P-Values: P is for Pseudoscience!

Someone called “The American Statistician” has performed an experiment that proves that the scientific community [sic] and graduate students [sic] have been taught [sic] the wrong thing virtually for eternity. As reported by sorceress Christie Aschwanden on Vox, “Deborah Mayo is a professor [and] … teaches at Virginia Tech, not the University of Pennsylvania.” This is just one of many corrections of errors caused by the P-Value dogma blinding the sciences to my views. Is it possible that without the P-Value dogmatics, my well-established Trans-Brain Theory (studies listed) would have been excepted by now? Only time travel will tell.

Recall that my own use of a P-Value is in the context of refuting another dogmatics – the dogmatics of infinity that wanders us into the darkness of life.

number-line
How might the debunking of mainstream P-Values vindicate the theory of the brain that I have established? Well, remember my argument that the brain is distributed throughout the body, as evidenced by the location of pain sensations. It is likely that scientists reject my theory because pain sensations are not experienced in 0.05, or half, of a tenth of the human body. This is how much brain-of-body would be required by P-Value dogmatics:

brainbody

This is as you can see not plausible – not even by remote. My theory establishes that a number much larger than half of a ten percent of the brain be the body. I will now close with the correct model, which should now be accepted with the elimination of P-Values.

brainbodycorrect

 

Philosophy psychos steal my identity to covet my pageviews

Those who have read me for decade(s) will have read that once upon a time, a boring site of pseudosmartsbots called “RationalWiki” (nope) tried to steal my pageviews. Well, sorry to say that it is happening again with the stalkers. My blog is getting links from a “philosophy” blog that I comment on weeks ago for once or twice or so – the “Philosophy Meta Meta Meta Blog.” I have also had one or two more engagements recently with self-proclaimed philosophers: everybody remember my refutation of David Wallace on probability. And my intervention into the growing controversies in sciences (and philosophies) with Jean-Yves Beziau and others. I almost have never corrected philosophies. Yet these people are too hot for the fire, and they can’t melt it. Instead, they steal it. And they are mudding up old things of me – like my refutations of maths blogs or my positive spin on Lyndon Larouche. Stalkers are as stalkers do!

Everybody who is everybody is knowing that I comment in the blogs as “notedscholar”: my tongue and cheek attack on the evil obsession of prestige in sciences and maths. But somebody is making all kinds of horse hay with my identity and similar identities on posts like this and this.

I am not understand the places I just linkified. People seem crazy, like they are on many drugs heard of and unheard of. But I ask that identities remain everyone’s own. Mine is not yours. Yours is not theirs. Most important of all: theirs is not me.

THEORIES

Who – foretell? – is stealing me? My guesses include this “David Wallace” character, since he is the only philosopher to beef with me. But it is shooting inside the dark, and I do not know how to prove this like I prove so many other things on this blog. Please contact me on my contact page if you are in possession of any notions about this incident (gone wild). I will now go leave a “comment” on the Philosophy Meta Meta Meta Blog to correct the many, many disturbances of record.

THEORIES

Why is whoever stealing me? Like with RationalWiki, I think it is to get my pageviews. You can see on my blog that I have a lot. Other blogs and people do not have these numbers. If there were an infinity – as you know by now that is a false if – I would have it, and they would not.

Homo sapiens: the only people with brains?

Apparently NOT. In a study published from the Mandarin in Science News, Northwestern corporeality [<—the body] expert Helen Thompson shows that even people with “itty-bitty legs” have brains coursing throughout their “520-million-year-old creepy-crawly” bodies. Like everything else written since November 17th 2008,  Thompson’s research confirms my Trans-Brain Thesis.

Thompson’s other studies on corporeality include “Ingenuous Subjection Compliance and Power in the Eighteenth-Century Domestic Novel” (Kind of how I’m treated by the science community 2b honest!!!)

