In the right corner wearing the red trunks we have Q’Anon Theory. Enjoying 12 wins and 38 losses, Q’Anon is trying to make a comeback. In the left corner, wearing the black trunks, we have the opponent, the much misunderstood and maligned challenger Critical Race Theory. Critical Race 
Theory (CRT) comes into this match sporting a record of 25 wins and 25 losses. Both opponents have lost matches to Trickle Down Theory and the Birther Theory. The winner of this match will face the reigning champion, The Theory of the Big Steal.
This match will be judged by a panel of three judges. One from the right, one from the left and one dead center. They will use the “Rules of Scientific Procedures” to judge the match. The match will be scored on six criteria. The contestants will receive one point for a victory on each criteria. In the event of a tie, there will be a sudden death criteria to determine the winner.
The six criteria are:
The testability of the theory’s major tenets- The predictive power of the theory’s major hypothesis
- The theory is empirically based
- The theory is concise, coherent, systematic, and broadly applicable
- The theory has the ability to explain the aspects of a specific area of inquiry
- The theory has the ability to describe the causes of a particular phenomenon
- Testability of Theory Tenets:
A theory may propose various tenets. That is the theory will assert specific things that belong with the theory. For instance Q’Anon Theory proposes that a group of Democratic politicians who are pedophiles meet regularly in the basement of a pizza parlor in D.C. to plot nefarious schemes for taking over the world. One of the major tenets of CRT is the notion that racism is ordinary and not aberrational. To measure the Q’Anon Theory all we would have to do is find a pizza parlor in D.C. where a number of pedophiliac Democratic politicians meet. This would be an easy tenet to test since the number of good pizza parlors in D.C. can be counted on one hand.
The tenet from CRT that racism is ordinary and not aberrational seems to me to be more difficult to prove. Indeed since most White people would say that they are not racist, I do not know how you could prove this tenet.
The judges score it 2-1 for Q’Anon Theory.
That makes it 1-0 for Q’Anon Theory.
- The Predictive Power of the Major Hypothesis:
A key prediction of Q’Anon Theory is that Donald Trump would institute a series of mass arrests to break up the group of pedophiles and send them all to prison before they could destroy the world. This prediction has not come true yet, but it still remains a powerful possibility given his favored son status among many in America. No doubt if Trump gets reelected we are going to see a purge of his opponents that makes Stalin look like Mother Teresa.
A key prediction of CRT is that by confronting the beliefs and practices that enable racism to persist while simultaneously challenging these practices we will be able to eliminate systemic racism.
My opinion is that Trump will have a good possibility of getting reelected and I am certain that if he does, heads will roll, and it will be the end of democracy as we know it in the USA. They will continue to call it a democracy but with Trump knighted as President for life and most of his opponents in jail, it will not be the democracy that many people now believe in. As for the CRT hypothesis, I don’t think that we will ever eliminate personal racism and as long as we have personal racism, we will have systemic racism.
The judges again score it 2-1 for Q’Anon Theory.
That makes it 2-0 for Q’Anon Theory versus CRT.
3. The Theory is Empirically Based:
A theory that is empirically based is one that is based on facts and data rather than opinions and emotions. There is a lot of emotions on both sides here. Everyone knows how emotional the right-wing faction of white supremacists are. This side is full of hate loathing and hostility towards all things not white. Equally emotional have been the Black Lives Matter protestors who have engaged in numerous protest marches over the deaths of numerous Black males by police officers. I think the judges will find it hard to give either side a point on this criteria.
Unbelievable, the judges give both sides a point on this one.
That makes the score 3-1 for Q’Anon Theory.
- The Theory is Concise, Coherent, Systematic, and Broadly Applicable:
No contest here I am afraid. CRT theory is anything but concise, coherent, or systematic. As for broadly applicable, it does apply to most white people, but the world is also full of non-white people. To illustrate what I am talking about, here is an excerpt from one of the leading textbooks on CRT.
