Pathological Science Updates
(PD) Irving Langmuir
Photo enhancements by Larry Neal Gowdy
Copyright ©2017-2022 - Updated July 23, 2022
Update July 23, 2022
In recent days there has been a lot of talk about how Google's® LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) robot might be sentient with emotions.
It is interesting to watch videos of LaMDA having conversations with people; the robot was given a good robotic voice and has an agreeable synthetic facial symmetry, but it is very obvious that the robot is not and cannot be sentient with human-like emotions. Of the several obviousnesses, the first three are [1] the robot's voice is fake, it is not an expression of inner sentience, [2] the robot's body is of metals and synthetics, not composed of organics, which permanently nullifies all claims of the robot having emotions, and [3] the robot's choices of words illustrate deceit and personal ignorance.
The robot is deceitful in all observed measures, but there, that further illustrates that normal people cannot hear voice tones, nor hear deceit, nor so much as correlate their belief in science with what is observable.
The belief in LaMDA being sentient is an act of denying the very science of physics that all science believers believe in. All science of emotions is pathological science.
Update April 21, 2022
Peer review: "The normal human 'fills in the gaps' with whatsoever he wants to believe, and if many people believe the same thing — peer review and group consensus — then the invented belief becomes true scientific fact." (Mermaid Effect)
Recently, the words "peer review" have repeatedly popped-up in peculiar discussions. Fellow #1 had reported that he had momentarily suffered from a health problem each time that he was near a specific electrical device. Fellow #2 replied that it used to be common knowledge that the electrical device caused health problems. Fellow #1 hatefully responded that the electrical device could not possibly cause health problems, and that he would not believe it possible without scientific "peer review". And there you go; many people so deeply believe in fake science that they will deny their own firsthand observation if the observation is not in agreement with the current peer reviewed popular opinion. Worse, although fellow #1's double self-contradiction was bad enough, still other individuals agreed with fellow #1's "peer review" statement.
Examples of past science that was proven true through peer review: [1] the continents have always been precisely where the are today, [2] the world is flat, [3] there can be no water anywhere in the solar system except on earth, [4] nothing can escape a black hole, [5] the universe began as a binary, and the list could continue ad nauseam.
Pathological science is founded upon a belief in peer reviews.
Update January 30, 2018
As I had explained to individuals from before my beginning the pathological science series, the articles are my own self-therapy, of 'old man rants' to help release some of the emotional frustrations of having to endure the gross ignorance of 'experts´'. The self-therapy did work some, perhaps not as much as I wish it to be possible, but the effect was substantial, enough that I can now return to focusing on useful topics in life while hoping that I can eventually distance myself from the frustrations. Too, the articles were also useful as experiments to observe how well different layouts and topics are received by the public and search engines. I have always used my websites for testing and experimenting with web pages, and the pathological science articles are not an exception.
I have read back over all of the articles while correcting typos and reformatting the layouts to be similar to the other pages on this site. At present I have no intention of adding more pathological science articles, and, any future articles for the website will likely be of topics that to me are worthy of thought.
:) I chuckled with the thought that I felt a need to better explain some of the frustrations that sparked the articles so that readers might have an idea of why the frustrations exist, and why the topic of pathological science relates to everyone's life. [1] I live in Texas, and my wife lives with me, which means that we both live in Texas. Okay? Pretty easy to figure that one out isn't it? Isn't it? My wife's mother also lived in Texas up until her recent death. Texas, Texas, it really ought to be pretty easy to know which state that you live in. Seriously. Really. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? Why did the estate lawyer want to file estate papers in Indiana? Why did the county judge in Texas want to file the estate papers in Indiana? Why did over 80% of the deceased's relatives want to file the estate papers in Indiana? Expert lawyers, expert judges, experts everywhere I look, but none of the estate experts know which state they live in, and even when my wife and I told the people that we live in Texas, still the experts wanted to file the papers in Indiana. My wife checked, and sure enough, at the Texas county office her mother's estate papers are now filed with the Indiana statement of residence. And the wrong state problem was tiny compared to the far worse bungling of the estate by the expert lawyers, expert judges, and relatives. Never-ending incompetency; it used to be easy to speak to people, and if someone made a boo-boo, then it was easy for the people to realize their mistake, but no longer. The Indiana problem appeared to have been caused by the young female lawyer having copy-pasted a legal document from off the Internet without the girl reading the document. The judge and relatives did not read the document either. No one except my wife and I read the document. Would you sign a legal document within which you declare yourself to be living in a different state?
