How do we get our act together?

How can we turn the corner in Germany? We could argue, i.e. discuss, about this. Unfortunately, this is not happening, because discussions are not advisable. This was the message from the scientific community at a symposium in Frankfurt in July this year. 

To be fair, this was not announced by "the" science, but only by the two luminaries Sandra Ciesek and Christian Drosten. Afterwards, fact-checkers discovered that what the two top virologists said was not really said or meant that way. Drosten, who likes to lecture and dislikes discussion, criticized the "unfortunate debates" during the pandemic. Ciesek even said that "positions and opposing positions" had clashed too often in talk shows. This had unsettled people. So much for the lessons learned from the "Challenges and lessons from the pandemic" event.

How do we get our act together? I would still like the question to be discussed without contradicting science. The solution to this dilemma is so linguistically obvious that I was startled. The solution lies in a discussion of curves. Curve discussions exist in mathematics and this discipline belongs - as things stand today - to the natural sciences. Unless mathematics, like biology, is abolished by the state, but that's another topic.

What is a mathematical curve discussion about? There is a function, a task, a problem. There are numbers connected with arithmetic symbols and variables of the second, third or fifth degree. At first glance, it all looks extremely complicated. The solution to be found is the graph of the function, i.e. a curve. This solution curve must be drawn in a coordinate grid. Because it would take years to calculate the appropriate y for each x, the three derivatives of the function are determined. This gives you the really distinctive curve points. These are the high and low points, the inflection points, the point of intersection with the y-axis and the zeros on the x-axis, if they exist. The rest is painting by numbers. By connecting the relevant points, you get the curve. End of discussion. As boring as this may sound, I find it exciting to realize that political issues are also discussions about curves.

Even in politics, there are tasks that look highly complicated at first glance. They are then discussed with the aim of getting things right. They are derived and discussed. Relevant points are identified that are necessary to draw the political solution curve. Above all, there are the turning points. These can be determined very precisely. The attacks on the Twin Towers, the start of the war in Ukraine and the start of the war in the Middle East must be marked with a specific date in the political coordinates. This also includes March 18, 2020, when Angela Merkel proclaimed the new normality on TV. When it comes to the climate, there is a tipping point at exactly 1.5 degrees. The following applies to all points: after that, nothing will be the way it used to be. Then we will wake up to a new world. Unfortunately, we will then have to counteract this with measures that restrict freedom. End of the official curve discussion. Not with me, quoting Harald Schmidt.

"Those who wake up in a new world should ask themselves in which world they fell asleep."

And now for the exciting part. There are also inverted curve discussions in mathematics. In this discipline, the relevant points for drawing the curve are known in advance. The task here is simply to formulate the problem that fits the already determined solution curve. My thesis is that most political discussions are inverted curve discussions. 

The points required to draw the desired policy solution are set deliberately. Then all that is needed are experts like Ciesek and Drosten, who model the numbers and variables that fit the desired curve result. What doesn't fit is made to fit! The rest is public relations work by political media zeros and turncoats. The political discussion of curves takes place on the left-hand side of the equals sign and not on the right-hand side of the solution. 

A conspiracy theory? Perhaps. But I still wanted to put it up for discussion, because I like to discuss things. Only in conversation, only in discussion, can a divided society come together again. Here, too, there is a hint from mathematics. I hadn't expected that - pun intended. 

How do you add two fractional, split numbers? How do you add two-thirds and two-sixths? By searching for and finding the lowest common denominator. What applies to numbers also applies to two divided people, perhaps even to a divided society. The first step in putting broken things together is always to find a common denominator. Once you find this, you can discuss it. And, in the best case, find a solution. A whole.