Pathological Science #3 Experts
||| Logics Home || Logics Site Info |||
Pathological Science #3 Experts
Copyright©2017 by Larry Neal Gowdy, July 24, 2017
The general public tends to not know that there are different standards of qualifications for 'expert' scientists and for experts of skill. One of the reasons for having different standards is because some groups of people use the word expert to mean something different than how the general public defines the word (please see Pathological Science #1 and Pathological Science #2 Binary for definitions and a background of this series). I will first give a brief background of why people often use the same words to mean different things, and then I will give examples of why some 'expert' scientists do not have any skills.
All humans interpret all words differently — no exceptions. Humans are not identical, not the same, and not equal, nor are their lives identical. Everyone has a different history, and everyone's own personal history influences how everyone interprets, learns, and remembers all words — no exceptions. A mind has to be thinking (consciously or unconsciously) before it can memorize a word, and the preexisting thoughts influence how the new word is heard, how the new word is related to one's own memories of one's own life, and how an individual will store the word's memory relative to one's own interpretations of one's own life. Thoughts are analog, not binary, and since no two analog waves can be identical, then no two thoughts can be identical, nor can two humans share the identical same analog thoughts — ever. If memories were to be stored as molecular chains within brain cells, then the molecular chains cannot be identical for two individuals, which mandates that the memories are not identical, and therefore interpretations of words cannot be identical. It is literally impossible for two people to share the same identical conscious and unconscious interpretations of words. Physics states that it is impossible, commonsense states that it is impossible, and all competent inquiries into the mind state that it is impossible. Regardless of what anyone might claim, no one interprets a word the identical same way as anyone else — ever.
Self-analysis through self-reflection ought to be inherent and common throughout all of the human species, but, unfortunately, not all humans can self-reflect, and some of the humans who cannot self-reflect do self-invent the dogmatic belief that their thoughts are binary-perfect, and that their memorized worded definitions of words are exactly perfect. Most schools train students to memorize definitions without the students understanding what the definitions' words imply (sort of like a trained autism), and any student who fails to recite the invented binary-definition is given a failing grade and is deemed to be ignorant.
When an individual makes the claim that two or more people can interpret a word the identical same way, the individual has given evidence that the individual is fully ignorant of physics, biology, life experience, self-awareness, and commonsense, and the individual has also exhibited a symptom of dementia; they simply make things up in their mind and insist that their aberrant inventions are true fact. Regardless of what might be taught in schools, humans do not and cannot interpret words the same.
The English language is especially weak when a cultish clique chooses a common word and the clique then insists that everyone in the world must never again use the word except how the word is defined by the clique. As a general rule, the more popular and powerful a clique becomes, the more that its definitions of words will be forced upon the public. Numerous common examples include the words spirit, spiritual, and spirituality, all of which are interpreted by cliques to only imply the definitions that were invented by each clique. Members of the cliques will energetically argue — usually violently — that their definitions are the only real and true definitions, and anyone who might disagree is hated by the cliques' followers.
The word expert is commonly defined in English dictionaries to imply an individual who has a skill or knowledge that is amongst the best within all of humanity. Within common use and commonsense, an expert driver implies an individual who drives better than most all other drivers, and an expert cook implies an individual who cooks better than most all other cooks. The word's emphasis is placed on a real human being who personally performs an act that is of a superior grade and accuracy than most or all other people.
However, within the cliques of science, academia, and other religions, the word expert does not relate to skill nor to knowledge; the word merely relates to individuals who have memorized book words and have been given titles by the cliques' popular consensus. Within Christianity — a system of faith that holds love to be the central theme and purpose — an individual who memorizes the Christian books' words can be given the title of expert even if the person may have no love and no skill of loving. Within Buddhism — a system of faith that holds awareness to be the central theme and purpose — an individual who memorizes the Buddhist books' words can be given the title of expert even if the person may have no awareness and no skill of being aware. Within science and academia — systems of faith that hold knowledge to be the central theme and purpose — an individual who memorizes science's and academia's book words can be given the title of expert even if the person may have no knowledge beyond the memorization of words; not so much as a knowledge of what the words might mean.
