9 ms·

> For topics that can be understood using experimentation, faith is not required. To put this another way, faith is the excuse people give to rationalize belie

> For topics that can be understood using experimentation, faith is not required. To put this another way, faith is the excuse people give to rationalize believing in things for which they have no verifiable evidence.

xyzelement 3y ago
Faith is the (a) recognition that we're limited beings whose perception and thinking are ultimately inadequate to understand objective reality and (b) a set of beliefs you take on for dealing with that unknowable space. (a) is obviously true even if you're a complete atheist. EG, there's no reason to assume that evolution endowed us with ability to understand the objective reality anymore than it has endowed some deaf and blind deepwater creature that ability. Since we all engage in life despite the limitations of (a), we are all making assumptions about the nature of reality whether we call it faith or not. EG, in the absence of us being able to know for certain why/how/by whom the universe was created, religious people make one assumption (purposeful creation and the meaning of life that it implies) while atheists make another one (random accident and the meaninglessness it implies.) You can't "see" that accident anymore than you can "see" G-d, so the amount of faith required to believe one or the other (or any other variation) is the same. So yes, there's room for faith and we all operate on it. Back to the topic at hand, prayer is in the domain of religious faith, so it's meaningless for a non-religious person to test it out.
- angoragoats 3y ago
  I absolutely do not agree that (a) is obviously true, for several reasons, so you are going to need to clarify and then provide some evidence to back that claim. 1) What does "understand objective reality" mean, specifically? 2) Please provide evidence that we currently do not "understand objective reality." 3) Please provide evidence that we do not possess the ability to _ever_ "understand objective reality." > we all operate on it [citation needed] > prayer is in the domain of religious faith, so it's meaningless for a non-religious person to test it out This is extremely presumptuous. What is your rationale that Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin was "non-religious" at the time she conducted the experiment? (Hint: you'll need to show that she had a complete lack of religious belief, not only a lack of belief in the religion(s) you're familiar with.) EDIT: there's also a whole load of other fallacious crap in your comment that I haven't even addressed. We cannot assume the universe was created at all for any purpose; atheism has nothing to do with "random accidents" or any supposed meaning attached to them; having no reason to assume something does not imply its negation, etc etc.
  - xyzelement 3y ago
    // 2) Please provide evidence that we currently do not "understand objective reality." Would you trust yourself, or any other human, or humanity, to answer the question "describe the true process of the universe's creation?"
    - sorokod 3y ago
      Curious about the word 'true' there, are you asking about the Planck Epoch of the big bang?
    - angoragoats 3y ago
      Sorry, did you mean to quote something different in my post? Questions are not evidence. It’d be extremely helpful if you gave a specific definition of “understand objective reality” as I asked in #1 before moving on to 2 and 3. If you’re saying that “understand objective reality” means “knowing the true process of the universe’s creation” I’d counter that baked into that is the assumption that the universe was created, which is not necessarily the case, so you’d additionally need to provide evidence for that.
    - daynthelife 3y ago
      That question is implicitly suggesting that the universe was created. If that turns out not to be the case, then not even an omniscient being could answer it correctly. It would be equivalent to asking “describe the true process by which the Earth came to be flat.” Of course, humanity does not understand everything about the universe. For instance, there is still the huge open problem of unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics, which is essential to understanding the very early universe (the standard model starts to lose accuracy prior to 10^(-32) seconds after the Big Bang [0]). But that does not mean humanity will never understand such things. And in case you are thinking “we’ll never know for sure; we’ll only have theories”: I contend that all knowledge is inherently probabilistic. To claim to know something with absolute, 100% certainty is a fallacy [1]. After studying math my whole life, I am pretty confident that multiplication of integers is commutative. Is it possible that I have misunderstood numbers for my whole life, or that I am hallucinating right now, or that all of humanity has made the same mistake throughout all of history without realizing it? Yes. Just very, very improbable. But that does not take away from the notion of understanding. One can understand an idea, while simultaneously recognizing that there is a small chance their understanding is flawed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch [1] The notions of “probability 1” and “certain” are actually distinct; for instance, if you flipped a coin for every integer, the probability that at least one would turn up heads is 1, even though it is possible for them to all land tails. That being said, the existence of real-life phenomena (cosmic rays, parasites, etc.) that could affect our minds at any given time ensures that no claims of knowledge can ever have probability exactly 1.
