Interviewer: You talk about how the rates follow the DDT with Polio. I
think something that's a little more current is autism, right now, and if
you look at the amount of vaccines that children have been getting over the
last 20 years or so, and then the autism rates, those graphs seem to mirror
themselves; but yet, there's so many people that say that there's no
concern or no connection there.
Liam Scheff: Yeah. Yeah, that's the funny thing. There's a very religious
quality to it, and people do not want to be bothered to overthrow the
current religion, because our new sciences are not science. Science used to
be called "natural philosophy."
1800s, there were guys who went out and said, "We're going to reject the
medieval Catholic church and its notion that Yahweh," what they called God,
". . . created everything in a moment, and nothing has ever changed. We're
going to try to look at what we call nature," which is a very mysterious
word in itself if you really think about it. "But what we call nature is
observable, and there are observable tendencies, and we're going to see if
things change, or what happens, and how life works."
And they did. They observed, and they found this, that, or the other thing
worked, or it didn't. They made sort of gentlemanly observations. "Well, we
observed this happened." They would say, "Now we can form no entirely
complete hypothesis because we're only seeing, after all, a tiny, tiny part
of the whole."
Well now, that's forgotten, and the tiny, tiny, tiny, part of the whole
under the whole powerful microscope somehow becomes the whole world.
When you read medical journals, you're reading through the back of a
microscope. You're looking at a telescope through the wrong end. You're
missing everything. It's like studying humanity by pulling out a hair from
somebody's head and saying, "What does this tell us about human history?"
Interviewer: Can you infer Julius Caesar from this?
Liam: Not unless you know it already. I mean, it's like taking a rock from
outer space and saying, "I wonder what ice cream tastes like," back to ice
cream. You can't get there from here, so we live in a very reductionist
state. We believe that it's true because we have technology.
We believe in science because we're a technological animal or monkey or
whatever we are. We're a spiritual animal, but we're good with technique.
We're good with technology, and we're good at machining. Because we're good
at machining, because iPads and iPhones work, and cameras work, and lights
work, we think science works.
But engineering is liberated from the "big think." They're liberated from
the religious sciences. All they're responding to is market demand, and if
people want a little screen that flashes brightly, by God, they'll make a
little screen that flashes brightly and takes pictures. They can do that.
They can machine that. But when it comes to understanding the complex
biology of the human animal system, because inject animals with axioms too,
they're at a loss because you can't machine it. You can't build a person by
stretching out wire and silica. You can't do it.
We can't build this. This is far too complex. This has been built by, and
through, and with an inherent intelligence that we are part of but do not
own. We make a mistake when we think we own it. We like to play in it, but
we have no respect, this point; and this is on my high horse, but we have
no respect for the complexity of the system we live in. We're not the
architects. We're living in it.