A very good example of 'all book and no skill' is within Christian teachings not including variations of love, especially the variation that the scriptures likely pointed towards. Of the thousands of Christian books and papers that I have read, not so much as one mentioned or hinted of the variation of love. The absence of the comment is evidence that the Christian 'experts' were word memorizers without skills. There are several similarly important topics within Christianity that are simply never mentioned, which again is evidence that the individuals formed their beliefs upon words, and not upon firsthand experience.
A humorous example of the ineptness of some 'expert' scientists is within the story of a well-known venture capitalist who backed a bio-energy company named KiOR. As the story has been told through numerous sources, KiOR invested about $600,000,000.00 into the startup, and hired the cream of the crop 'experts' from universities and others — a preponderance of Ph.D. lab researchers — but failed to hire employees who could actually operate the plant's machinery. The highly touted business adventure quickly went bust because the 'expert' scientists were not so much as able to operate simple machinery.
Similar stories are found throughout the world in all fields. A local city's water well pumps had been properly serviced for years by a man with a sixth grade education, but when 'expert' college-graduate children were hired to take the man's place, the 'expert' scientists quickly began blowing-up the pump motors at a reported cost of over $25,000.00 each. The city had to call the man back from his retirement to fix what the 'experts' destroyed. I personally have serviced industries where the 'expert' scientists could not so much as diagnose a simple series circuit; not in over twenty years of repeatedly hiring more and more 'experts'. Widely known is the failure of MIT graduates to make light from a battery, wire, and a light bulb: the 'experts' could not so much as rationalize the simple series circuit that even toddlers think of as being very simple (thoughts of KiOR arise...).
Regardless of how many clique titles a person may have, if the individual cannot think beyond book words, then the 'expert' titles are meaningless and open for ridicule.
A humorous example of Philosophian philosophy is found within Boris Sidis' works:
"The vagueness and unintelligibility of German philosophy and especially of Hegelian philosophical speculation have been often ridiculed for their meaningless jargon. The Hegelians heap words, sentences, and paragraphs and expect the reader to supply the meaning. I give here a translation from that conundrum of Hegelian philosophical dialectics, a kind of metaphysical Pilgrim's Progress, "Die Phanomenologie des Geistes." The book contains about six hundred pages, with a preface of fifty-eight, and an introduction of twenty-four pages, all closely printed in Gothic type. The passage is from the preface :
"The spiritual alone is the actual; it is the being or Initselfbeing (Ansichseiende), the self contained and determined, the Otherbeing (Anderseien) or For self 'being (Fiirsichseien) and in that determination or its Outerbeing in itself remaining: or it is in and for itself. This Inandforitselfbeing (Anundfiirsichseien) is only at first for us or in itself, it is the spiritual substance. It must also be for itself, must be the knowledge of the spiritual and must be the knowledge of itself as spirit, it must be its own object, but as much immediate or sublimated, in itself reflected object. It is for itself but for us, in so far as its spiritual content is manifested through itself; in so far however as it is for itself, it is for self, so it is self-manifested, the pure concept, at the same time its own objective element wherein it has its being, and it is in this way in its own being for itself in self-reflected object." (The Psychology of Laughter, Boris Sidis, New York and London, D. Appleton and Company, 1913.)
'He who can, does, and he who cannot, teaches' (the phrase was reportedly evolved from "A person with real ability will perform themselves rather than teaching others to do so" within George Bernard Shaw's Man and Superman, 1903). In the real world, experts are people who physically do the things of their expertise, but within the cliques of science, academia, and other religions, their experts are word memorizers who do not physically participate in the things that their words claim to be knowledge.
Within science and western philosophy, it is very common for individuals to claim of themselves to be experts, but the individuals know next to nothing of the topics that they claim to be experts of. Some scientists loudly claim that they are experts and that they know all about love because they read books on love that were written by other expert scientists, but the scientists have never experienced love, nor can they describe what love feels like, nor can they describe how love nascents, nor can they describe the variations of love. The scientists claim that love is lust, habit, and jealously, but lust, habit, and jealously are lust, habit, and jealously, and they are not love. The scientists might be titled as experts within the cliques of science and academia, but in the real world the scientists are frauds and frequently ridiculed for their gross ignorance and pathological science.