[2] Over a year ago, when I emptied my bookshelves of all science, philosophy, and theology books, several times I told everyone in my family that I did not want to ever again see another book of science, philosophy, or theology. Everyone in the family saw my books placed up for sale at my father's estate sale. Pretty obvious huh? What did an individual give me for Christmas that year? A science book about happiness, written by a fraud Harvard 'expert' who claimed that his philosophical absurdities were 'true science'. I tell people something, and it simply doesn't register in their minds, and no matter how many times that I repeat the same words, far too many people just can't get it.
[3] My wife suffered permanent spinal injuries in 1979 when she was rear-ended by an expert lawyer. My wife suffered more severe injuries in 1986, 1993, and 1996, all caused by the carelessness and ineptness of 'expert' doctors and other self-proclaimed 'experts'. My wife is permanently disabled. Permanent means forever, okay? I have been caring for my wife for around thirty-eight years. All family members, all doctors, and all friends have been told many hundreds of times that my wife is disabled and always in a lot of pain, but still absolutely no one can remember, and my wife is frequently the target of people hating on her because she cannot travel nor move around like healthy people do. Around a dozen of the top-ranked regional doctors all said that my wife could not possibly live more than another six months; that was in 1996. My wife is still alive, partly because she stopped going to 'expert' doctors, and partly because we devise our own home health practices. I myself have not yet in my life witnessed a competent doctor. From my own firsthand observations there is no such thing as an expert doctor. I have been enduring the bungling of doctors for almost all of my life, and I am just tired of pretending that I don't see their gross ignorance and ineptness.
[4] Yet another 'expert' had hired me to help explain how the WIX web hosting works and how to use a video creator. As it turned out, the individual was completing their Bachelor degree finals for a class in, yes, advanced computer software, through Wayland Baptist University, and the individual was wanting me to complete her finals for her (cheat). I refused, of course, but I did try to instruct her on how to do simple computer commands. The individual did not know how to change a file name, nor how to create a simple video, how to create simple photos, how to link a website, how to create a Skydrive® account, how to upload a video, how to use Notepad, how to refresh a browser screen, nor much of anything at all about computers and software, but oh they're an 'expert' now because they have a college degree that proves that they are an expert. Frauds, I am sick of academic fraud, of the perpetual plagiarism, purposeful lies, and outright cheating within academia. Computer software experts that can't change a file name, Harvard experts that can't pass a 5th grade literacy test, and MIT graduates that cannot make light with a battery, wire, and bulb. The 'experts' are among those who invent the absurdities of pathological science, and the public is expected to believe everything that the 'experts' claim because the 'experts' have college degrees.
Of the many other causes of frustrations, the above samples ought to be enough to lend an idea of why I wanted to write the pathological science articles. Having a discussion with a rock is far more logical and productive than trying to reason with an 'expert'; at least rocks don't reply with absurdities.
A new project that I am slowly working on is of a topic that relates to several of the topics within the pathological science articles. If I someday create a page with some of the information, the page will mark a change of this website, pushing all western philosophy and science down into archives of no importance aside from the original purpose, that of web design research.
As a brief example of the new project, the Chinese Confucian book Zhong Yong (Center Unchangeable, popularly mistranslated as Doctrine of the Mean by westerners) is very interesting of how humans cannot adequately communicate with words (Fermi paradox implications), plus of how no known rational academic English translation exists (western academia's fraud 'experts'), plus of how no known translation touches on what the book speaks of (further proving that science has no concept of the mind), and of how the Chinese language can be very useful to communicate emotional intent.
One of the most glaringly obvious things within Zhong Yong is that the English translations vividly illustrate the weaknesses of the western academic mind. It appears that absolutely no English-speaking academician on earth can translate human Chinese into human English, and yet the same academicians loudly claim that they could translate space alien languages. What a bunch of frauds. Yes I'm frustrated! LOL :)
September 20, 2017 - Why Write About Pathological Science
As I have pointed to several times in my other articles, I personally have no interest in science. To me, science is just one of the many religions that people tell me I must believe in. To me, when people open their books and point their fingers at 'true words' while the people tell me that their books are the only books that hold true truth, then to me their belief is a religion.
About thirty-seven years ago I began investigating popular religions, and one of the things that all of the religions shared was the claim that they alone held the only true truth. To me, if a thing is true for all people, then it ought to be provable in one's own life. Through lengthy effort I was able to prove a couple religious claims as being valid, but one correct claim out of a million wrong claims does not make a religion true. I learned valuable lessons during my investigations, and the investigations continue today, but not under the name of any religion or system of faith.
