Safety believes many things that are simply not true or real but they are made mythically true through semiotic faith. Then again, you are not likely to believe evidence for this if you have no expertise in: semiotics, faith, religion, epistemology, mythology or ethnology.
Understanding mythology is essential to knowing about culture.
I have written before about what Safety believes:
- https://safetyrisk.net/the-safety-belief-system/
- https://safetyrisk.net/causal-patterning-and-affirming-false-belief-in-safety/
- https://safetyrisk.net/cognitive-dissonance-and-safety-beliefs/
- https://safetyrisk.net/safety-beliefs-as-cultural-indicators/
- https://safetyrisk.net/the-shape-of-belief-in-safety/
- https://safetyrisk.net/common-safety-beliefs-surfaced-in-miprofile-survey/
In Safety, there is no evidence for many of its myths and beliefs but Safety loves to claim mythical beliefs as ‘truths’ when they are not. A proposition like ‘blame fixes nothing’ is NOT a ‘truth’ just because Conklin says so. None of the HOP 5 principles are ‘truths’, just because someone says so (https://safetyrisk.net/declaring-what-is-by-what-isnt-hop-as-traditional-safety/). Even the slightest interrogation demonstrates these principles are not true.
If you are interested in what is true and real then a bit of critical thinking is needed, this not something studied in safety. In order to think critically, one needs to study outside the mono-disciplinarity of safety. The key to critical thinking is knowing Critical Discourse Analysis, deconstruction and Historiographical methods. None of this is studied in safety.
It’s easy to affirm what you believe when all that your read and research affirms your safety beliefs. Then, when confirmed by semiotics, it becomes mythically true for you. However, there is no science, evidence or research behind any of this stuff. There is no study of semiotics and culture in Safety so how could it know that such is delusional? How would safety even know it was archetypical?
For example: The semiotic model of the swiss-cheese is not scientifically validated, supported by evidence or substantiated by research. It’s a semiotic. And just because it was concocted by James Reason doesn’t make it true or real. Indeed, there is endless evidence that neither life, being or events happen in such a way. But if Safety wants to believe it, it makes it mythically true, and the sheep follow.
For example; Just because some salesman (Heinrich) calls a book ‘science’ doesn’t make it so. Just because a book puts forward a ratio of pyramid of injury rates, doesn’t make it so. Just because lined up dominoes look good doesn’t equate to any logic of how accidents happen. There is no ratio between injury rates and fatality, it is a delusion. But when you produce a semiotic to validate a myth, it is made mythically true by the cult that wants to believe it. Why would you believe psychological gobbledygook from someone with no expertise in psychology??? Yet, the nonsense projections and assertions of Heinrich and his silly pyramid dominate safety texts, and the sheep follow.
For example: Just because two academics with no expertise in ethics call zero a moral goal (https://safetyrisk.net/zero-is-an-immoral-goal/) doesn’t make it so. Just because an agency calls itself a ‘safety science lab’ doesn’t make what emerges from it ‘science’. Even when Safety talks about ‘better questions’ it doesn’t know what questioning is.
Lots of religious and cultic belief works this way. One would need some expertise in religious studies to know how this works. This is why Safety doesn’t know how religious it is.
Any Historian, studied in Historiography (https://analepsis.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/companion-to-historiography.pdf ), knows that events are neither logical, rational or linear. But if you believe in the swiss-cheese you go looking for a place to block holes for prevention. Similarly in hindsight, an investigator using a swiss-cheese mythical filter finds linear cause when there is none.
And it’s easy to believe whatever you want, for example:
- Trump is Christ
There is simply no Biblical connection between the Jesus of the Bible and Trump. Indeed, it’s the opposite. Even though you can buy a book that proposes that Trump is The Christ. https://www.amazon.com.au/President-Donald-Trump-Son-Man/dp/1977249752
- The Earth is Flat
https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/flat-earthers-what-they-believe-and-why/
- Vaccination Doesn’t Work
Absurd beliefs (against all the evidence) are called ‘delusion’ and, are equated to psychiatric disorder.
This is why belief in zero is a delusion (https://www.humandymensions.com/product/zero-the-great-safety-delusion/). One can only believe in human infallibility (zero) against all the evidence to the contrary.
This is why belief in zero is even described by the zero cult as ‘belief in the impossible’ (https://safetyrisk.net/believe-the-impossible-and-speak-nonsense-to-people/). This is why the zero cult calls on people to ‘just believe’ (https://safetyrisk.net/no-evidence-for-the-religion-of-zero/). This is why zero is a cult and religion.
There is no perfection for humans. There is no infallible human. Belief in zero is for safety sheep.
False beliefs come from social networks not evidence (https://theconversation.com/its-hard-to-challenge-someones-false-beliefs-because-their-ideas-come-from-social-networks-not-facts-186523).
Just because an industry repeats the word ‘professional’ a million times, doesn’t make it so. If an industry believes immoral beliefs (zero), brutalises people in the name of ‘good’ and articulates no ‘ethic’, it cannot be professional.
Unfortunately, false consciousness is alive in the way of belief for safety sheep
https://safetyrisk.net/false-consciousness-and-perception-in-risk-and-safety/
If you don’t want to be a safety sheep then you can study outside the bounds of safety belief here: https://cllr.com.au/product/philosophy-and-spor-module-23/
In such study one will learn the skills of Historiography, the nature of evidence, critical thinking skills, deconstruction, ethical thinking and the nature of power. All of this enables a better approach to tackling risk in a positive, constructive, practical and realistic way. All of this is for better safety outcomes for persons.
Dr Rob Long
Latest posts by Dr Rob Long (see all)
- Relationships as Therapy for Mental Health, A Note for Safety - September 10, 2024
- Cultivating Resilience - September 8, 2024
- No Place for Military Metaphors in Safety - September 6, 2024
- The Influence of C.G. Jung in SPoR - September 5, 2024
- Sacrificing Truth for No Blame - September 3, 2024
Brian says
Fantastic Blog Rob, so true and love the sheep picture,
Rob Long says
Thanks Brian. Glad someone gets it.