The only scientist known to me to have ever made an attempt to reach beyond the narrow clique of science was David Bohm, who held dialogs with Jiddu Krishnamurti. Of the several books that I read in the 80s of Krishnamurti's, he had a few good thoughts, but his life's history, of course, influenced his thoughts, and he still retained some ideas that might have appeared to him to be true, but the ideas were not true, and it was an error for a man to preach a way of life that he himself had not lived through firsthand experience.
I am giving a few Krishnamurti quotes as examples of 'things that aren't so', plus to be used later in this article as a parallel of teachings given to scientists by other philosophers.
The important thing, therefore, is to be aware from moment to moment without accumulating the experience which awareness brings; because, the moment you accumulate, you are aware only according to that experience. That is your awareness is conditioned by your accumulation and therefore there is no longer observation but merely translation. Where there is translation, there is choice, and choice creates conflict; in conflict there can be no understandings." (The First & Last Freedom, Copyright© 1954 by Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Limited, Broclwood Park, Bramdean, Hampshire, UK).
Krishnamurti spoke as if all humans are identical, the same, and equal, which is a false belief and a false claim. It is one thing to use generalities, but for Krishnamurti to have created teachings that did not distinguish between different types of people, his teachings became false.
While it is a good thing to always be consciously aware and thinking, it is a negative and destructive thing to teach people to not think nor to hold memories of the experience of awareness. Perhaps Krishnamurti's choices of words failed to adequately convey what he wished to express, but he voiced numerous similar teachings that pointed to an interpretation of a blend of Buddhism and Hinduism that followers should destroy their minds and sensory perceptions so that the followers could then be so utterly mindless that the people could then have 'empty' minds. Krishnamurti's published teachings were similar to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh's and several other popular cult leaders of the time: a lot of sophist Philosophian words that claimed to be applicable to all humans at all times.
"The flowering of love is meditation" (attributed to Jiddu Krishnamurti of an unknown original source).
No. I was unable to find the original source, but as the quote stands, it is unreservedly false. The topic of Sciencians and Philosophians racing to preach meditation is too lengthy for this article, but recent science books are telling people to meditate on their lusts and desires so as to create happiness. Any time anyone preaches meditation without also giving a lengthy description of what the meditation is supposed to accomplish, it is a warning sign that they are probably frauds.
Meditation is to be aware of every thought and of every feeling, never to say it is right or wrong but just to watch it and move with it. In that watching you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling. And out of this awareness comes silence. Silence put together by thought is stagnation, is dead, but the silence that comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itself, understood how all thought is never free but always old - this silence is meditation in which the meditator is entirely absent, for the mind has emptied itself of the past.
...In the understanding of meditation there is love, and love is not the product of systems, of habits, of following a method. Love cannot be cultivated by thought. Love can perhaps come into being when there is complete silence, a silence in which the mediator is entirely absent; and the mind can be silent only when it understands its own movement as thought and feeling. To understand this movement of thought and feeling there can be no condemnation in observing it. To observe in such a way is the discipline, and that kind of discipline is fluid, free, not the discipline of conformity. (Freedom From the Known, J. Krishnamurti)
An expert of self-awareness can give lengthy descriptions of what is thought and felt during the emotion of love, but Krishnamurti's words gave no descriptions. All humans are different, and perhaps within Krishnamurti's own self, his being "aware of every thought and of every feeling" did not include an awareness of the thoughts and feelings that gave rise to goodness and love because he simply had no conscious ability to observe his thoughts and feelings. Nevertheless, that is one of the problems with following the words of a book; what works for one man might not work for anyone else, and one man's treasure might be another man's childishness.
""Truth is a pathless land." Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection." (J. Krishnamurti, The Core of the Teachings, unverified original source)
Krishnamurti had previously stated "be aware from moment to moment without accumulating the experience" but here he states "He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection." Krishnamurti might have pointed towards things that are useful, but he repeatedly contradicted himself in ways that appeared to suggest that he held no firm grasp of nor cross-lighted his own thoughts.