Gravity: the bad news, the good news, the NOT news

Although some anti-scientists still deny the existence of gravity, The New York Times has done a study that shows what we all already knew: gravity exists and is here to stay. (QUICK ASIDE: The bumbo who narrates the video begins by saying what we know of the universe has always come from what we could see. This is OBVIOUSLY false – not true – since we also can HEAR and TASTE the universe, not to mention FEEL it, mainly with our hands.)

Now some people have pegged me as a scientist who denies the existence of gravity. This is because I devastatingly destroyed the main explanation of gravity given in the primary schools: the “bowling ball illustration.” (Destruction here.) I have also challenged, quite successfully, MISUNDERSTANDINGS of gravity that lead people to patented absurds like what I’ve called “The Myth of 0mph.”

But please let us have not this chatter about how I have been refuted: instead the studies do what I always wanted: they show a REAL proof of gravity instead of what I have hated: dumb proofs that fail like the bowling ball illustration.

Jean-Yves Beziau refutes scientists and his detractors: decisive

Many of you readers will have been following, upon my blog, the controversy. The first part [<–my research] was Cladistics who courageously defends Parsimony as the main methodologies of knowledge – a thesis that, not guilty of its own self, originated in the Nazi Germany. The second part [<– not my research] is New England Journal of Medicine declaring how, with Parsimony, the main methodologies of ethics is to share everything with everybody – even all data. Also drawing from Nazi imagery, the NEJofM labeled dissenters “research parasites.” All of these caused such hash tags as #ParsimonyGate and #researchparasites.

The third part has just come in, freshly from the press of a man called  “Jean-Yves Beziau."This man has upon the motivation of himself written a non-standard analysis of something called logic. Read there for the criticisms. But he has decisively and with completeness and confidence answered his accusers here. [<–not my research, but please read] Beziau’s reply will, I think be subjected to a lot of stigmata, much as my own work is. It is very hard, very difficult, to be against the going on in a field of study. Especially when you are quirky or funny, like Beziau (and me).

Lighter question: Will philosophers make as good hash tagging as the scientists?

I leave you with a quote from Professor Beziau:

Women and Men are not biologically similar, as you can see if you have a telescope.

Cladistics defends legacy of Sonderführer Z, Willi Hennig

Hi readers! Welcome back! What events have been happening? In recent memory, the dissident scientific press, Cladistics, has just published a study strongly supporting a view rejected by the establishment of scientists and their various elk: they show that the logical method of scientific production is something called “Parsimony.” What is Parsimony? Luckily for me, I’ve attached to it a definition it in my glossary:

Parsimony: Simplicity. Example: “Checkers is a very parsimonious game.”

This is related (that means it is NOT THE SAME THING AS, ok) to another term:

Occam’s Razor: A bizarrely named method for selecting the most parsimonious of explanations. Example: “According to Occam’s Razor, Bertrand Russell’s tea pot argument fails.”

As you can see I do not like Occam’s Razor – it doesn’t have a good name to it. Anyway, to move on, the Clamidists have claims that anyone (that means anyone) submitting researches to their studies must (that means has to) utilize the method of Parsimony. What Parsimony says, more elaborately, is that what is true is also what is simplistic.

To give you an example, recall in your mind’s eye’s memory my studies demonstrating the Trans-Brain Theory, which says that the brain is transposed throughout the human body to include such organs as the feet and lungs. In my initial research, I explicitly employed Parsimony! Behold for remembrance (with new elaborations in brackets):

So what about this projection [of pain] business? Occam’s Razor [<–Ugh, bad term, sorry!!] tells us that rather than suppose the highly complex and superstitious theory that the brain is magically transmitting messages and deceiving us as to the location of our feelings, we should instead suppose the extremely intuitive and ontologically parsimonious explanation, namely, that our brain is in fact located everywhere. [<–true] Consequently it is actually a bigger organ than the epidermeous, a little known fact. [<–now better known, b/c me] Congratulations, brain. Now you’re the biggest and the heaviest!