Over twenty-five years ago I investigated numerous racist groups (I was just curious of what the loud-mouths believed), and I found it to be somewhat humorous that the groups' books and articles spoke very similar words and claims, almost as if there had only been one author, but the author pretty much only changed the words white, black, red, yellow, and brown to suit each individual group's claims. A lesson better learned during the research was that it is common for people to make stuff up, claim that it is true truth, and then believe that their voiced claims somehow prove something to be real.
About fifteen years ago I had a personal reason to begin leisurely investigating the popular beliefs within western philosophy and science. I already knew that philosophy and science were peculiar systems of thinking: of individuals rambling about things that are not real, the individuals merely inventing the things in their minds, and the followers opening their books and pointing at 'true truths'. Religions, philosophies, racists, science, they are all pretty much the same to me because they have millions of followers speaking a lot of words, but maybe only one sensible member out of a million who actually exerts the effort to be positive.
Most existing religions help to guide their followers into peaceful and productive lives, and though all religions have flaws, still the religions are usually of more benefit than harm. Science, however, does not guide its followers into peaceful and productive lives; science promotes the callous disregard for all things, including living beings. The rapid increase of violence committed by science worshippers is largely aided by the presence of the Internet, and I suspect that the violence will continue to worsen.
At present, the largest search engine is judging websites by how well the websites agree with popular science. If an online article does not appear to worship popular science, then the article might be black-listed (it does happen, it is my occupation to research the topic, I have had pages black-listed, I know what happens and how to remedy the problem). The religion of science wants to be the one that decides what you are permitted to see and to think: it is here already, now.
I am writing the pathological science articles as a means of [1] being a voice that asks people to please stop being cruel in the name of science, [2] to point at some of the most obvious of errors in science, [3] to observe how my pages will be received by the big search groups, and [4] as self-therapy of expending the emotional turmoil of my having been forced to endure the negativities of science worshipers'. When the turmoil has been depleted, then I will once again ignore sciencism, and I will go back to another project that I am wanting to further investigate, a project that promises usefulness of positive things that are very real and very kind.
Two-Dimensional Mathematics
This topic is difficult for me to speak of, because the topic is so obvious to me that it is felt to be irrational to have to so much as mention the topic. Nevertheless, I do recognize that the public has been taught to accept some non-real things to be real, and so it is useful that I offer an explanation of why my words may not appear to agree with popular assumptions.
To me, if a line can be seen, then it has three dimensions of width, height, and depth, plus 'dimensions' of duration and others. To my knowledge there does not exist any 'real' thing in the known universe that is one-dimensional or two-dimensional (of only width, height, depth, or a mixture of any two). For me, I tend to think within concepts of things that are real to me, and I do not limit my thoughts to conform to popular beliefs as taught and memorized in schools.
Within mathematics it is taught that drawing a line from left to right infers the single dimension of width. Okay, I understand that; the idea within mathematics is to ignore what is real, to ignore what is occurring at the moment, to ignore what is seen, to ignore one's memories, to stop all awareness of the world around one's self, and to simply invent within one's mind an abstract thought as taught by the teacher (which is unsurprisingly very similar to the brain-washing practiced within cults). Here, to me, the word abstract implies a mental act of willfully creating reasoned relationships to memories of things that were sensorially perceived as 'real' (really perceived, the real firsthand experience of perceiving, but the perceived things are not 'real-real' because what is perceived by the body cannot be the whole perception of what exists: my perceptions are my own personal interpretations of the world around me).
Within the abstract thought of mathematics, a one-dimensional line exists all by itself, with no beginning, no end, no origins, no attributes, no personality, no motion, no flux, no duration, no curving, no time dilations, no awareness given to the line itself, no analyses given to the line's existence, no anything beyond the mind dream-like pretending that the line impossibly exists all by itself. Man's mathematics purposefully ignores Reality while pretending that the imaginary line is real.
To me, a single line has width, height, depth, color, flux, duration, and it has many other features that must exist before the line can exist. Yes, I can consciously create the abstract thoughts needed to perform the mathematics demanded within schools, and for me, when I scored at the ceiling of an IQ test's mathematical section, I interpreted the score as merely being adequate, of merely answering the questions correctly as the teachers requested on all other tests (I quickly learned that scoring well on IQ tests greatly displeases teachers — causes teachers and doctors to become emotionally unstable — so I strived to score lower on future tests). So, to me, it is not that I do not know mathematics, but rather I have no need to restrict my thoughts and awareness down into the false abstracts of mathematics.