"We are concerned with the total development of each human being, helping him to realize his own highest and fullest capacity — not some fictitious capacity which the educator has in view as a concept or an ideal. Any spirit of comparison prevents this full flowering of the individual, whether he is to be a scientist or a gardener. The fullest capacity of the gardener is the same as the fullest capacity of the scientist when there is no comparison; but when comparison comes in, then there is the disparagement and the envious reactions which create conflict between man and man. Like sorrow, love is not comparative; it cannot be compared with the greater or lesser. Sorrow is sorrow, as love is love, whether it be in the rich or in the poor." (Life Ahead: On Learning and the Search for Meaning, J. Krishnamurti, New World Library, Novato, CA, Copyright© 1963 by Krishnamurti, Foundation of America)
An immediate response is to stand back and to avoid all people who make claims like "helping him to realize his own highest and fullest capacity". It is the ignorance of inexperience for a man to claim that his ideology is the one true truth for all humans at all times. All humans are different, and though Krishnamurti's method might possibly be useful for individuals similar to himself, the method absolutely does not and cannot apply to everyone. Many individuals were literally more aware before birth than what Krishnamurti ever achieved: the teachings similar to Krishnamurti's insist that all people are of as low of mind as the teachers, and that there can be only one path and only one destination. Krishnamurti's path was a mere variation of Buddhism, and though Buddhism preaches a faith of conscious reincarnation, the hard fact is that Buddhists deny it to be possible when an individual proves that they were conscious of incarnation.
Krishnamurti's word "highest" implies the very highest, with none higher. Krishnamurti's 'highest' goal was as he said, and the goal held no mention of quality positive traits of politeness, kindness, gentleness, compassion, sympathy, mindfulness, gracefulness, and forms of 'love' that are radiant and create states of being that are beautiful, aware, and rapturously wonderful to the individual. Krishnamurti's method was a selfish desire for the self, and not a wish to be a better person for other people. Krishnamurti's teachings cause strife, segregation, and one's own suffering.
A similarly false claim was made by Albert Einstein:
"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery - even if mixed with fear - that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in the alone, I am a deeply religious man." (Einstein's Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein, 1954, Wings Books, New York)
The claim of "the most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious" is beyond ludicrous, as well as being scientifically false, but, of course, the clique of science refuses to recognize its own 'experts´' inaccuracies.
Krishnamurti and Einstein had no firsthand experience with the topics that they claimed to have expert knowledge of, but still they made huge claims while expecting everyone to believe the claims to be true. Krishnamurti's and Einstein's claims were utterly false.
Creativity is boundless, there are no boundaries of creativity, which also means that there is no boundary of love and happiness. Physics knows it, aware individuals know it, commonsense knows it, but Krishnamurti, Einstein, and others of small cliques do not know it. There is no binary 'highest' capacity for humans, and all individuals who claim otherwise, are ignorant of what is possible.
Krishnamurti's other claims were also absolutely not true. Sorrow is not sorrow, there are almost infinite variations of 'sorrow', and similarly with love; it is absolutely not true that 'love is love' nor is there any other 'emotion is emotion'. Krishnamurti's words absolutely proved without question that he did not know what he was talking about. It is interesting to observe how numerous people make use of a few things that are common knowledge or of a common desire, and then the authors invent an answer that allegedly offers an explanation, but the answer is utterly impossible and cannot be true. Almost all of Einstein's opinions were similar; he seized upon the moment's emotion, and he then invented fallacious conclusions that could not possibly be true: perhaps the answers were merely an unconscious method of soothing his unconscious emotions.
Give notice that Krishnamurti stated "when comparison comes in, then there is the disparagement and the envious reactions". Krishnamurti's words gave evidence that he was  referring to other people, and/or  he was not in conscious control of his emotions nor of his own mind. The wording appeared to suggest the latter: how would Krishnamurti know of envy if he had no envy? What, precisely, exists that an individual can feel envy for? Material possessions? Social rank? Bank account? A prettier spouse? What? State exactly what the envy is for, and within the description will be proof of one's own mind, heart, and value of life. As Krishnamurti's statement stands without further clarifications, the statement was evidence that he was not the enlightened individual that many believed him to be, nor was he or any of his followers qualified to lead another person's life. To me, the presence of envy marks the absence of awareness, a frailty of intelligence, and a slothfulness of not accomplishing the things that would end envy. I myself have never experienced the emotion of envy, but I have witnessed the effects, and the effects have always been very similar: the people selfishly lusted for material things and nothing else.