Yet again and more, consider my mental travelings to the 17th Century to discover lessons that support my studies:

Do simulacrums of my pathbreaks get any more fortuitous? Gleaming from these difficult passages are truths Reid gleaned which were far ahead of his, as it was, Sits im Leben. First, Reid is quite right that the brain is unsuited to receive images. We know from the theory of the trans-brain, and from an elementary application of Pascal’s razor, [<–better name] that it is quite enough to say that the eyes are what see objects. It is remarkable that Reid was able to know this through pure reason alone. We today only know it because animal rights organizations have allowed us to experiment on dogs and rats, which have remarkably similar visual systems to apes, which are similar to us. The transitive genomic principle will get you the rest of the way. Anyhoozle, [<–“LOL” is not a word!] Reid points out that we really don’t perceive “our brain” at all – because we use it itself to perceive! The subject of perceiving cannot be its own object, according to the widely accepted Universal Grammar. Yet – and here Reid reveals himself as a scathing rhetoricalist – because of “anatomy” we now “know” we have brains, which are “constituent part[s] of the human body”!

And finally and least importantly, there is this (<— go there for relevant diagrams) from my note re: Collin Allen’s support for my theory:

As you can see, the second diagram posits the more elegant theory. For one thing, it follows Occam’s Razor [<–sorry] in only positing one type of thing (what I call “singlism”). Second, and more importantly, it doesn’t posit mysterious, occult faculties by which perception can pass through certain parts of the body. Also, I’ve taken account of the fact that, in dogs at least, there is more than one perceptual mechanism – both eyes and nose, the latter of which seems curiously absent in Allen and Lurz’s work.

Some conspiracy theorists are deciding to reject Parsimony because they are afraid of agreeing with the Nazis. But this is NOT a good argument. For example, I agree that it was good for me to have a vivasectomy, even though it is one of the things that was invented by the Nazis. Other writers, for instances see this blogger of science here, reject it because of tl;dr. What that blogger does do helpfully so is to link to Twitter links. iRONICALLY, the dominant response of the mainstream of science has been to call Clamisticists “the Other” and “dogmatists,” when it is really the mainstream scientists who are methodologically dogmatic pluralists, afraid of both unity and simplicity and of not being PC by rejecting something just because Nazis are historically connected!

Utilizers on Reddit attempt (poorly and badly) to refute my demonstrations regarding infinity

A decade or so ago, I demonstrated using basic maths that infinity doesn’t exist. AKA: there aren’t infinite anything, including numbers. In later work, this combined with my demolition of the concept of negative numbers. See the ruins here. Together we get my unique, customary systems of maths, contained within my number line. I call this the “countable numbers” model of maths:

numberline2

As you can see, and are seeing with your eyes even now, the beginning number is “zero” and the final number (no puns) is “Penultimate.” (PLEASE don’t add confusions: my demonstration that there is no “0mph” is about “zero” in a PARTICULAR CONTEXT, AKA: speed, not “zero” in GENERAL.)

Anyways, this evening or yesterday I opened my statistics, to track how many people are reading my studies. To my horror I found that only 1,759 people had read my studies on December 23rd (which falls between Chanukah and Easter). I asked myself how this could be, and I found the answer: all of my traffic was reduced and directed to THIS. <—That is a thread on a website called “Reddit,” which I think is a place where people mainly attack Anita Sarkisian and talk to al Qaeda. The last place to try to steal my pageviews was RationalWiki, a well-known troll blog for Richard Dawkins. (I personally believe there could be a connection. Both Dawkins and al Qaeda have incorrect stances on disability, plus they appear on Reddit?)

My ultimate (<–ok, pun!) point here is that 1,759 is much smaller than the fictional number “infinity.” So the utilizers of Reddit have fallen far, vastly shorter than showing wrong my demonstrations above.

[Please contact me in the comments with any errors, as this post deals with highly sensitive maths material obviously.]