Evidence in the Long Shadow of Civilization

A precise definition of civilization: a sum of individuals specializing in different areas of knowledge, all relying on each other for survival and comfort in their day-to-day lives. The more reliable the knowledge of others is, the stronger a civilization we have; and the less reliable the knowledge of others is, the weaker a civilization we have.

As I've discussed in a prior piece [*1], taking graphs from the Edelman report, we are currently experiencing a sharp decline in global civilization, as trust in global institutions, like the media, conglomerate corporations, governments, and international groups, is collapsing.






A classic thought experiment. You travel 1,000 years backwards in time. With the relative superiority of modern knowledge, how useful would you to be to the ancient civilization you are now a part of? Even if you're the twenty-first century's most skilled mechanic, engineer, doctor, scientist, or legal scholar, the toolset you previously relied on to function is no more.

A twenty-first-century mechanic or engineer builds upon the foundation of craftsmen from the industrial era. After he sufficiently learns the language of the ancient era, could he organize enough people to craft anything close to modern transportation?

A twenty-first-century doctor relies on the modern pharmaceutical industry to dole out the pieces of paper he calls "prescriptions" to give access to pills he never crafted himself. What would a doctor's knowledge of germ theory or modern medicine do absent access to modern technology? Could he organize enough people to create anything close to what we call modern medicine?

A twenty-first-century legal scholar is reliant upon excess in food and comfort brought by modern technology that allows specialized laws to ensure more rights and benefits are more widely afforded. Can you imagine how devastating laws like those against child labor or complex due process requirements for criminals would be to a pre-industrial civilization? How many would starve in the Middle Ages if only those above 16 were allowed to work for a wage? How many interdependent systems of complex record keeping are needed to create evidentiary burdens we afford to protect the wrongly accused? These things don't come from the mind of a legal scholar producing words on pieces of paper called "law" alone but on the skillsets and technology of countless individuals to afford luxuries, from the ancient's perspective, we refer to in the modern era as "human rights."

Most of what we call knowledge in our day-to-day lives is not foundational but a proxy for our trust in other individuals. Even the doctor practices medicine this way, as he reads a study published in a journal and gauges the opinions of his peers when deciding whether or not to pen the prescription for the pills he believes will help his patient. Knowledge is a long game of telephone, as experts rely upon experts who rely upon experts to construct civilization. We are all familiar with how the game of telephone ends in the original message sounding nothing like what the final recipient hears. But how long can the game be extended, as corrupt institutions game knowledge to their benefit at other's expense, before civilizational rot becomes noticeable to the point things like indoor plumbing become unreliable?

We are told what to believe and, especially, what not to believe by individuals we refer to as "journalists" lighting our black mirrors with the illusion of knowledge. The media's role, as I've discussed in great detail before, is not to inform but to persuade [*2].



The above 2015 cover from National Geographic illustrates the point. A variety of knowledge in disparate topics lies outside the expertise of those in the media. Yet, the media's opinions on what bodies of knowledge are socially acceptable to question or, more importantly, not to question, echo throughout civilization. Most people won't read the inside-text elaborating upon the media's opinions, but, instead, soak in the covers and headlines deployed as tools of social ostracism that frame the context of allowable opinion. Because knowledge that is deemed socially unacceptable to question is not critically examined, or allowed to be examined without social and/or financial burdens, it is subject to exploitation by the wicked, as behavior can be manipulated by blending falsehood with truth to bend the public toward a particular will [*3].

When this corruption sets in, as knowledge becomes not foundational but a proxy for whatever authorities deem true, we see the sunset of civilization. We stand in its long shadow.

The old adage of absolute power corrupting absolutely resonates in two particular areas I've discussed before: the global "pandemic" [*4] and the 2020/1 "elections," with comically-obvious criminal fraud even Mr. Magoo could see, for assuming control of the United States [*5], the world's most powerful military and economic power, for now. The old global order of corrupt authorities is dying, as it becomes increasingly clear that knowledge is a tool to manipulate people instead of facilitating self-guidance.