If an individual were to be envious of another person's IQ, then the solution is simple: be polite, be kind, be gentle, be mindful of your words, and care for other people. In so doing, the person has exceeded the intellectual potential of almost all high IQers. Envy, it appears, shares a similar standard of self-value as the masses, and it also appears that the desire to be 'better' is a desire to be 'more low' of conformity with the masses that have no value but material possessions and social status. Desiring social prestige, is it not a wish to gain the approval from the lowest forms of man?
"The flowering of goodness is not in the soil of thought but in freedom from sorrow. The ending of sorrow is love." (Meeting Life: Writings and Talks From Society, Copyright© 1991 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd.)
Oh so fully false. Again Krishnamurti's words proved that his ideology was mere Philosophian nonsense. It is possible that Krishnamurti might have defined the word love to imply an absence of sorrow, but even if that were his own personal definition, the definition absolutely cannot apply to everyone, and the definition is also lacking a description of what remains when sorrow is absent, which again renders Krishnamurti's claim to be empty of value.
What is goodness? It is a legitimate and important question. Philosophians toss-out unknown words and then assume that the words have meaning (as the Hegelian example above). Describe goodness, give an intensely detailed description of what is good and evil, and only then use the words as if they have meaning. Philosophians cannot define nor describe what goodness is, which sums to the obvious: all Philosophian claims and beliefs are false.
"Krishnamurti: Let's put it round this way, sir. In the field of reality, love has a different meaning — there is jealousy and so on.
David Bohm: That's when it's trapped in there, but I'm suggesting that love can act in the field of reality in a clear way.
Krishnamurti: Yes, love can act in the world of reality, but the love in reality is not love.
David Bohm: It's desire.
Krishnamurti: Desire and all the rest of it. We're getting slowly back.
David Bohm: Therefore, if it's trapped in there, love in the field of reality is not love.
Krishnamurti: So the love in nothingness can act in the world of reality, but it can never be polluted in the field of reality, therefore it is something entirely original. (The Limits of Thought: Discussions Between J. Krishnamurti and David Bohm, Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, ©1999)
Give special attention to Bohm's words: "I'm suggesting that love can act in the field of reality in a clear way". Actually, Bohm was more correct than he might have suspected. If Bohm had had a dialog with an expert individual with firsthand experience, Bohm surely would have been thrilled and would have found a new topic of physics to investigate. Unfortunately, Bohm had chosen a Philosophian expert.
Aside from a few good Bohm thoughts, the dialog was of mere sophisms being tossed back and forth without either speaker knowing what they were talking about. Krishnamurti's use of jealously as connected to love parallels the scientific and western philosophy description of love: lust, habit, and jealously, all of which are negative behaviors accompanied with negative emotions. Humanity is so horrifically negative and ignorant that man does not so much as have enough mind to cross-light that a love composed of negative ingredients must be a negative love, and not be a good thing. If a man cannot mentally distinguish between lust and caring, then, well, there is no hope for that man.
Philosophians have never known what any word means, but Philosophians speak as if their unknown words ought to carry meaning and be understood, and, of course, the Philosophians still claim of themselves to be experts.
Krishnamurti might have been considered an expert from the scientific, academic, and religious points of view, but to an expert of awareness, Krishnamurti is seen to have been an amateur Philosophian, and no so much as a good one at that.
The usefulness of using quotes from Krishnamurti's books is that David Bohm was a theoretical physicist who should have immediately recognized at least some of the fatal errors within Krishnamurti's claims. I personally have a lot of respect for Bohm because he did at least attempt to find answers outside of science's clique, but, unfortunately, Bohm chose a man with a title, and Bohn did not choose to speak to an expert.
Bohm was an 'expert' scientist, but he had no experience with topics outside of his occupation. The lack of firsthand experience may have been the underlying reason of why Bohm assumed that answers to hard questions could be found the same way as how he learned his science: in a class room, with books and Pulpiteers.