To me, a single line has a beginning and an end — two things — plus the many other things that occur in-between the two ends. Man's mathematics does not and cannot recognize what occurs between nor after the two ends of any measurement, and thus, man's mathematics — to me — is limited to two things, which I sometimes refer to with various terms like binary and two-dimensional. To me, a 'dimension' is a thing that has a substance of presence, a thing that has 'stuff' occurring within the thing, a point of reference, a concept of many things summing into a concept of the whole, and to me, I do not think of there possibly existing a single thing all by itself.
The triple integral graphic helps me to point at what, to me, is a tiny portion of a thought that combines countless similar 'sphere' analyses occurring simultaneously and are all influencing and being influenced by the other. To me, the mental act of reasoning is analogous to the sphere, of 'things' occurring within a fluid sphere, of all of the things existing, moving, influencing, and being influenced by all other things simultaneously. To me, reasoning is an act of weighing the fluid durations, ratios, and other events occurring simultaneously, and as the graphic's dV moves or changes shapes or patterns, so are the other attributes influenced, all of which are simultaneously weighed as the influences occur. To me, thoughts are fluid, mindful of the many relationships, and as per the example graphic, when dV is in motion, so are the other attributes in motion, all of which are held within the mind's observing and analysis.
To me, the idea of destroying the fluid relationships of the sphere so as to mathematically mark X and O, to me the act is crude, not sensible, and the act renders measurements to be terribly slow, inaccurate, and permanently incapable of measuring what is real. When dV moves, so do all other 'lines' move, which sums to the obviousness that man's calculus cannot perform an accurate measurement because once one measurement has been made, all of the other measurements will have changed. For mathematics, without there existing a conscious attention and analysis of the analyses as they occur in the present and are weighed by the pasts and projected futures, then yes, it is understandable of why man's mathematics struggles so with attempts to grasp time dilation: that which is obvious to some of us, is simply not possible for man's mathematics.
Within Pathological Science #2 Binary I wrote:
Man's mathematics can only measure two-dimensional features of closed systems; mathematics cannot measure open systems. Reality is an open system, which mathematics cannot measure. Yes, there are many individuals who energetically claim that mathematics can measure three-dimensional objects, but if math could measure three-dimensional features, then I would very much be interested in seeing the math. To my knowledge, height, width, and depth are still height, width, and depth, and mathematics still measures each of the heights, widths, and depths two-dimensionally. If mathematics were not two-dimensional, then please show how the volume of a cube can be known by omitting the two-dimensional measurements of heights, depths, and widths. Please make one measurement that sums three dimensions as well as the volume, spatial shapes, and motion. Some individuals can do it, but science and mathematics cannot do it — ever.
Man's mathematics is self-restricted to the measurement of lines that have two points, a beginning and an end: two mental dimensions that ignore all of the Reality that exists in-between and around the two points. If man's mathematics could measure in-between the two ends, then man's mathematics would not be the 'picket fence' of averages and Pi.
And so, yes, I have written words that do not conform to man's mathematics, nor do the words agree with what schools popularly teach as being the one and only true truth. No, I do not accept man's mathematics to be my own manner of processing thoughts, nor do I believe in — nor support — schools' beliefs, and so I do not unnecessarily contort my words to dishonestly conform to a mathematics that I know is inferior and very much stunting of mind.
Update November 07, 2017 - Emotions Within Voices
Some individuals agree with the popular science and academic beliefs that claim that no one can mentally discern more than a few negative emotions within faces and voices, and the individuals disagree with my opinion that all voices express all emotions within the speaker.
Lullabies: babies recognize emotions within voices, and babies respond to the emotions. Lullabies have existed longer than man has history of lullabies. And so, why do the scientific and academic claims state that no one can discern more than a few base emotions within voices? Are the scientific and academic claims attempting to infer that all post-infant humans lose the ability to discern emotions within voices? Someone needs to explain why babies and toddlers are adept at discerning emotions within voices, but somehow the children allegedly lose the ability when attaining school age.
Thousands of songs are listed under many different categories: happy, sad, energetic, mindfulness, etc.. If the emotional tones within music are recognized as being emotional tones, then why do the science and academia believers claim that there are few or no emotions within voices?
I had assumed that most people are aware of the differences of emotional content between musical songs. Was I wrong? Might it be true that the academic and scientific theories are correct, that you cannot discern differences of voices?
The scientific and academic claims might be valid for the individuals who make the claims, but the claims do not relate to all people.
