict this form does or has existed).

        Our deepest forms of knowledge are those theories and laws which explain facts and data, not the facts and data on their own.  A knowledge of processes and mechanisms (chief among them, the epistemology of the scientific method) is what allows us to discover more about the world, rather than remain frozen in the inherited knowledge of our time, and those who came before us.

Footnotes:

0. The Philosophy Of Science table of contents can be found, here (footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2022/04/table-of-contents-philosophy-of-science.html).

I. See this quote's entry in BrainyQuote: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ernest_rutherford_377084.

II. See “Bret And Heather 6th Live Stream: Death And Peer Review - DarkHorse Podcast” by B. Weinstein and Heather Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6nOphi0yE&t=7114s) (30:40 – 59:56); "Bret And Heather 8th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: The Stealth Ecology Of SARS-CoV2" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_0yqXe-zQI&t=2950s) (47:20 – 51:50); “Bret And Heather 16th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Meaning, Notions, & Scientific Commotions” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvljruLDhxY) (0:59 – 51:37); "Bret And Heather 22nd DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Don't #ShutDownSTEM" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0n6Q0o-bVg&t) (32:00 – 40:57); “Bret And Heather 61st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: If Covid Policy Were Rational” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbBvvPVFdw) (1:36:09 – 1:37:27); and “#84: Hey YouTube: Divide by Zero (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC04NzMwNTYw?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiY2uSX-Pn6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQcg) (40:38 – 1:23:45).

III. See Our Mathematical Universe by Tegmark (pp. 272-276, 318).

IV. See “Bret And Heather 8th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: The Stealth Ecology Of SARS-CoV2” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_0yqXe-zQI&t=2950s) (47:20 – 51:50).

V. See “The Other Crisis in Psychology” by April L. Bleske-Rechek (Quillette) (2019) (https://quillette.com/2019/07/30/the-other-crisis-in-psychology/)

VI. See the “Mechanical Philosophy” chapter. Bleske-Rechek's final criterion of controlling for confounds is doing a lot of work if she is assuming that it also implies establishing the mechanism itself.

VII. See “Bret And Heather 79th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: #NotAllMice” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU63lsHA0y0) (47:27 – 51:04) and “#84: Hey YouTube: Divide by Zero (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC04NzMwNTYw?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiY2uSX-Pn6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQcg) (40:38 – 1:23:45).

VIII. See “Bret and Heather 6th Live Stream: Death and Peer Review - DarkHorse Podcast” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc6nOphi0yE); “Bret And Heather 8th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: The Stealth Ecology Of SARS-CoV2” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_0yqXe-zQI&t=2950s) (47:20 – 51:50); “Bret And Heather 16th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Meaning, Notions, & Scientific Commotions” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvljruLDhxY) (0:59 – 51:37); “Bret And Heather 22nd DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Don't #ShutDownSTEM” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0n6Q0o-bVg&t) (32:00 – 40:57); "Bret And Heather 36th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Doing The Math On Sensemaking" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg4hKX4obnk) (0:45 – 12:23, 40:00 – 59:15); “Bret And Heather 61st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: If Covid Policy Were Rational” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfbBvvPVFdw) (1:36:09 – 1:37:27); and “#84: Hey YouTube: Divide by Zero (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC04NzMwNTYw?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiY2uSX-Pn6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQcg) (40:38 – 1:23:45).

IX. For more on this topic, see the “Descriptive And Normative Theory” chapter and the “The Sociology Of Scientists” chapter.

X. For an example of this kind of debate, see "Bret and Heather 87th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: We Must Drive this Virus to Extinction" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2021) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsUvr8s0qEk&t) (55:10 – 57:35).

XI. For more on this topic, see the “Common Sense” chapter.

XII. See see "Marxism" chapter of The Sophistructure by Gussman (https://footnotephysicist.blogspot.com/2021/03/chapter-2-marxism-sophistructure-0th.html#FN11A) which further cites The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 302-304) and Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 78, 90-91, 247, 364-365, 459-460, 483).

XIII. Look forward to the “Economics” chapter in the “Ontology” volume. See also the “Homeostasis” definition in Google's Oxford Languages dictionary.

