done this way. Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf Schools, was consistently against the spraying of pesticides. During his lifetime, selective toxic agents did not exist. Heavy metals were used, which contaminated the soil, as they cannot be broken down chemically. At the same time, vegetables had themselves contained many more natural stomach poisons (cf. Toxins in Food), which have been bred out long since then. Thus, 100 years ago he was correct in rejecting the use of pesticides. The question is to what extent this can be transferred to the present day.
One therefore needs a neutral comparison to evaluate
whether and how progress or even any regression looks like.
The situation is similar when it comes to technical systems: A hydrogen car is good if liquid hydrogen is available. Hydrogen propulsion was propagated 35 years ago. At the time, energy seemed to be readily available in unlimited quantities through nuclear power. But times have changed. Japan is taking the path of nuclear power and is therefore promoting electric propulsion.
Electric cars are a wonderful means of transport in Sweden and Norway. There, traffic is almost CO2-free because plenty of nuclear and hydroelectric power is available. Now the question arises whether these conditions can be transferred onto a German context.
Last but not least, it’s worth examining the sense of reality people apply to cope with their tasks: Someone who is neither able to make frigates swim, airplanes fly nor guns shoot is certainly not suited to master any future challenges.
Opinion versus Facts
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in any democracy. So, you may be of the opinion that when you drink two beers and then two more that this totals three. Opinions thus have nothing to do with facts. Nevertheless, when it comes to technical matters, people often argue: “That's your opinion, mine’s different!” This is a confusion of terms: Most of the time physics is at fault: If you can demonstrate (usually with mathematics) that something does not work, you can have as many opinions as you want: They are irrelevant.
The Other Point of View
Germany is considered a “high-tech-country”. Everyone has their own view of things, even the author because he is an engineer, and every profession has its own particular point of view. When a non-engineer “stumbles” over a press release reporting that something was not working or that the matter is 13 years behind schedule, then he will simply accept it. In particular, he can’t evaluate it – how could he anyway?
Then there are those people who want to know what contributed to the failure or the exploding costs because the advantage of mistakes normally is that you can learn from them – both your own and other’s. Nothing is more stupid than repeating a mistake. Unfortunately, it is not possible to learn anything nowadays most of the time because college taught you how you would have done it the right way; or you learned it during the course of your career. The fact is: high-tech is being touted everywhere, but grave mistakes are being made when it comes to the fundamentals. This is a cause for concern because mistakes in the fundamentals are, above all, one thing: extremely expensive.
That took its toll on my former employer: wherever your looked, all you heard about were the losses running into the millions. A lot of money had been spent on advertising. Top-level positions were filled by people who distinguished themselves with their incompetence and who had fallen for “pied pipers” who had sold them their visions. Slogans had been bantered about on how great the company was doing and how great its products were. Critics were sidelined: “We have the Bavarian state as guarantor – nothing can happen to us”, they declared. In hindsight, the company failed because of the sum of all the little things. A few days before the insolvency, the company wanted to rivet 0.8 mm sheet steel to the (aluminum) wings, as the torsional stiffness3 of these wings had proven to be insufficient. Problems were known long beforehand, but had been swept under the carpet over the years, and none had been solved at the root. People had just “tinkered” with the symptoms. In the end, everything converged upon itself.
German politics is nothing more than a “flashback”.
Statistics
“Don't believe any statistics you haven't faked yourself” – is the consensus of many people who don’t have a high opinion of statistics. This isn’t surprising since statistics is a branch of mathematics and not very much appreciated. You are more likely to reject what you do not understand. This is human nature. At the same time, you search for arguments in favor of this attitude in order to confirm your own personal prejudices. That, too, is human, but not effective.
However, this doesn’t make any sense because statistics create facts that can be used as evidence. On the contrary, in today’s society you are surrounded by statistics for any items because these are made of materials backed by statistics used to determine their material properties.
The validity of DNA expert opinions is pure statistics. Although a match between two DNA samples can thus never be 100%, it is on the order of 99.999995%, depending on the case; or a probability of 1 in 20 million. When you reject statistical evidence and wish to “argue” polemically, as at the beginning of this chapter, you then become inevitably in favor of abolishing DNA evidence and releasing sex offenders in particular. Does anyone really want that?
All scientific studies must be evaluated statistically. This is necessary to demonstrate to what extent the results of the study yield any valid results. When a study reveals a statistically significant result, this means that the result is not random but can instead be taken as “evidence”.
In the introduction to one of his books, the biostatistician, Bruce Weir, shows that the statistics of the discoverer of the basic principles of heredity, Gregor Mendel, are too good: The latter had let some “inappropriate” results fall by the wayside. It's indeed possible to validate statistics with statistics.
Statistical Errors and Statistical Abuse
Statistics only provide valid results when they don’t include systematic errors or false basic assumptions. This, in turn, refers to “statistics one has faked oneself” (cf. previous chapter).
Statistics thus open the door to manipulation: If you assume a minor thing to be false, then the statistic is false. If you deliberately assume it to be false, you can then “generate” almost any result using statistics.
An article was published about seven years ago on the drastic increase in the proportion of “grave defects” found in motor vehicles after car inspections performed by TÜV (German technical inspection agency). An outcry rippled across the automotive world. You should sit up and take notice to press reports like this because if 1/4 of the inspected cars had exhibited "grave defects” over decades, and 1/3 of these cars exhibited the same in the following year (these are theorized figures), then this would mean a sudden increase of 32%. That alone is statistically unlikely. The “cause” was to be found elsewhere: TÜV had hitherto distinguished between a “defect” and a “grave defect”. A new regulation had categorized all defects detected by TÜV as “grave defects”.
German Railways (Deutsche Bahn) has issued instructions to prioritize its express trains over its commuter trains. Doing this would make its ICE (Intercity Express) trains statistically more on time. Commuter trains are not covered by the press. This is something you need to know. You find out about it from the “petty” railway official. Presumably, the salary of the Deutsche Bahn CEO is linked to the punctuality of its ICE trains: His contract, for example, would then contain the clause that every percent the ICE is not on time would cost ½ million annually in salary or bonuses.
How about a more current event [76]? In mid-April, the “Tagesschau” evening news had reported on an “above-average number of deaths in Germany” in its “Corona Live Blog”. They compared the average from the past five years with the average from the year 2020. To prove this, they evaluated data between March 23rd and April 12th.