I am proposing a new social science – Panickology. Science is an endeavor to look for patterns. Panickology will be the systematic study of how we are pushed out of the normal ruts of our lives and into getting involved in somebody else’s project. The techniques people use to push us into believing something or taking some action have lots in common, whether the question at hand is climate, racism or public health.
Hegel wrote "If the facts disagree with the theory, so much the worse for the facts." That goes double for theology, and in most of these domains people hold convictions with religious fervor. The books I review address facts in each most of the domains that I've listed below. The reviews don't get a wide readership, and neither do the books. People are quite content not to respond to the facts we present as they religiously hang on to their dogmas.
A sense of moral superiority accompanies adherence to dogmas. Not only is the author of any such book presumed to be wrong, and the reviewer by extension, but we are morally culpable for even entertaining such beliefs. Not to believe in global warming is a sin against the great God Gaia. Not to ascribe to such divine precepts as diversity, equity or inclusion is to mark oneself as a moral midget, unworthy of being taken seriously. And certainly, to be tarred as a racist.
Since the facts that I summarize in the reviews are at odds with the received wisdom of the progressives, I must be wrong and must therefore be silenced. As YouTube, Facebook and Amazon have decided, my heresy cannot be tolerated. So, I am shunned, silenced, deprived of a voice, left to mutter as did Galileo with regard to the solar system "Eppur si muove". Nonetheless it moves!
Why should I care? Where are their beliefs leading? Bill Gates now wants to jab denizens of the poor countries of Africa with ineffective vaccines. Malaria this time. Last time it was tetanus vaccines that surreptitiously made women sterile. Time before that, as I recall, it was in the Philippines. At best he is squandering his wealth in a way that doesn't directly hurt me. If he is poisoning Africans or making them infertile, it means less demographic pressure on Europe when my children come of age. I could quibble about the morality of what he is up to, but on the other hand my fellow citizens had few qualms about the morality of his wanting to force the mRNA slurry into my arm. Why should I care about them?
The Ivy League midwits who infest the government, academia and the media resolutely resist what their more intelligent brethren - Brett Weinstein, Steve Kirsch, Harvey Risch, Jessica Rose, Alex Bernstein and others – tell them about the dangers of the Covid jobs. Said midwits neither listen for nor hear about problems from the people around them. They ignore the statistics on plummeting birth rates, spontaneous abortions and sudden deaths that are cited in all quarters. Should I care if, due either to their own premature deaths or their lack of fertility, they are not represented in the next generation? Medical considerations aside, a vast number of them subscribe to the notion that having children is unnecessary and even immoral. Their dogma holds that there are no differences among people, and therefore other people's children are interchangeable with their own. It seems I would benefit if these beliefs were less well represented in the next generation.
Looking to my own genomic interest, my children will probably be better off in a world uncluttered by them and their descendants. They will have a better chance of finding mates if the people in their society believe in their own culture and in children. They will have a better chance of finding comrades who believe that what they have is worth defending. So, whereas the above-mentioned Covid skeptics are sounding the tocsin to convince their insouciant fellow citizens of the danger the jabs, my children might be served by my simply shutting up, protecting my family, and letting things continue as they are. Imagining that my writings could alter the course of history seems amazingly presumptive in any case.
Starting from the 1950s, here below is a catalog of panics I recall. It is obviously incomplete. I am sure to have left out entire categories. Please suggest additions in the comments below.
The bibliographies of the books I review are often very impressive. I seldom find that I have read more than 10% of the sources they cite. It is usually enough, however, to convince me that the authors know what they are talking about. I can feel confident citing them. That will be one of my projects going forward. To draw on what I have read in presenting my own views, mostly within the categories given below. Look for my musings about the commonalities among these panics here.
In other news, I have solved only two of the math problems I recently presented: the island of truth tellers and liars, and Pirate Joe. If anybody (Al?) has solved any others, I'd like to see what you came up with.
That's the news from Lake WeBeGone, where the strong man finally feels back up to about 90% after being hammered by a series of colds. This afternoon the exercise bicycle will tell me how much ground I have to make up.
In Japan, a method of governance that has been said since ancient times (I don't know how long) is ``Don't let people know, let them rely on the ruler, and the way to do that is to instill fear in people.''
So Panickology might be an interesting field.
Politicians might be interested.
Why not study Delightenology as well?
The fundamental question is how it affects people's sensibilities, and sensibilities vary greatly from person to person and from time to time, so statistical methods may be necessary.
Quite a list of panics. Is it because we have surplus time/energy for such things? Bit of social paranoia? Loss of barber shops/pubs/interaction - or too much of that? For most of that I was preoccupied with making a living for my family as my forebears did.