Deviation Actions
A very simple, valid, reliable, testable framework for investigating reality is what I shall pretentiously place into the parlance per the phrase "plausible possibility permutations."
One day I should like to give this a more thorough and formal treatment, but for the time being I shall relate the gist of what I mean:
Pursuant to the principles of the scientific method, when presented by media with the narrative of an event, one should remain skeptical as to the facts, interpretations, and conclusions of the story being disseminated, as there is absolutely zero rational prima facie reason for believing anything in the media except because one has been indoctrinated into accepting anything and everything presented as a "just-so" reality by the theatre directors. While this strategy and attitude is the proper rational approach to any "information," it is particularly relevant to the media of our day and age, because media does not evolve through random processes/events, natural selection, and (legitimate) "peer review" in an environment of competing, decentralized news agencies and news consumers, the optimal state for having any average reliance on "credible" news from "credible" sources, but in a tightly controlled, centralized, standardized, sanitized, non-random, agenda-driven, bottleneck system that allows for a wide latitude of manipulation, not only of the "facts" and the perception thereof, but of the emotional state and primitive thinking circuits of the necessarily brainwashed, pre-programmed masses, and in which system there is great and obvious incentive for those pulling the levers to construct fabricated or distorted realities that benefit their particular motives.
So, for instance, it is no more rational to assume that a news story should be taken at face value, the facts should be accepted as given, and that the event itself is random or isolated, than it is to assume that the event is fabricated, distorted, or non-random; in fact, the latter is a MORE rational position to take given the demonstrable nature of media and government and the vast historical context behind events that suggest that the second position should be the default position; the possibility that the event is a hoax or manipulated is MORE likely and MORE logical given the nature of the system; of course, the system "teaches" otherwise.
Then, when one has mentally prepared oneself to operate in a scientifically disinterested mode, one can begin critically analyzing the evidence and collecting additional pieces of it, and, where roughly equally plausible or "credible" evidence exists for mutually exclusive narratives, one can tend to eliminate the one that leads to contradictions, verges on implausibility if not impossibility, or does not hold up well to the historical and political context in which it takes place relative to the alternatives.
But even before immersing oneself deeply into this step, one must be prepared to hypothesize about the true nature of any reported event, and it is perfectly logical and rational as part of this process to assume that the popular narrative is false in one or more major ways and to insert an alternate theory right from the start as a lens through which to investigate the event. Now, contrary to popular opinion from people who don't understand the scientific method, the nature of theorizing, or philosophy of science, it is not necessarily at all improper to find facts that conform to one's theory rather than find a theory that fits one's facts--properly understood and executed--especially since neither strategy exists in pure form, neither strategy can exist without the other, and since the first "faulty" strategy is actually impossible to avoid and part of the second.
One of the most powerful tools of the media and its controllers is treating events as if they exist in a vacuum, as if they are isolated, singular, and discrete--in other words, devoid of CONTEXT, historical, social, economic, political, etc. This confers upon the preferred narrative facility with respect to automatic acceptance by the public and difficulty vis-a-vis any sort of questioning or skepticism. When context enters into the equation, this allows the investigator to consider more likely possibilities, especially as clues emerge that guide hither or thither.
Now, to our "plausible possibility permutations," or, perhaps, "construct combinatorics." (I always wanted to be a neologist.)
If conditions, circumstances, actions, events, decisions, etc., can happen, have been known to happen, do happen, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive or contradictory of one another in a plausibility or cause-and-effect manner, then we can deduce that various combinations of these events, choices, etc., have happened, are happening, or will happen--indeed, MUST happen--somewhere in the vast, if you will, "probability matrix" of the countless bilions of interactions of human beings in society. Now, constructing our chain of reasoning about events, or constructing our hypothetical chain of events, obviously not everything has the same probability or frequency, and thus reference to context is a must...