Repairing, restoring, or rebuilding civilization involves fixing knowledge so it is a tool of self-guidance instead of manipulation. Fixing knowledge involves study of civilization's most important tool: evidence. Let's break down evidence by its various forms to understand how to apply it better.

Circumstantial Versus Direct Evidence
When the media incessantly reassures us there is "no evidence" of voter fraud in the U.S. 2020/1 elections, they generally refer to direct evidence (which, of course, exists [*6]) and are disregarding powerful circumstantial evidence as, somehow, not evidence.

Direct evidence is usually deductive. Sam observes an event directly. Assuming (1) Sam's senses are working and (2) he is not lying, Sam's explanation of the event must be true. For example, Sam observed water pour in droplets from the open sky. Therefore, it was raining, as there is no other explanation for the water falling from the open sky. Water pouring from the open sky (regardless of visible clouds) is, definitionally, rain.

Circumstantial evidence is inductive. Terry is in a windowless room and observes Adam enter with a wet umbrella. Terry infers it is raining out. While it is possible that Adam dipped the umbrella into a bucket of water before entering to make the umbrella wet, it is far more likely it was simply raining outside. Therefore, Terry's observation of the wet umbrella makes us confident it was raining, even though Terry never saw it rain.

Direct and circumstantial evidence are often combined to make a powerful case. While Sam tells us it was raining out, Sam's senses could fail him (e.g., maybe he has dementia) or he could be lying. Terry, however, observing the wet umbrella backs Sam's assertion that it was raining out. Do you see how the combination of direct and circumstantial evidence compliment each other?

Scientific Evidence
In a world where the public gleans its impression of evidence from programs like CSI (Crime Scene Investigation, 2000-2015), a natural prejudice for circumstantial evidence is pervasive. In these television programs, crimes are solved with a fantasy form of direct evidence, science-fiction forensics and fantasy lab technology that often doesn't exist in the real world. Circumstantial evidence is used as a plot-twist device to surprise the viewer to make for a more entertaining program.

While it's certainly likely Terry's observation of the wet umbrella means it was raining outside, it's more exciting if we later discover Adam dipped the umbrella into a bucket of water to fool Terry. A story line is more exciting if some gizmo of science fiction scans the umbrella and indicates the water droplets are those of a bucket of tap water and not rain water. Thus, these programs train the public to be skeptical of circumstantial evidence, while impressing upon them gizmos existing to retroactively observe past events.

Sometimes we call this "scientific" evidence. But the public (or a jury) isn't trained in the expertise to understand scientific evidence. Instead, they rely not on the science directly but the expert's opinion of the science. If some machine or forensic test spits out a result, the public doesn't have the knowledge base to duplicate what the expert has done or access to the equipment to duplicate the results even if they did. The public simply listens to the expert's explanation and decides whether or not to trust him.

Such evidence may even appeal to the egos of listeners. By pretending they somehow understand the expert, listeners experience the prestige of the expert vicariously. Somehow, by accepting the methodology and conclusions of the expert, they gain a sense prestige they hadn't had before. This is common in the I-f*cking-love-science crowd that will watch a documentary on cosmology and engage in future conversations with friends and family as if they were somehow experts on the origin of the universe.

Of course, when the scientific conclusions change over time, listeners will modify their position accordingly with the new consensus. But listeners usually don't have the independent knowledge base or tool set to alter the view being explained. They instead rely on a rule of thumb, the heuristic that the odds the majority of the scientific, academic, and media communities all supporting the individual purporting the nugget of scientific knowledge in question are wrong must be fairly low. If the expert was wrong, surely others would call him out. The odds the expert is telling the truth, therefore, must be high.

We use this heuristic to make online purchases when we read reviews. We don't know first-hand if we'll like the product we are about to buy. But, if people are giving it good reviews, we trust the consensus and make our purchase based solely on our trust in the consensus opinion. Whenever a jury listens to an expert witness testify to any type of scientific conclusion, the same methodology is indirectly at work. If the expert was wrong, he wouldn't have gained the credentials he did. The expert has the credentials, so, therefore, the expert is probably right. But does the public truly know the expert got it right? How could we tell whether or not the expert was simply making something up or mistaken in his analysis or reliance on his equipment to give his opinion?