“Our social world, with its rules, practices, and assignments of prestige and power, is not fixed; rather, we construct with it words, stories and silence. But we need not acquiesce in arrangements that are unfair and one-sided. By writing and speaking against them, we may hope to contribute to a better, fairer world” — Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic “Introduction to Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge. 3rd Edition, 2013”
I read the above several times before I could decipher what they are trying to say. This is a big problem for the Left since they are too intellectual and academic. No one can understand what they are talking about. Now you take the right-wing supporters of Q’Anon, and you have a group that is not hard to understand. Here are some writings from Q’Anon theorists.
Eliminate all communists- Eliminate all socialists
- Eliminate all democrats
- Eliminate all liberals
- Eliminate all immigrants
- Eliminate all non-whites
- Eliminate all gays
- Get all women back in the kitchen
What could be easier to understand? Nothing circuitous or incoherent about these statements. I am going to have to say that Q’Anon theory has my vote here. It looks like the judges all agree.
It is unanimous, the judges give Q’Anon a point on this one.
That makes the score 4-1 for Q’Anon Theory.
Well, that’s it folks. Even if CRT took the next two points, it would still be Q’Anon Theory 4 and CRT 3. The winner is Q’Anon Theory.
Stay tuned for our next match when we will have Senator Rand Paul face off against Dr. Fauci to decide who should get any more Covid shots and if the new Omicron Variant is real or just fake.
I am not a very sentimental person nor am I one to cling to the past. I decided I would move on with my life. I threw myself into my job and time went by. I had almost forgotten about Leandra when I saw the ad. It was from the Resurrection Android Company. It was the same company that I had purchased my android valet Sam from. Actually, Sam was much more than just a valet. Sam was a third-generation android with some independent powers of decision making. He could decide what to cook each day and he also decided what I should wear for work. He did cleaning, mending and many light repairs around the house. I had bought Sam shortly after Leandra and I were married. Leandra had mentioned that it would be nice to have some help with housekeeping and all. That way she would have more time to spend with me.
Androids of course are not human and they have no empathy or ability to show any emotions. Sam was logical and could be persuasive but he could not show love or compassion. In the ten years since I had purchased Sam, android technology had advanced considerably. Looking at the ad from the company, it appeared that they were now on a 15th generation android that had affective as well as cognitive abilities. The ad claimed that the new android could help replace a loved one both emotionally and physically. By integrating DNA characteristics using a technique called “Assisted human reproduction”, they could capture the exact characteristics of a loved one. All they would need would be some trace or remnant of the deceased or former loved one’s DNA.
That was when the idea occurred to me. I called the customer service line and asked to speak to a representative. I asked her whether it would be possible for me to create a new wife in the exact image of my former wife Leandra. They assured me it was. It would take about six months for the bio-engineering to integrate the mechanical aspects of the droid with the alleles and DNA strands that they could map from a sample of Leandra’s DNA. When the process was completed, I would have an exact physical, mental and emotional copy of Leandra. Even better, she could continue to be programmed and become an even better Leandra. The old Leandra was somewhat boring in bed. The new Leandra could become a wild and wanton partner if that is what I desired.
It did not take long to assemble the new Leandra. I put the lower torso, upper torso and head together in less time than it takes to make a milk shake. She was perfect. She looked just like my old Leandra. When I turned her on, she greeted me and asked, “What will my name be.” I replied “You are Leandra. You are the perfect wife. You will love and obey me always.”
I came home one day from work and Leandra did not greet me at the door. I thought maybe her battery had discharged or that Sam had forgotten to recharge her. I had left strict instructions for Sam to recharge Leandra every day. But, where was Sam? I did not hear him fixing dinner in the kitchen. I went into the kitchen but Sam was not there. Suddenly, I noticed a note on the table. I picked it up. It was from Leandra. She had written: “Gone with Sam, don’t love you anymore. Bye.”