- ta999239 3y ago
  > You can't "see" that accident anymore than you can "see" G-d, so the amount of faith required to believe one or the other (or any other variation) is the same. This is atrociously false. The amount of assumptions you need for intelligent design FAR outweigh the theory of evolution by natural selection plus standard cosmogony (big bang theory). For the former you need everything to ALREADY exist in the "mind" of the creator, but for the latter all you need is a big bang and a RNG. It's completely silly to put these two hypotheses on equal footing. Also, God knows what you meant, no need to hide it.
- roflyear 3y ago
  > Faith is the (a) recognition that we're limited beings whose perception and thinking are ultimately inadequate to understand objective reality and (b) a set of beliefs you take on for dealing with that unknowable space. This is fine, until you use those beliefs to rationalize made-up explanations for things where there otherwise exist rational explanations! Mostly this happens when those rational explanations cause trouble for other deeply-rooted "beliefs." (I would call it zealotry at the dinner table, but I'm being nice!) For example, the people in the US who deny much of science because of young-earth creationist beliefs.
- HerculePoirot 3y ago
  Very much agree. The space of ideas and percepts is just too big to be grasped in one broad "objective" view of the whole scene. This is a matter of computational limitation. Faith is what setups the context for post-diction[1]. You can think of it as the prompt/messages you feed to a LLM. In fact, in order to help me write my previous comment (in another thread [2]), I fed some pdfs to claude-100k on poe.com in order to compare Italino Calvino's "Cybernetics and Ghosts" with the esoteric ideas of Voevodsky. Since this is relevant to the discussion, I will quote it in full. > Claude: Unfortunately Italo Calvino's lecture "Cybernetics and Ghosts" does not discuss the paranormal. The lecture focuses on exploring the relationship between literature, language, and emerging ideas in fields like cybernetics, information theory, and structural linguistics. The uppercase emphasis is mine. > Me: I do think there are parallels between Voevodsky's interview and Calivno's text: > Calvino says, > "Now, some of you may wonder why I so gaily announce prospects that in most men of letters arouse tearful laments punctuated by cries of execration. The reason is that I have always known, more or less obscurely, that things stood this way, not the way they were commonly said to stand. Various aesthetic theories maintained that poetry was a matter of inspiration descending from I know not what lofty place, or welling up from I know not what great depths, or else pure intuition, or an otherwise not identified moment in the life of the spirit, or the Voice of the Times with which the Spirit of the World chooses to speak to the poet, or a reflection of social structures that by means of some unknown optical phenomenon is projected on the page, or a direct grasp on the psychology of the depths that enables us to ladle out images of the unconscious, both individual and collective; or at any rate SOMETHING INTUITIVE, IMMEDIATE, AUTHENTIC, AND ALL-EMBRACING THAT SPRINGS UP WHO KNOWS HOW, SOMETHING EQUIVALENT AND HOMOLOGOUS TO SOMETHING ELSE, and symbolic of it. But in these theories there always remained a void that no one knew how to fill, a zone of darkness between cause and effect: how does one arrive at the written page? By what route is the soul or history or society or the subconscious transformed into a series of black lines on a white page?" > Claude: > > You make an interesting parallel between Calvino and Voevodsky here. While Calvino is focused more on literature and ideas of inspiration/creativity, there are similarities to Voevodsky's perspective: > Both question prevailing notions or "aesthetic theories" about where artistic/literary works come from (inspiration from some mystical source for Calvino, materialist paradigms for Voevodsky). > They see a "void" or "zone of darkness" in these theories around how abstract ideas/processes are concretely manifested in a work. > Calvino wonders how the soul/history is transformed into written lines - paralleling Voevodsky's exploration of realms like the paranormal/supernatural that influence human consciousness/behavior but are not scientifically understood. > Their stances acknowledge gaps in conventional understandings and an openness to alternative explanations outside dominant frameworks. > So while focused on different domains, they both exhibit a skepticism of dominant ideologies and a willingness to consider non-traditional influences. There is a parallel curiosity about gaps or unknown processes connecting the abstract/internal to the concrete expression. This relates to Voevodsky's open-minded investigations into areas like the paranormal that lie outside standard paradigms. NICE OBSERVATION OF A PHILOSOPHICAL SIMILARITY IN THEIR PERSPECTIVES. To make this comment homologuous to my previous one ([2]), I'll punctuate it with an excerpt from Grothendieck's "The