XIV. In physics, this property would be regarded as “unstable” with the classic example being that, while you may be able to finely balance a pencil to stand on its tip, any small amount of energy pumped into that system (including the noise of the environment) will “break symmetry” and knock the pencil over. By contrast, Elon Musk's SpaceX has been able to land the rockets they launch not by straightening them out and dropping them, but by employing a complex scheme of computerized engines which constantly re-direct the drag-force from the air to keep the rocket up-right for landing.

XV. See The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 106-107, 134-135, 146-147, 301-302, 373, 378-379); Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 240-245, 438); “The Mismeasurements Of Stephen Jay Gould” by Russel T. Warne (Quillette) (2019) (https://quillette.com/2019/03/19/the-mismeasurements-of-stephen-jay-gould/); and psychologist Keith Oatley's book which displays some of the controversy around the predictive nature of IQ, see Our Minds, Our Selves: A Brief History Of Psychology by Keith Oatley (Princeton University Press) (2018) (55, 61-62, 272).

XVI. See “Why Smart People Are Vulnerable To Putting Tribe Before Truth: Science Literacy Is Important, But Without The Parallel Trait Of 'Science Curiosity,' It Can Lead Us Astray” by Kahan (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/why-smart-people-are-vulnerable-to-putting-tribe-before-truth/).

XVII. See Our Mathematical Universe by Tegmark (pp. 20, 22, 25, 29, 36-38, 43, 50-53, 62-64, 96, 186) and / or the Google Books search result for “extrapolate” (https://books.google.com/books?id=FSMUAAAAQBAJ&q=extrapolate#v=snippet&q=extrapolate&f=false). Developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik reports that young children extrapolate from the specific to the general, as well (though I think she wrongly emphasizes the dangers of stereotyping rather than the importance of this pattern-recognition feature for intelligence), see The Gardener And The Carpenter: What The New Science Of Child Development Tells Us About The Relationship Between Parents And Children by Alison Gopnik (Picador) (2016) (at least pp. 137-144).

XVIII. See “2019 Crime In The United States: Expanded Homicide Table 6” (FBI) (2019) (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls).

XIX. See The Ape That Understood The Universe by Stewart-Williams (pp. 5, 7, 19, 22-23, 42-43, 62, 67-68, 71-72, 74-75, 87, 102-109, 116, 118, 129, 138, 146-147, 157-161, 163-164, 185, 188-189, 246, 280); The World Until Yesterday: What Can We Learn From Traditional Societies? by Jared Diamond (Viking) (2012) (pp. 29,74-75,84-85,89,95-99,119-170,176-179,214-217,271-272,277,286-292,358-361,367-368,398,403-404); The Blank Slate by Pinker (pp. 56-58, 115-117, 125, 135, 160, 166, 176, 188, 262, 306-336, 344-349, 362-370, 428-431); "What Explains The Resistance To Evolutionary Psychology?" by Alex Mackiel (Quillette) (2019) (https://quillette.com/2019/04/08/what-explains-the-resistance-to-evolutionary-psychology/); "Why Do Men Rape?" by Matthew Blackwell (Quillette) (2018) (https://quillette.com/2018/03/21/why-do-men-rape/); "Monogamy Is Not Natural But It's Nice" by David Barash (Time) (2015) (https://time.com/4028151/david-barash-is-monogamy-over/); Our Minds, Our Selves by Oatley (pp. 175, 178-186); Enlightenment Now by Pinker (pp. 278-279); and The Gardener And The Carpenter by Gopnik (pp. 149-154, 170).

XX. B. Weinstein makes this point about Alexander, see, "Bret Weinstein On 'The Portal' (w/ host Eric Weinstein), Ep. #019 - The Prediction And The DISC." by E. Weinstein and B. Weinstein (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLb5hZLw44s) (44:58 – 45:38).

XXI. For more on this topic, see the “Computation” chapter.

XXII. See the "Quantum Fields And Their Excitations" chapter in Quantum Physics by Raymer (pp. 253-273).

XXIII. Though he does not seem to be going about the philosophy correctly to me, physicist Carlo Rovelli speaks of his attempt at a theory of quantum gravity (a competitor of string theory known as loop quantum gravity) in a similar way, treating the physical foundations as being all about the relationships between quantities, see the short book, Seven Brief Lessons In Physics by Carlo Rovelli (Riverhead Books) (2014 / 2015 / 2016); "Relative Information" by Carlo Rovelli (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2017 / 2018) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27074) in This Idea Is Brilliant edited by Brockman (pp. 213-215); and "Geometry" by Carlo Rovelli (Edge / Harper Perennial) (2014 / 2015) (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25345) in This Idea Must Die edited by Brockman (pp. 473-474).

