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!