The little boy who was certain

Earlier today I saw my friend who lives down the street. I’ll call her Callie. She is the one I can have an ugly cry with - the one who is so special but doesn’t believe she is - just yet. She was pulling along a wagon to pick up her youngest from her little girl’s first day at school, and her son walked along side her. She just got back from vacation, so I walked alongside her for a bit to catch up, and then at a certain point, diverted my walk and told her to fly me a message sometime. As fate would have it, I saw her again on the other side of her pickup and we resumed walking together. This time her little girl was in the wagon, and I was recounted to the tale of how she got several booboos. I invited her to stop by my house to let her kids pick one of my blooming cosmos from the yard. As we headed toward my home just a block a way, her son shared a fact with me: “Did you know it takes 30 days for things to heal?” I wondered about this, having had some wounds that I’m sure took longer, like when I slammed my finger in the door a few summers ago and didn’t stitches when I probably should have, and other things that I feel healed rather quicker, but to be honest, I wasn’t keeping count. I gently offered, “Interesting. Maybe some take a little longer a some take a little shorter?”

He told me, “No, 30 days. I read it in a book.”

I asked him, “Do you believe everything you read?”

The answer surprised me, knowing his mom is a questioner like me.

“YES.”

Then another surprise. He added, with a tone that almost resembled self-amused patronization to me,

“Technology.”

I mean his dad does work in tech. And his grandparents did own a relatively small tech company until recently. But I didn’t exactly see that coming as a verbal appendix to why he believes everything he reads. Although, when I filter it through how tech has been used to sort information into categories of true and false where such clear definitions don’t exist in real life, or where the actual realities don’t resemble what is labeled as fact compared to the information that misses the mark of the proper propaganda and so is labeled, “misinformation,” I can understand his false certainty. It’s just that I would think he is too young to realize that technology does indeed lead many people to false certainty, as well as false conclusions, deliberately so as far as I can tell. Recently it’s become en vogue in academia to rationalize suppressing dissent as well as denying transparency in various ways on the grounds that scientific dissent in science might threaten policy agendas or lead to “hesitancy.” And I don’t mean urinary hesitancy.

Johnny I’ll call my friends son, was in the process of skipping, so I said to my friend, loud enough for the boy to overhear if he wished, “Did you know that scientists have studied science and science has found that science is wrong about 50-70% of the time?” My friend said, “I’m not surprised.”

The scientific method is the process of science. It is the ability of independent researchers to produce the same results that gives science that stamp of being considered “factual” once established. Without reproducibility, you have a hypothesis with some preliminary findings that may well be biased by funding, bias, or may have a poor study design or uses statistics to get a false or misleading conclusion that conforms to the desired outcome.

If you’re curious to learn more, heck out the work of John Ionnadis, 2005.

On of the interesting opportunities I see in the mess we are in with “science” is that it offers us a chance to return to our soul-indigenous-intuitive wisdom.

Although throughout pubmed you can find many articles on herbal medicine, quantum mechanics, the miraculous qualities of water and more - at least if you know the words to unlock the searches - these things were known long before science verified them.

Feminine knowing doesn’t rely on “facts.” It trusts in its knowing before the facts are in.

Too long masculine ways of knowing have been elevated as the be all-end-all. And the truth is our feminine inner guide, as well as the indigenous wisdom of the world is on the rise, even as an authentic left brain critique of science reveals that much of it it can’t be trusted…or at least should be taken with a grain of salt, knowing positive conclusions for effectiveness of various interventions very frequently are exaggerated in initial studies, while side effects may not be discovered until later. When it comes to solutions for the world, the things that would heal our planet don’t need us to all agree on what is happening with climate change. Creating thriving local ecologies of humans, soil, air, wildlife, water and exchanges of goods and services, otherwise known as economies, benefits everyone. Harnessing simple free energy technology like that of UMASS Amherst scientists “air gen generic” that can use tiny holes on any surface to produce energy from the moisture in even the air in deserts is so much better than oil - and also so much better than wind turbines which harms ecosystems and humans, as well as solar, which devastates ecosystems when they build massive fields to host the cells. Shifting from texting so much to spending more time face to face (not on FaceTime) to connect with people in person has so many wonderful benefits for building community, as well as for our health and wellness. A world where all are thriving will lead to less crime and less recruit- ability for terrorism. A world built of small communities where everyone knows each other and cares about each other doesn’t tokenize people or resources.