XXIV. Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer's actual quote is: “Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see,” see the BrainyQuote entry: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_schopenhauer_385253. See also “Excellence” by E. Weinstein (https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23879) in What Should We Be Worried About? edited by Brockman.

XXV. For the information in the sentences about the periodic table which close out this paragraph, see Elemental by James (at least pp. 4, 35-36, 53-60, 63, 65-71, 97-100, 108, 120, 147, 157, 160, 187-189) along with the Google Books search results for “row” and “predict” (https://books.google.com/books?id=J_GEDwAAQBAJ&q=row#v=snippet&q=row&f=false) (https://books.google.com/books?id=J_GEDwAAQBAJ&q=row#v=snippet&q=predict&f=false) and Chemistry by Atkins (at least pp. 13-14, 18-19, 86) along with the Google Books search result for “row” (https://books.google.com/books?id=rfrbBQAAQBAJ&q=row#v=snippet&q=row&f=false).

XXVI. See “File:Biological classification L Pengo vflip.svg” (Wikipedia) (2007 / 2022) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg).

XXVII. See the “Mechanical Philosophy” chapter. Arguably, our mRNA vaccines were more novel in terms of vaccines than SARS-COV-2 was in terms of viruses that we have dealt with, though I lack the domain expertise to adjudicate this claim, seriously. Yet it was similarly annoying that we were suddenly supposed to pretend not to know that novel medical interventions can unfortunately turn out to have unwanted side-effects, as the safety of these shots was continually being guaranteed well-beyond what the data could possibly have shown at the time, in terms of longitudinal risk. This is such a hot-button topic that I will simply lay my covid-19 history out: I was immediately suspicious of early claims of a lab-leak origin, before being convinced the weight of the evidence points in this direction; I likely caught ancestral covid-19 in May 2020 and experienced it as a bad flu, with a 103 degree fever; I was vaccinated with the primary-series in 2021 and, somewhat reluctantly, the first booster in early 2022 (though I do not see the evidence that I need further vaccination at this time). See also my June 25^th, 2021 tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1408558202871025664?s=20&t=50BXbv85oP_47-yGttb3bA, which takes place in a thread in which I am criticizing the following podcasts: “COVID, Ivermectin, And The Crime Of The Century: DarkHorse Podcast With Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein” by B. Weinstein and P. Kory (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC04NjI3ODA4?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwj4mv2KlvT6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQbw); "How To Save The World, In Three Easy Steps." by Bret Weinstein, Robert Malone, and Steve Kirsch (DarkHorse) (2021) (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC04NjgzNzgz?ep=14); "#1671 - Bret Weinstein & Dr. Pierre Kory" by Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, and Pierre Kory (JRE) (2021) (https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=HHTN1wIIRnS8s0MlyfsGkg&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1&nd=1); and my August 27^th, 2021 tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1431367786190749705?s=20&t=6lnRvuUo34Pcwfn46_VQng.

XXVIII. See @balajis' Februrary 14^th, 2020 Twitter thread taking the media to task: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1228447944287932416.

XXIX. B. Weinstein and H. Heying were very early on masks, having argued from common sense in their favor on March 24th, 2020, see "Bret And Heather 1st In A Series Of Live Stream: Tests, Masks, And More - DarkHorse Podcast" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym-WGOq96G0&t) (21:50 – 30:32). See also this March 29^th, 2020 interaction between Twitter user @webdevMason, E. Weinstein (@EricRWeinstein), biologist James Stone (@Evolving_Ego), and myself (@schwinn3): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1244352472933597191?s=20&t=8DNHPkWtlPNsniO1rvBggA; and my October 17^th, 2021 tweet (and surrounding Twitter thread): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1449864797630210056?s=20&t=4FvJrb4U9R80xO-PsKMkWg.

