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.

Fighting the moderately good fight on probability

Recently I’ve been engaged in intense combat over probability theory (readers will remember my research in this area – here and here) at an unlikely venue, a blog called “Feminist Philosophers.” I’ve been debating views on probability with English professor David Wallace, who merely adds hominem to my criticisms.

This should encourage everyone! You need not be “officially” “expert” in “disciplines” in order to make discoveries in them. This applies to both Dave and me (though I obviously think I have the upper hand).

Tulane maths professor John Armstrong pwns electromagnetism

I have recently commented on the paradox of alleged electricity in water-based babies here.

Well, an attack on electricity has come from another – and unlikely! – source. Tulane professor John Armstrong, who is already noted for making scientists own up to their deceptions, has recently pointed out the abject state of science education on electricity and magnets.

Be sure to also note in the comment thread the insightful remark of Texan Christian University mathematics professor Greg Friedman, who points out that the “entire subject is a fiction.” I’ve been saying this for what will – by mathematical induction – eventually be a decade.

I’ve been away from blogging for a while, but it’s good to see that my work has begun to reverberate even in academia.

The Dancing Wu Li Masters

PZ Myers has alerted my attention to a wonderful article in Science. Basically, some researchers are challenged with expressing their scholarly work through the medium of interpretive dance. Have you ever heard of such a thing?

The winning video is at the bottom of the article, under “popular choice.” It is incidentally the most boring.

The best is – and here I am in rare agreement with Dr. Myers – the graduate student video, on the benefits of Vitamin D. I’ll post it here!

The Three Thousand Year Reich of Negative Numbers (part one)

The curious reader might be interested to know that Diophantus and the Greek thinkers rejected the concept of negative numbers (and irrational numbers, of course) as “patently ridiculous” and “idiotic.” And we are a Greek-based society. So to borrow David Hume’s plaintive question – Then whence Negative Numbers? The answer to this question lies in the Orient. If there was ever a “yellow menace,” negative numbers are it. The Chinese, the Indians, and the Muslims gave us negative numbers. Not the superior Greeks. Is this a coincidence? I think not. These countries have had a vested interest in the concept from the very beginning.

Fortunately, however, negative numbers are behind a very thin conceptual veil. Once removed, it is easy to see the “Chinaman behind the curtain.” I’ll just say QUED ahead of time. Observe:

I can have three horses, but I cannot have negative three horses. Some people, suffering from Cognitive Dissonance (CD), suggest that “debt” is a manifestation of negative numbers. But that’s really just arguing semantics. Wittgenstein and Derrida disproved semantics back in the 20th century. In any case, what’s really going on in the situation is not that I have negative horses; rather, I owe some positive horses (Positive horses=horses that exist; countable horses. Who would want to be owed imaginary horses?). We can get by just fine without negative numbers. Besides, the Universe is full of stuff, not -stuff. If you would like to confirm this, here is the relevant empirical experiment:

Turn your head this way and that, and look at things. You may if you wish do this in a lab, for a more sciencey feel.

This conclusion, in conjunction with the abolition of infinity, has pathbreaking – nay, watershed – consequences for the number line, which now looks like this:

numberline2

I constantly get compliments for how incredibly parsimonious my arguments are – well, this one perhaps beats them all!

If the abolition of negative numbers in the conceptual schema catches on in the West, we can expect an end to the Three Thousand Year Reich of the Neo-Zoroastrians who think that the number line is an exact balance between negative and positive (seriously, what are the chances anyway that it would be an exact balance? It’s even worse than 1/Penultimate. It’s zero!). Now some might say that empirically the Universe is symmetrical, and they might cite anti-matter as confirmation of this. But there is not room here to discuss anti-matter; I’ll leave that for a future post!

“0.9999…. = 1”

This is an essential assumption of Bayes’s Calculus. If you doubt that this is common, then just take a cursory look at the mathematical community here, here, here, and here.  And here and here. Do you know what this means? It means that Calculus, like probability (see my deconstruction of probability), is false. The argument goes something like this:

0.333… is 1/3, right? Well 1/3×3=1. But surely 0.333…x3=0.999…! Therefore, by one or another form of the transitive property, 0.999…=1!

In addition to being a near-blasphemous usage of the transitive property, it is just plain false. Think about it in the following manner. 0.1 is necessarily greater than 0.0X, where ‘X’ is any countable number. 0.1 is also necessarily greater than 0.0XX. And so on. No matter how many X’s you add to the series, it will never equal or be greater to 0.1. Therefore, by mathematical induction a la carte, no amount of repetition of 0.0XXX…. could ever equal 0.1, which is what is necessary to add to 0.9 in order to equal 1. Importantly, (0.9 x / x<0.1)≠1 Λ (0.9 x / x<0.1)<1. Therefore Calculus is false. A house built on sand cannot divide itself.

Notice that all I needed to disprove this foundation of calculus was mathematical induction.

Advice to all my readers: Don’t let “math wizards” intimidate you with technobabble. And note that I am not alone.

Probability (part one)

Probability is false. Imagine the following scenario:

You and Dominique Jones are great friends in 2nd grade. Then, twenty years later, Dominique moves to Venezuela and loans a Noam Chomsky book to Hugo Chavez. Then, you become a custodian for a small high school. Then, you win the lottery – without even buying a ticket. Then, you travel to the Congo. In Congo, you run into Dominique. Dominique says, “Oh gosh! What are the chances?”

Most people would respond with something ignorant such as “Yeah I know!” or “Pretty low!” According to my research, however, the proper response is 100%. But why?

Because if this scenario happens, the chances of it happening are of course 100%. The key terms in my analysis are “if,” “happens,” and “of course.” If it didn’t happen, then the chances of it happening were always 0%. Some people would argue that this commits me to hard determinism, but it does not. A la carte Peter van Inwagen free will exists. What it commits me to is the world of facts. If you are pro-fact, then you will abandon all probabilities between 0 and 100%.