So this is a more concrete explanation in a nutshell, as this has become rambling and vague:
Society has a certain degree of consistency and predictability, because the physical world, including human behavior, is governed by certain laws and constraints that follow repeatable patterns, and thus certain events or outcomes appear in the world with a fairly reliable frequency. Everyone expects that, in the future, literally from the next instant forward, murder will happen, marriages will occur, deaths will happen, etc. And people have a general notion of how common any of this is, even without direct reference to reliable statistics on the matter.
No one thinks that there will never be murders ever again, or that the murder rate will be, say, 1 million this year and 1 the next (obviously absent some "black swan" type event), for the same reasons outlined above.
Everyone understands that humans are motivated by incentives, and that incentives exist for just about anything.
So, for instance, given certain conditions or institutions, if there is an incentive for, say, the Defense Department or the intelligence apparatus of the Federal government to create hoax terror events or to actually carry out a genuine terror event but make it appear as if someone else has committed it, and all this because these scenarios would guarantee increased budgets for the agencies involved and increased profits for their contractors, then it is logical, rational and reasonable to assume that over a sufficient span of time, such an event ALMOST CERTAINLY NECESSARILY WILL HAPPEN, by "combining" the incentive (money and power), the institutional and political environment (a trend toward diminishing apparent justification for existing or greater levels of military spending), the actors (the military and intelligence apparati), the means (the vast resources, human and technologic, of those agencies), and any event that could even conceivably hypothetically fall into this combination category (9/11).
Of course, after allowing for this possibility, and understanding that in a real sense it is an inevitability, attributing it to any particular instance relies on the facts, evidence, etc...
But if the public can't even conceive of alternative realities to the ones spoon-fed them by the media and government, how can they ever consider the facts in an unbiased, scientifically disinterested manner? How can they ever have any real skepticism? How can they ever imagine seeming "counterfactuals"? Indeed, how could they ever consider all the evidence, when the only evidence permitted is that which supports the official narrative?
Let me give another illustration. Given that medicine in this country is not a free market, that it is not decentralized, competitive, free of legal barriers and restrictions, not open to the agendas and scientific arguments and persuasion of all, does not experience true natural selection, and is subject to a central authority in terms of what is considered safe and effective and what is considered "real" science or what is considered as a possible avenue of investigation, and that this central authority will ultimately decide and dictate all aspects of the system according to the very real, non-negligible, undeniable incentives, motives, and agendas of those within that authority or otherwise controlling or influencing it from without...
Given all of this, we can predict that various major medical hoaxes would arise and exist, flawed medical paradigms would persist artificially long and would overturn relatively slowly even in the face of a quickly accumulating preponderance of evidence against them; we can anticipate, not merely faulty science, but heavily skewed, politicized, biased, and intentionally falsified science; and various similar things.
Well, when one examines the evidence, we see that this theory rings true and tests accurately according to the model.
For instance, the government-sanctioned "food pyramid", now known to be terribly faulty, persisted long after it became apparent that revision was needed; low-fat diets for weight loss were en vogue long after it was demonstrated that, not only were many previously villainized fats, like coconut oil, were discovered to be good for you, but that low-fat diets were high in carbs which almost necessarily meant weight-loss failure, and that carbs were as much if not more the culprit for arterial plaque and high cholesterol as any "bad fat."
Vaccines are demonstrated to be dangerous and ineffective, as the swine-flu-vaccine hearings of the 70s ilustrated, and the government awarding of $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to over 3,000 victims of vaccine-related injuries, among other pieces of evidence. Cannabis is a Schedule 1 drug despite countless evidence that it has medicinal benefits and no evidence of long-term harm. Flouride has been found by a Harvard study to be bad for you...And the list goes on.
The evidence for faulty science, malfeasance, corruption, and bad medicine is legion; however, we do not even have to yet find the evidence to know to expect that, given the nature of the system as outlined above, such instances almost NECESSARILY MUST OCCUR.