XXX. See my January 18^th, 2019 Twitter response to YouTuber Chris “Ray Gun” Maldonado for my early position on the mechanism of immunity: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1086377534693011461?s=20&t=Wc3BFk6tRVAOd5jE8gFAVQ; my May 15^th, 2020 tweet about my own natural immunity: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1261427448891277314?s=20&t=WnuZgn49EqyrPcxmxncHGw; my July 1^st, 2020 tweet on the same topic: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1278451858789617671?s=20&t=78HjmZ2lqVwTSrgHDqNB2Q; my March 18^th, 2021 tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1372615840655409154?s=20&t=8DNHPkWtlPNsniO1rvBggA; and my October 9^th, 2021 tweet (from a surrounding thread in which I attempt to calculate the effectiveness of natural immunity from Kentucky, U.S. data): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1446883853486985216?s=20&t=r_Hm5KFQp-5Fk4dZ5ZgdMw.

XXXI. See the June 6^th, 2021 Twitter interaction between epidemiologist Dr Zoë Hyde (@DrZoeHyde), evolutionist Yeyo Za (@RealYeyoZa), special educator Hans Koppies (@HansKoppies), and myself (@schwinn3): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1401609603738181634?s=20&t=8DNHPkWtlPNsniO1rvBggA and my July 7^th, 2021 tweet in which I criticize B. Weinstein's and H. Heying's view in favor of “long-covid”: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1412638829719269385?s=20&t=3sEd8lyTRgMxKxWTRJUbbQ, which takes place in a wider thread critiquing the argument going on between B. Weinstein, H. Heying, R. Malone, and P. Kory on the one hand; and on the other, biotechnology entrepreneur Yuri Deigin, Manhattan Institute scholar Claire Berlinski, and journalist Claire Lehmann, see "Looking For COVID-19 ‘Miracle Drugs’? We Already Have Them. They’re Called Vaccines" by Claire Berlinksi and Yuri Deigin (Quillette) (2021) (https://quillette.com/2021/07/06/looking-for-covid-19-miracle-drugs-we-already-have-them-theyre-called-vaccines/). See also the July 8^th, 2021 Twitter interaction between epidemiologist Dr. Tom Frieden (@DrTomFrieden), Yeyo Za (@RealYeyoZa), and myself (@schwinn3): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1413184184915476486?s=20&t=bKpRfH8C0FHcU32gezc2bg; my October 26^th, 2021 tweet in which I criticized director of the CDC, Rochelle Walensky for misinterpreting efficacy measures as well as playing into fears of “long break-through covid”: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1452939289612935171?s=20&t=KYAlbllqqfxfjYtRopxnHQ; my November 10^th, 2021 retweet of columnist Phil Kerpen (@kerpen): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1458393241775218694?s=20&t=Q-nN3-tHtwgA97Pr8Lr59w; and my June 25^th, 2021 tweet criticizing B. Weinstein's (@BretWeinstein) views on “long covid”: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1408521544985419776?s=20&t=XkiG9kFliiUwgalI-kpasQ.

XXXII. See my March 8^th, 2021 Twitter complaint: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1369041945083936776?s=20&t=8Kbm1y-59yfnw2yRMHxXzw; my March 11^th, 2021 criticism of medical Dr. Anthony Fauci's conservative comments on CNN: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1370089810086522882?s=20&t=G4v6FgiQTJPYKNurLrr2UA; my short March 15^th, 2021 Twitter thread on this topic: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1371659798270337024?s=20&t=0DgHQQwTvw3t1_041wuBfA; my April 28^th, 2021 tweet in agreement with political radio host Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1387388293495590919?s=20&t=8DNHPkWtlPNsniO1rvBggA; my June 25th, 2021 Twitter sub-thread starting at: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1408379250546135046; my July 29^th, 2021 Twitter thread (in which I misinterpret the statistical definition of effectiveness) surrounding the following tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1420687238179041282?s=20&t=8DNHPkWtlPNsniO1rvBggA; and my August 30^th, 2021 tweet (part of a thread where I mention now-suspended account, @drrollergator): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1432410756906106887?s=20&t=tTzb2BAHXxSm5NQBRh0-vA.