key to dreams": > Act of knowledge and act of faith > (16 May) I wrote yesterday that there was no other key for the "great dream" than the spiritual hunger of the soul. When, still under the impression of the dream you have just had, you know how to listen to the humble voice of this hunger, then, even without knowing it, you are turning a delicate and sure key. And I wish you the grace not to stop halfway, before the bolt is erased and the door, locked for a lifetime, opens... > I have also thought about faith in the dream. When I woke up under the sudden influx of an emotion so great that my soul could not contain it, I knew immediately, in an unquestionable way: this dream was speaking to me, and what it was telling me with such overwhelming power, it was important, it was crucial that I become aware of it. I knew this, not because I had read it somewhere or thought about it one day, but through an immediate and certain knowledge. Just as it happens, when someone speaks to you (and it matters not whether you know them or are seeing them for the first time), that you know in a sure way, without having to question yourself, that what they are telling you is true. This is not an impression, more or less strong or convincing, but a knowledge. Impression can deceive, but not this knowledge. Certainly, you yourself must be in a particular state, a state of openness, or rigor, or truth (call it what you like), to be able clearly to distinguish, without any shadow of a doubt, between a simple impression and such an immediate knowledge. Such discernment, whether perceived in the field of consciousness or remaining subconscious (and it matters little here), is not of the order of reason, or of an intuition of intellectual nature. It is an act of spiritual perception. In that instant, the spiritual eye in us, which perceives and distinguishes the true from the false, is open or ajar and sees. [1]: https://cifma.github.io/Papers-2021/CIFMA_2021_paper_13.pdf https://cifma.github.io/Papers-2021/CIFMA_2021_paper_13.pdf > Abstract. A great number of methods and of accounts of rationality consider at their foundations some form of Bayesian inference. Yet, Bayes’ rule, because it relies upon probability theory, requires specific axioms to hold (e.g. a measurable space of events). This short document hypothesizes that Bayes’ rule can be seen as a specific instance of a more general inferential template, that can be expressed also in terms of algorithmic complexities, namely through the measure of unexpectedness proposed by Simplicity Theory. [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37903794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37903794
Dove 3y ago
That is the definition of faith used by the irreligious -- as hostile a definition as if you asked one political party to explain the beliefs of the other! An insider, and particularly a Christian, would never define faith that way. Speaking as a Christian myself, I would say faith is belief in motion. And I would say that faith doesn't oppose rationality and evidence, but is rather sort of orthogonal to it. Let us suppose you believe there is a horrible and dangerous pandemic going on outside your house. You rationally are afraid to go outside. And then as days pass, you gather evidence that the pandemic has subsided and things are safe now. At first you don't trust it. And then you think it might be true. And then probably true. And then virtually certain. That process of gathering evidence and becoming more certain is rationality. Faith... is when you go outside. Belief in motion. Now, that step out the door can happen at any point. It can happen when you first hear a hint that things are better, and in a reckless rush of hope, you run outside. It can happen long after you are certain certain certain and fear keeps you inside too long. These are both examples of bad faith, unhealthy faith, faith misused. A Christian speaking of faith really means healthy faith - you go out when you should. Sound faith doesn't imply a lack of evidence, or complete evidence either. It's about deciding the evidence is sufficient and moving forward from there. And it's not only that - it's faith in something. If you step outside because a certain analyst convinced you it was safe, and you later take that same analyst's advice on diet, and on this, and on that, and it keeps working out - you are growing in faith in that analyst. Eventually, you may trust them quite a lot. This is what I would say faith is: belief in motion, working towards building trust.
- angoragoats 3y ago
  I simply rephrased the parent post’s definition of faith, nothing more. There is a lot of nonsense, bad analogies, and fallacious reasoning here that I don’t care to respond to individually, so I’ll just ask a question that should be easy for you to answer given your explanation, and will also let you pick up a Nobel Prize or similar award if you answer successfully: What is your evidence for god existing? In other words, framed in terms of your (bad) pandemic analogy, what is your equivalent to the verifiable evidence gathered showing that the pandemic is subsiding?