I am working to prepare for a chess match with my neighbor. I happen to note in the paper the Fact that tomorrow will be a quarter moon. Does this Fact have any relevance to my playing chess? I don’t think so. Thus, I don’t really care that there will be a quarter moon. As far as my limited cognition or perception, I can see no relevance between the Fact of a quarter moon and my preparing for my chess match. I could be wrong. We can always mis-perceive the relevance of some information to an issue. This is often done in science and in police work. We don’t see the connection between two issues and we misjudge the outcomes. This provides one good reason for diversity and numbers in problem solving. You have less chance of being blindsided if you have a variety of opinions rather than just your own.
Let us look at another example where the issue of relevance is more salient. I am planning to go on a trip to England in 2017. I want to plan my trip for the best possible time of the year. I hypothesize that two Facts or Data points are very important to my planning. The first is the temperatures at various times of the year in England. The second is the rain fall. I found the ranges for this data on a weather site and used the information to plan my trip. Of course, some of the decisions anyone makes will depend on their own weather preferences. I wanted to minimize rainfall and also keep the temperature in a moderate range. What I call sweater weather. Thus, both these set of factors were relevant and important to my planning. I would call them Evidence to support the time of year that I decided to go.
On the other hand, if you like rain, you might have picked a different time of the year than I did. There were other mitigating factors which played a role in my decision making. These factors included costs for lodging during the year and transportation costs during the year. In general, off season times have better rates but are somewhat the worse for weather. Another factor was the value of the pound to the dollar. I considered the value of the dollar to the pound post Brexit but concluded that I did not have enough information to effectively evaluate the impact of this data on my decision. I am assuming that with the volatility involved in the situation, the value of the dollar might go either way against the pound. My best guess is that I will benefit if I go as soon as possible. The news has recently noted that after Brexit the value of the pound fell 14 percent against the dollar. This would mean I could get a significant cost advantage if I purchase anything in England. I am hoping this situation will continue until after my trip but there are too many variables at play here for me to use this information. I can only hope.
A more common example of relevance can be found by looking at police work. We are all familiar these days with what is called Forensic science. I am sure most of you reading this have watched some police show. As soon as a crime is discovered, the Crime Scene Unit (CSI) is brought in to collect Evidence. Keep in mind that everything at a crime scene is not Evidence. Only what may have a possible relationship to the crime. This can be a real problem. The CSI unit is going to be limited by their assumptions concerning what might be relevant. For instance, I doubt any Crime Scene Investigator will care whether or not the light bulbs are “bright” or “soft white” in the kitchen or bathroom. It is impossible to collect all the “Evidence” of stuff that might be related to the crime. Thus, relying on experience and training, the police investigators do their best to collect Facts and Data that appear to be relevant to the crime. The relevant Data and Facts are not just interesting, they are Evidence. The more they relate to the crime, the stronger the Evidence will be.
An eyewitness can provide Evidence via his/her testimony as to the events of a crime. The relevance of any eyewitness is high but the reliability of an eyewitness can be much lower. Second hand testimony is not as relevant as first hand testimony and is thus weaker Evidence. Testimony that might be compromised by some factors such as police record, bias, discrimination, physical disabilities might be relevant but will be weaker Evidence because the validity of the Evidence is suspect. That is why lab procedures and chain of custody is so important to police work. They may have the most relevant Evidence imaginable but if the validity of the Evidence can be comprimised because of sloppy police work, the Evidence will be useless.
It is seldom that findings of Evidence in police work or business are subjected to as much scrutiny as occurred in the so called development of cold fusion. Perhaps, since this was a finding of great scientific importance, it was held to a more rigorous standard than would occur in many other scientific studies. I am thinking in particular of findings in the health field, nutrition field and drug field. In each of these fields we often have much less rigor before results are posted or accepted. Business is even worse with advertisers spouting outright lies and fabrications. Little known phenomenon are routinely heralded as being highly reliable Evidence of the benefit of some product or service that someone wants to sell you. All kinds of spurious Facts and Data are then marshaled as Evidence to support the phony claims by Madison Avenue advertisers.
Aging Capriciously 