For this reason, courts are dubious of scientific evidence and often require painstaking evidentiary hearings on a particular scientific methodology (e.g., proving radar detectors can accurately measure the speed of a vehicle) before it can be formally accepted as evidence in future cases brought before the court [*7].



How Do We Know When Evidence Is Sufficient?
Both direct and circumstantial evidence have the possibility of falsehood. But we see how they compliment each other to give us confidence an event took place. Sam's testimony that he saw it raining out, combined with Terry's testimony that he saw the wet umbrella, combined with a scientist's forensic test that the umbrella was coated in the kind of water composition native to the clouds makes a compelling case that it was raining outside.

But a combination of these types of evidence isn't necessary to conclude an event happened. Powerful-enough direct evidence is convincing. Despite no video recording, if ten witnesses independently testify they saw an event happen, we can be confident that event happened.

The same is true with sufficiently-powerful circumstantial evidence. Sam, Terry, and I are in a room. Sam forces me out of that room over my objection, and I see him covering up the windows to the room with cardboard. Sam emerges from the room and says Terry killed himself. I didn't see Sam kill Terry. But the fact that Sam forced me out of the room over my objection and covered the windows is powerful circumstantial evidence that Sam killed Terry. It is possible Terry killed himself, but not probable. And allowing Sam to get away with his obfuscation, regardless of this possibility, would be naïve and unjust.

Most evidence is circumstantial, not direct. Very rarely is there a video or witness observing someone directly committing a crime. In the above scenario, let's say we heard two gunshots come from the room. Terry probably didn't commit suicide by pulling the trigger twice on himself, but, I guess it's possible. The two gunshots being heard are still circumstantial evidence. Even if we see through the window Sam pull out a gun and point it at Terry before the windows are covered, it's still possible Terry took the gun from Sam and shot himself. The only possible "direct" evidence would be a confession from Sam. And if we disregard all circumstantial evidence, inquiries into what really happened when there are no witnesses or video recordings would be limited to obtaining confessions from the perpetrators.

If we see a gunshot-ridden dead body in the middle of the street with no gun next to it, it is possible that the person commit suicide and a random street dog picked up the gun and ran away with it. But it's certainly not probable. The conclusion that the person was murdered is circumstantial.

Imagine a policy where we must simply wait a period of time to see if there's a confession from a killer and, if not, conclude the death must have been a suicide. This is the kind of evidentiary burden the media imposes when they assert there is "no evidence" Joe Biden was not legitimately elected.

Knowledge of human events can never be perfect. We see through a glass darkly. But we see enough to make confident conclusions about events in our lives. Of those conclusions, we make judgements and enforce those judgments. And circumstantial evidence is a powerful tool for justice. Without it, few people would be held accountable for any unethical behavior.

So ask yourself. What events and activities in your day-to-day life are you acknowledging and engaging/disengaging in based upon evidence versus the assumption that because everyone else believes something is so, it must truly be so?

The Longest Shadow
The two times we see shadows the longest are at sunset and sundown. What does it mean to live in the long shadow? We could be in the midst of the collapse of an old era, as the Sun sets upon our corrupt global order. But new civilizations will emerge as we move to more local jurisdictions assuming control, as people move to places more aligned with reason, less focus on materialism, and a more spiritual living.

Human flourishing involves transforming our basis for knowledge. We need to rely less on the consensus of corrupt authorities manipulating our assumptions of what is true and more on foundational knowledge. Foundational knowledge is how civilizations are built again. Embrace evidence in the long shadow.

------
FOOTNOTES

[*1] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-broken-thumb-heuristics-in-fall-of.html
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-role-of-media-in-post-democratic-era.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/what-is-wicked.html
[*4] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-broken-thumb-heuristics-in-fall-of.html
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/planning-for-post-democratic-divided.html
[*6] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-measure-of-cowardice-and-sociopathy.html
[*7] https://incorporated.zone/daubert-standard