H3N2 and Me

 From Caesar to clickbait: writing lasts forever…

What is truth, really?

Is it something we all agree on — a kind of social contract?

Or is it merely what each of us chooses to believe?

Day after day we are bombarded with information presented as absolutely true: online, in news feeds, newspapers, comment sections, expert panels, you name it.

Take climate science. I’m no scientist. Yet almost daily I stumble upon alarming articles predicting the end of the world due to global warming. How am I supposed to verify these claims, based on research models I’ve never seen and wouldn’t know how to interpret even if someone handed them to me?

Does my ignorance make the predictions true?

I’m no computer genius either. Still, I’m told that AI will do more harm than good. Once again, ignorance gets in the way and I’m expected to simply trust one of the countless experts.

Hence my growing questions — and apprehensions — about the very concept of truth.

We tend to believe what people with authority or expertise tell us. We accept their words as truth.

But are they?

How can we know?

And what if the “truth” presented to us is really just a story crafted to serve someone’s hidden agenda — political, economic, commercial?

Manipulative, convenient, profitable.

Fake news has become a cliché, shouted by both sides whenever they dislike the other’s version of events. Whoever shouts loudest wins.

A biased journalist interviewing a politician who is stingy with the truth reveals precisely nothing. Yet the result is printed or aired. And then it’s up to the viewer or reader to accept or reject what was said.

Sad but true.

We all bear responsibility. Information is out there — literally at our fingertips. It’s up to the public to make the effort to look for it. Why? Simply to avoid being misinformed, or worse: disinformed.

One day, today’s events will fill the pages of history books. But with what version?

Whose version?

It makes you view history in a completely different light, doesn’t it?

Not as an endless chain of facts, but as a story written by the victor, designed for self-glorification, convincing the world — and posterity — that “this is what really happened.”

Take Julius Caesar. Ambitious beyond reason, he wrote the De Bello Gallico not for history, but for political gain — to impress the people of Rome. The Belgae, according to him, were the bravest and fiercest of all tribes.

Why?

Because one of his legions had been massacred in the forests of the Ardennes due to his own underestimation and poor strategy.

Replacing a legion cost time and money. He couldn’t sweep the embarrassment under the carpet, so he exaggerated the strength of the enemy to hide his own failure.

For centuries, Caesar’s version was accepted as historical fact.

Or the First Crusades. They had little to do with the Kingdom of Heaven. They were mostly a convenient solution to end internal European strife. Emerging from the long sleep of the Dark Ages, nobles were still fighting over land and settling feuds. Sending them off to war in a faraway land — with a papal blessing — brought peace at home, strengthened monarchies and the Church. Religion was not the main motive.

How many such stories throughout history are nothing more than half-true accounts, crafted for political expediency?

And how much of what happens today will be truthfully passed on to future generations?

The rather sad outcome is that I now confront every piece of news with a certain cynicism. The elasticity — the sheer pliability — of truth turns almost every news item into a potential lie. It’s the slow death of journalism.

I do still believe the weather girl, though.

When she beams at the camera and proudly tells me what the weather was today — surely she wouldn’t lie about that… would she?

What is truth? Is it something we all agree upon? A convention of some sort? Or ist merely what we believe to be true? Day after day after day we are bombarded with information that is presented to us as being absolutly true, online, in news feeds, news papers and the likes.

For instance, I am no scientist. Almost daily i am confronted with alarming articles predicting the end of the world due to global warming. How can i verify these predictions based on research models i have never seen and wouldn't now how to interpret if i did? Does my ingnorance make those prediction true?

I am no computer genius either.Still, AI is said to do more arm than good. Agai my igorance gets in the way and i should rely on he opinion of one of the many experts.

Hence my many questions and apprehensions concerning the concept of truth. We all tend to believe what persons we bestow with a degree of authority or expertise tell us. We accept their words as truth. 

But are they really? How can we tell? What if what is presented as such is a just a story that serves someone's hidden agenda? For political, economic or commercial ends? Manipulative and devious.

With fake news a hot topic these days, questions should rise about the value of truth. Sides that disagree with eachother's version descend to exclaiming 'fake news' on the top of their voices. The loudest wins the argument.

A biased journalist interviewing a politician who is himself scarse with the truth, reveals nothing, uncovers nothing. Yet it gets printed or aired. It is up to the reader or viewer to accept or reject what was said. Sad but true. We all  bare responsibility. Information is out there. On the tip of our fingers actually. It is up to the general public to make the effort and look for it. Why? Simply to not to be misinformed, desinformed.

One day, today's events will fill history book pages. With what and whose version of said events?

This all makes you look at history in a totally different light, doesn't it. Not as an endless factual account but as a story the victor had penned down, much to self-glorification, and with it convinced the world and posteriority that 'this is what really transpired'.

Julius Caesar, ambitious beyond reason, wrote down his conquest of Gaule in 'De Bello Gallico'. Not meant for the history books but to impress the people back home in Rome as part of his political aspirations. The Belgae were hailed as the fiercest and bravest warriors in his account. Why? Because an entire legion was massacred in the Ardennes' forests because of underestimation and poor Roman strategies.Replacing a legion took time and money. He could not brush this humiliation to his person and image under the carpet, so he exagerated the opponents skills to hide his own shortcomings.

For long Caesar's version of the facts was regarded as 'historic fact'.

The first crusades had little to do with the Kingdom of Heaven. They were a way to finish internal strife in Europe. Slowly emerging from the slumber of the Dark Ages, instability was still raging because of nobility were fighting over land or settling feuds. Going off to war in a faraway land with a papal blessing was a solution to bring peace over Europe, strengthening the papal seat and thrones of the monarchs. Religion was not the main concern.

How many similar historic stories would also be no more than semi-false accounts of events? How much of what goes on today will be truthfully passed on to future generations?

The sad consequence is that these days i confront all news with some cyniscism. The elasticity and pliability of the truth turns virtually news item in a possible lie. It's the death of journalism. I do still believe the weather girl though when she proudly and with a big smile tells me what weather it was today. She wouldn't lie about that, would she?