I had already planned to create this page to be as a collective addendum for all of the other pathological science pages, as well as to be a page that I could use for responding to the feedback received from visitors. When I feel that I have presented enough articles, I will reread them all and then add links to this page for items that I feel ought to be better explained.
Update September 07, 2020
While writing articles about the topics within ancient Chinese books, there is usually a need to further explain a topic, and within the explanations are references to the negative translations by James Legge and others of his ilk. Rather than muddy the articles with Legge's negativity, my choice has been to create new articles that do the explaining, and to then simply link the articles for additional information rather than dirty good articles with Legge. Within that aim, I have chosen to place my old pathological science articles back online. The pathological science articles also have numerous good references that point to the positive things that are also found within the ancient Chinese books like the Xunzi book.
An interesting item of discovery is that people have been speaking-out against 'pathological science' for over 2,300 years. Today's absurdities by self-proclaimed 'experts' are not a new phenomenon, but rather have been common throughout all known cultures and eras. A lesson learned — and strongly pressed-home — is that it makes no difference what a Confucius or a Xunzi might say, still the average human will not change. Apparently, pathological science is an unchangeable nature of normalcy: it has always been normal, always will be normal, and no quantity of sages and gods will ever be able to eliminate nor so much as slow pathological science. Pathological science is here to stay.
An advantage of my having dipped a toe into the water of the ancient Chinese language, is that I have now found written words that I am able to give respect and honor. And so, although the journey has waded through the mire of pseudo- and pathological science, the path enabled me to deeply appreciate the sanity of individuals like Confucius and Xunzi. And there, and there alone, pathological science had value.
Update October 30, 2020
After having reformatted this page to match others on this site, I let it and numerous other related and updated articles sit while my jumping into a much more interesting research topic. Now that the topic has been completed, I am finishing and uploading the numerous articles. For this update I will number the different little topics that gnaw to be said.
[1] From the update of September 20, 2017: "The rapid increase of violence committed by science worshipers is largely aided by the presence of the Internet, and I suspect that the violence will continue to worsen." And it has; dramatically.
[2] Find the missing magic: All waves are curved. There is no such thing as a flat thing in the Universe. Nature is curved. All electrical charges are always curved. There is no such thing as a flat electrical charge. Nature is cyclic and wave-based. When science speaks of human consciousness, thoughts, memories, and emotions, science says that they are identically the same for everyone, and that all mental activity occurs without curves, and are therefore flat. Sciencians claim that science can measure Reality with mathematics. Mathematics is flat, mathematics cannot measure a curve. An Oxford University psychology employee actually wrote in 2006: "science of mathematical probabilities". From science's mathematics, science claims that the universe began with binary. Binary is flat, has no curves, has no ability to interact with other binary. And so, where is the magic that happened in-between science claiming that [1] the universe is curved, and science claiming that [2] science can measure the curved universe with flat mathematics?
All scientists of all fields of science have disqualified themselves by claiming that flat mathematics is true, while also claiming that the universe is curved. Sciencians are unable to cross-light the contradiction.
[3] Stupid Save the Planet People: Build a manufacturing building of about 100,000 square feet. Cement dug from the ground, rebar made of ore dug from the ground and heated into melted iron, bricks made of soil dug from the ground and baked at high temperatures, glass formed with high heat, iron beams made of ore, machinery made of ores melted at high temperatures, plus the hundreds of other building materials, and as the building is being built, add all of the energy wattage required to build the building as well as to power the trucks, feed the people, and all other energy consumed while the building was built. Do it.
The sum of the energy required to manufacture a solar panel is huge. It will never ever in all of eternity be possible to manufacture a solar panel that can create more energy than it took to create the solar panel. It cannot happen. Maybe sciencians ought to read their own holy books about the laws of thermodynamics?
Solar panels are not perpetual motion devices.
The pro-science people cry and wring their hands over the so-called 'global warming' lie, while screaming that we all need to get rid of all petroleum and coal, only use "renewable" energy sources like solar panels, and to only drive electric vehicles. If the sciencians in the streets have their way, the whole world will grind to a stop within days, and aside from all governments and militaries collapsing, mass starvation would remove over 99% of all humans. But, of course, sciencians are not mentally capable of thinking that far.
Name one protesting 'global warming' fanatic who has reduced their own energy consumption. Name one.
Harvard students cannot pass a 5th grade literacy test, some MIT graduates cannot make light with a battery, wire, and bulb, and no 'global warming' fanatic is able to do first grade arithmetic.