Assange as a Narrative Test for #Qanon

We can choose what ideas to entertain by fiat, but we can’t choose what ideas are good by fiat. To tell if ideas are good, we have to logically relate them to as many other ideas as we can. The more caught up in a web of interlocked ideas they are, the more logical conflicts are exposed.

All problems are examples of conflicts like these, and problem-solving is how all progress is made!

This is why understanding this is so important.

We want ideas that constrain each other so well that changing them would break the structure. This makes it very easy to recognize bad ideas, and shows how hard it can be to obtain good ideas. By following this rule, we let ideas stand on their own — that is, we try to keep our own prejudices from interfering.

Ideas that set expectations about the world are immensely valuable — this is the domain of science. Science sets out to run tests against these expectations. We must hunt for when the results of tests conflict with the expectations set by a theory (a guess, hypothesis, conjecture, narrative, view, opinion, etc.) When a conflict is found, it helps to rule out that theory (and/or the results of the experiment). Evidence only rules out; it never lends support to a theory.

The case of Julian Assange is an interesting kind of test of two conflicting narratives: what we could call the Qanon narrative, and a non-Qanon narrative. The main difference being on the issue of whether or not the “new guard” is really new. If Assange receives a lighter sentence, the +1 to Qanon; if he receives a heavier sentence, then +1 to non-Qanon.

Let’s see what happens!