  - 3y ago

xyzelement 3y ago

Faith is the (a) recognition that we're limited beings whose perception and thinking are ultimately inadequate to understand objective reality and (b) a set of beliefs you take on for dealing with that unknowable space. (a) is obviously true even if you're a complete atheist. EG, there's no reason to assume that evolution endowed us with ability to understand the objective reality anymore than it has endowed some deaf and blind deepwater creature that ability. Since we all engage in life despite the limitations of (a), we are all making assumptions about the nature of reality whether we call it faith or not. EG, in the absence of us being able to know for certain why/how/by whom the universe was created, religious people make one assumption (purposeful creation and the meaning of life that it implies) while atheists make another one (random accident and the meaninglessness it implies.) You can't "see" that accident anymore than you can "see" G-d, so the amount of faith required to believe one or the other (or any other variation) is the same. So yes, there's room for faith and we all operate on it. Back to the topic at hand, prayer is in the domain of religious faith, so it's meaningless for a non-religious person to test it out.

angoragoats 3y ago
I absolutely do not agree that (a) is obviously true, for several reasons, so you are going to need to clarify and then provide some evidence to back that claim. 1) What does "understand objective reality" mean, specifically? 2) Please provide evidence that we currently do not "understand objective reality." 3) Please provide evidence that we do not possess the ability to _ever_ "understand objective reality." > we all operate on it [citation needed] > prayer is in the domain of religious faith, so it's meaningless for a non-religious person to test it out This is extremely presumptuous. What is your rationale that Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin was "non-religious" at the time she conducted the experiment? (Hint: you'll need to show that she had a complete lack of religious belief, not only a lack of belief in the religion(s) you're familiar with.) EDIT: there's also a whole load of other fallacious crap in your comment that I haven't even addressed. We cannot assume the universe was created at all for any purpose; atheism has nothing to do with "random accidents" or any supposed meaning attached to them; having no reason to assume something does not imply its negation, etc etc.
- xyzelement 3y ago
  // 2) Please provide evidence that we currently do not "understand objective reality." Would you trust yourself, or any other human, or humanity, to answer the question "describe the true process of the universe's creation?"
  - sorokod 3y ago
    Curious about the word 'true' there, are you asking about the Planck Epoch of the big bang?
  - angoragoats 3y ago
    Sorry, did you mean to quote something different in my post? Questions are not evidence. It’d be extremely helpful if you gave a specific definition of “understand objective reality” as I asked in #1 before moving on to 2 and 3. If you’re saying that “understand objective reality” means “knowing the true process of the universe’s creation” I’d counter that baked into that is the assumption that the universe was created, which is not necessarily the case, so you’d additionally need to provide evidence for that.
  - daynthelife 3y ago
    That question is implicitly suggesting that the universe was created. If that turns out not to be the case, then not even an omniscient being could answer it correctly. It would be equivalent to asking “describe the true process by which the Earth came to be flat.” Of course, humanity does not understand everything about the universe. For instance, there is still the huge open problem of unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics, which is essential to understanding the very early universe (the standard model starts to lose accuracy prior to 10^(-32) seconds after the Big Bang [0]). But that does not mean humanity will never understand such things. And in case you are thinking “we’ll never know for sure; we’ll only have theories”: I contend that all knowledge is inherently probabilistic. To claim to know something with absolute, 100% certainty is a fallacy [1]. After studying math my whole life, I am pretty confident that multiplication of integers is commutative. Is it possible that I have misunderstood numbers for my whole life, or that I am hallucinating right now, or that all of humanity has made the same mistake throughout all of history without realizing it? Yes. Just very, very improbable. But that does not take away from the notion of understanding. One can understand an idea, while simultaneously recognizing that there is a small chance their understanding is flawed. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch [1] The notions of “probability 1” and “certain” are actually distinct; for instance, if you flipped a coin for every integer, the probability that at least one would turn up heads is 1, even though it is possible for them to all land tails. That being said, the existence of real-life phenomena (cosmic rays, parasites, etc.) that could affect our minds at any given time ensures that no claims of knowledge can ever have probability exactly 1.