XXXIII. See my June 26^th, 2021 Twitter interaction with physician-scientist Ran Balicer (@RanBalicer), trying to make heads-or-tails of the properties of the delta variant: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1408924270940524545?s=20&t=8DNHPkWtlPNsniO1rvBggA; my August 12^th, 2021 tweet, again, on delta: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1425939690855751683?s=20&t=ThFfBTUDqze5G7pEWbTvGQ; my August 20^th, 2021 tweet: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1428685818496004099?s=20&t=cKVnvLHxrJPwbhZrRjUebQ; my September 3^rd, 2021 Twitter thread on the mu variant: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1433685957182623745?s=20&t=PRjThsArdip94-Yj2pJJOw; my November 26^th, 2021 tweet (and surrounding thread) on the omicron variant: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1464292206777442304?s=20&t=PRjThsArdip94-Yj2pJJOw; and my November 27^th, 2021 retweet of scientist Trevor Bedford (@trvrb): https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1464480228143554565?s=20&t=m4MTVVHVoaAo982Aa3PMWQ.

XXXIV. See "Is This Finally Proof China Created Covid? Group Of Online Sleuths Fought To Discover If The Virus Was Engineered By Scientists In Wuhan Lab At The Heart Of Probe Into The Pandemic's Origins" by Matt Ridley (Daily Mail) (2021) (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10146091/Is-finally-proof-China-created-Covid-MATT-RIDLEYs-new-book-probes-hotly-debated-theory.html); Viral by Chan and Ridley; "Bret And Heather 10th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: SARS-CoV2--Unintelligent Design?" by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (DarkHorse) (2020) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKtsx0fZzzQ) (21:03 - 23:35); “Bret And Heather 80th DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: What Covid Reveals About Our Leaders” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxTODvTNHlw) (4:01 - 18:31); "Bret And Heather 81st DarkHorse Podcast Livestream: Permission To Think" by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoaKtBMk53Y&t=) (7:46 - 15:31, 19:54 - 38:34); “#84: Hey YouTube: Divide by Zero (Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying DarkHorse Livestream)” by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS80MjQwNzUucnNz/episode/QnV6enNwcm91dC04NzMwNTYw?sa=X&ved=0CAUQkfYCahcKEwiY2uSX-Pn6AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQcg) (40:38 – 1:23:45); and my May 23^rd, 2021 Twitter thread criticizing CNN for politicizing the hypothesis: https://twitter.com/schwinn3/status/1396342182580207616.

XXXV. See "The New Coronavirus Is a Truly Modern Epidemic: New Diseases Are Mirrors That Reflect How A Society Works—And Where It Fails" by Ed Yong (The Atlantic) (2020) (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/02/coronavirus-very-2020-epidemic/605941/).

XXXVI. See the “Viruses” chapter in Viral by Chan and Ridley (pp. 33-48).

XXXVII. See “Coronavirus” (Wikipedia) (retrieved 11/8/2022) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronavirus) which further cites “Taxon Details: Subfamily: Orthocoronavirinae” (ICTV) (retrieved 2020) (https://ictv.global/taxonomy/taxondetails?taxnode_id=201851847); “Bat Coronaviruses In China” by Yi Fan et al. (MDPI / Viruses) (2019) (https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/11/3/210/htm); Feigin and Cherry's Textbook of Pediatric Infectious Diseases by James Cherry et al. (Elsevier Health Sciences) (2017); “Coronavirus Genomics And Bioinformatics Analysis” by Patrick C. Y. Yoo et al. (MDPI / Viruses) (2010) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3185738/); “VIROLOGY Coronaviruses” by J. D. Almeida et al. (Nature) (1968) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7086490/) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7086490/pdf/41586_1968_Article_BF220650b0.pdf) (though I have not read these works cited by the Wikipedia contributors, nor the Wikipedia entry beyond what is quoted).

XXXVIII. See "Bret And Heather 1st In A Series Of Live Stream: Tests, Masks, And More - DarkHorse Podcast" by B. Weinstein and H. Heying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym-WGOq96G0&t) (21:50 - 30:32)

XXXIX. See evolutionary psychologist Steve Stewart-Williams' December 16^th, 2021 tweet: https://twitter.com/SteveStuWill/status/1471460998028533761, which further cites “How COVID Vaccines Shaped 2021 In Eight Powerful Charts” by Smriti Mallapaty et al. (Nature) (2021) (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03686-x) (though I have not read this article outside of the timing-graph Stewart-Williams emphasized).