ta999239 3y ago
> You can't "see" that accident anymore than you can "see" G-d, so the amount of faith required to believe one or the other (or any other variation) is the same. This is atrociously false. The amount of assumptions you need for intelligent design FAR outweigh the theory of evolution by natural selection plus standard cosmogony (big bang theory). For the former you need everything to ALREADY exist in the "mind" of the creator, but for the latter all you need is a big bang and a RNG. It's completely silly to put these two hypotheses on equal footing. Also, God knows what you meant, no need to hide it.
roflyear 3y ago
> Faith is the (a) recognition that we're limited beings whose perception and thinking are ultimately inadequate to understand objective reality and (b) a set of beliefs you take on for dealing with that unknowable space. This is fine, until you use those beliefs to rationalize made-up explanations for things where there otherwise exist rational explanations! Mostly this happens when those rational explanations cause trouble for other deeply-rooted "beliefs." (I would call it zealotry at the dinner table, but I'm being nice!) For example, the people in the US who deny much of science because of young-earth creationist beliefs.
HerculePoirot 3y ago
Very much agree. The space of ideas and percepts is just too big to be grasped in one broad "objective" view of the whole scene. This is a matter of computational limitation. Faith is what setups the context for post-diction[1]. You can think of it as the prompt/messages you feed to a LLM. In fact, in order to help me write my previous comment (in another thread [2]), I fed some pdfs to claude-100k on poe.com in order to compare Italino Calvino's "Cybernetics and Ghosts" with the esoteric ideas of Voevodsky. Since this is relevant to the discussion, I will quote it in full. > Claude: Unfortunately Italo Calvino's lecture "Cybernetics and Ghosts" does not discuss the paranormal. The lecture focuses on exploring the relationship between literature, language, and emerging ideas in fields like cybernetics, information theory, and structural linguistics. The uppercase emphasis is mine. > Me: I do think there are parallels between Voevodsky's interview and Calivno's text: > Calvino says, > "Now, some of you may wonder why I so gaily announce prospects that in most men of letters arouse tearful laments punctuated by cries of execration. The reason is that I have always known, more or less obscurely, that things stood this way, not the way they were commonly said to stand. Various aesthetic theories maintained that poetry was a matter of inspiration descending from I know not what lofty place, or welling up from I know not what great depths, or else pure intuition, or an otherwise not identified moment in the life of the spirit, or the Voice of the Times with which the Spirit of the World chooses to speak to the poet, or a reflection of social structures that by means of some unknown optical phenomenon is projected on the page, or a direct grasp on the psychology of the depths that enables us to ladle out images of the unconscious, both individual and collective; or at any rate SOMETHING INTUITIVE, IMMEDIATE, AUTHENTIC, AND ALL-EMBRACING THAT SPRINGS UP WHO KNOWS HOW, SOMETHING EQUIVALENT AND HOMOLOGOUS TO SOMETHING ELSE, and symbolic of it. But in these theories there always remained a void that no one knew how to fill, a zone of darkness between cause and effect: how does one arrive at the written page? By what route is the soul or history or society or the subconscious transformed into a series of black lines on a white page?" > Claude: > > You make an interesting parallel between Calvino and Voevodsky here. While Calvino is focused more on literature and ideas of inspiration/creativity, there are similarities to Voevodsky's perspective: > Both question prevailing notions or "aesthetic theories" about where artistic/literary works come from (inspiration from some mystical source for Calvino, materialist paradigms for Voevodsky). > They see a "void" or "zone of darkness" in these theories around how abstract ideas/processes are concretely manifested in a work. > Calvino wonders how the soul/history is transformed into written lines - paralleling Voevodsky's exploration of realms like the paranormal/supernatural that influence human consciousness/behavior but are not scientifically understood. > Their stances acknowledge gaps in conventional understandings and an openness to alternative explanations outside dominant frameworks. > So while focused on different domains, they both exhibit a skepticism of dominant ideologies and a willingness to consider non-traditional influences. There is a parallel curiosity about gaps or unknown processes connecting the abstract/internal to the concrete expression. This relates to Voevodsky's open-minded investigations into areas like the paranormal that lie outside standard paradigms. NICE OBSERVATION OF A PHILOSOPHICAL SIMILARITY IN THEIR PERSPECTIVES. To make this comment homologuous to my previous one ([2]), I'll punctuate it with an excerpt from Grothendieck's "The key to dreams": > Act of knowledge and act of faith > (16 May) I wrote yesterday that there was no other key for the "great dream" than the spiritual hunger of the soul. When, still under the impression of the dream you have just had, you know how to listen to the humble voice of this hunger, then, even without knowing it, you are turning a delicate and sure key. And I wish you the grace not to stop halfway, before the bolt is erased and the door, locked for a lifetime, opens... > I have also thought about faith in the dream. When I woke up under the sudden influx of an emotion so great that my soul could not contain it, I knew immediately, in an unquestionable way: this dream was speaking to me, and what it was telling me with such overwhelming power, it was important, it was crucial that I become aware of it. I knew this, not because I had read it somewhere or thought about it one day, but through an immediate and certain knowledge. Just as it happens, when someone speaks to you (and it matters not whether you know them or are seeing them for the first time), that you know in a sure way, without having to question yourself, that what they are telling you is true. This is not an impression, more or less strong or convincing, but a knowledge. Impression can deceive, but not this knowledge. Certainly, you yourself must be in a particular state, a state of openness, or rigor, or truth (call it what you like), to be able clearly to distinguish, without any shadow of a doubt, between a simple impression and such an immediate knowledge. Such discernment, whether perceived in the field of consciousness or remaining subconscious (and it matters little here), is not of the order of reason, or of an intuition of intellectual nature. It is an act of spiritual perception. In that instant, the spiritual eye in us, which perceives and distinguishes the true from the false, is open or ajar and sees. [1]: https://cifma.github.io/Papers-2021/CIFMA_2021_paper_13.pdf https://cifma.github.io/Papers-2021/CIFMA_2021_paper_13.pdf > Abstract. A great number of methods and of accounts of rationality consider at their foundations some form of Bayesian inference. Yet, Bayes’ rule, because it relies upon probability theory, requires specific axioms to hold (e.g. a measurable space of events). This short document hypothesizes that Bayes’ rule can be seen as a specific instance of a more general inferential template, that can be expressed also in terms of algorithmic complexities, namely through the measure of unexpectedness proposed by Simplicity Theory. [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37903794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37903794

Dove 3y ago

That is the definition of faith used by the irreligious -- as hostile a definition as if you asked one political party to explain the beliefs of the other! An insider, and particularly a Christian, would never define faith that way. Speaking as a Christian myself, I would say faith is belief in motion. And I would say that faith doesn't oppose rationality and evidence, but is rather sort of orthogonal to it. Let us suppose you believe there is a horrible and dangerous pandemic going on outside your house. You rationally are afraid to go outside. And then as days pass, you gather evidence that the pandemic has subsided and things are safe now. At first you don't trust it. And then you think it might be true. And then probably true. And then virtually certain. That process of gathering evidence and becoming more certain is rationality. Faith... is when you go outside. Belief in motion. Now, that step out the door can happen at any point. It can happen when you first hear a hint that things are better, and in a reckless rush of hope, you run outside. It can happen long after you are certain certain certain and fear keeps you inside too long. These are both examples of bad faith, unhealthy faith, faith misused. A Christian speaking of faith really means healthy faith - you go out when you should. Sound faith doesn't imply a lack of evidence, or complete evidence either. It's about deciding the evidence is sufficient and moving forward from there. And it's not only that - it's faith in something. If you step outside because a certain analyst convinced you it was safe, and you later take that same analyst's advice on diet, and on this, and on that, and it keeps working out - you are growing in faith in that analyst. Eventually, you may trust them quite a lot. This is what I would say faith is: belief in motion, working towards building trust.

angoragoats 3y ago
I simply rephrased the parent post’s definition of faith, nothing more. There is a lot of nonsense, bad analogies, and fallacious reasoning here that I don’t care to respond to individually, so I’ll just ask a question that should be easy for you to answer given your explanation, and will also let you pick up a Nobel Prize or similar award if you answer successfully: What is your evidence for god existing? In other words, framed in terms of your (bad) pandemic analogy, what is your equivalent to the verifiable evidence gathered showing that the pandemic is subsiding?
- 3y ago