A person must actually exert the effort to learn through firsthand observation, of actually having the firsthand experience itself. Merely memorizing words and then claiming one's self knowledgeable, is grossly ignorant. Scientists discredit science itself when scientists are too lazy and intellectually incapable of learning through firsthand observation.
If an individual cannot describe an emotion within degrees of intensities, durations, patternings, compositions, spatial directions, harmonics, and the many other ingredients of each emotion, then the individual is a mere Philosophian and all that he knows is a mere sophism of unknown words. Firsthand experience, only firsthand experience can describe an emotion, and never will that firsthand experience be identical to anyone else's. One-hundred percent of all scientists and philosophers who speak of love and other emotions as 'love is love' are frauds, and the absence of description proves that their science is pathological.
Science cannot so much as describe an emotion within a physics interpretation, which proves that biology, psychology, and all other fields of science cannot be valid when they speak of emotions. Science is a schizophrenic child, of multiple personalities, none of which agree with the other.
There is no such thing as an infallible human, and regardless of what many people may want to believe, science is only as good as the humans who invent the science. Many individuals have discredited themselves and their science by their having claimed to be experts of topics that the individuals know nothing of. It can be rather depressing to point at the endless examples of fake 'expert' scientists, so instead I will briefly offer one humorous example and one not so humorous example.
Saying Watt Without Knowing What Watt Is What
Several years ago a self-proclaimed "expert" biologist gave 'expert' advice about microwave radiation to the USA government agencies that allegedly regulate product safety. In an online video, the self-proclaimed 'expert' repeatedly made claims of how they knew everything about everything because they had read books and had had jobs working for various "scientific" institutions. The claims of being an expert were formed upon association and clique title — possibly also upon the fallacy of an appeal to authority — but not upon actually being skilled with the topic at hand.
The field of biology is especially fragile and susceptive to pathological science due to its foundational beliefs having been formed upon irrational imaginations of things that biologists simply have no knowledge of. The field of biology was wrong when it claimed that no one could see more colors than what biologists see, the field of biology was wrong when it claimed that no one can be conscious of one's own thoughts, biology was wrong when it claimed that no one could create their own 'math' before memorizing math in schools, biology was wrong when it claimed that no one could be conscious before 18 months, biology was wrong when it claimed that babies are born with 'blank slate' minds, biology was wrong when it claimed that 500 billion brain cells could store a hundred years of binary memories, biology's assumptions were shown to have been wrong when DNA was recently discovered (and current DNA beliefs will later be found to have been misinterpretations), and biology is still very much wrong on a lot of topics, especially within the topics that relate to physics. History has repeatedly proven that the science of biology has always held irrational beliefs, and it is an act of ignoring hindsight for anyone to place faith in today's biology.
Today, right now, the field of biology can so very easily be proven to be based upon false assumptions. I once exerted the effort to create several printed pages that included graphics of biological topics alongside of pre-school physics (things that even average toddlers learn while playing, which should have been easy enough for even an 'expert' biologist to grasp), but I could find no 'expert' who could cross-light and rationalize how the four exceedingly obvious things were related. Someday, if biologists ever do see the obvious, at that time the topic of biology will be revolutionized, and many of today's most firmly established 'facts' of biology — and a few other fields of science — will be proven to have been a blend of pathological science and pseudoscience.
Biologists and Pulpiteers are paid millions of dollars to recite words from books, but no one would pay me to say what the topics are, so I never speak publicly of the topics (I feel no need for social approval). Meanwhile, however, those of us who know of the topics, we merely sit back, watch the circus, and shake our heads.
There are several good biology Researchers, some of which are finally beginning to point to how memories are not binary sparks, and how some memories might be molecularly stored and communicated at microwave frequencies. Nevertheless, just because a few good Researchers exist, it does not mean that all biologists are experts, nor even competent.
The video's self-proclaimed 'expert' claimed that low wattage cell phones are safe to use, and that microwave radiation from cell phones could not possibly present a health hazard, but some years later the self-proclaimed 'expert' changed their mind and then claimed that microwave radiation was indeed harmful to living beings. The self-proclaimed 'expert' claimed that their change of opinion was based upon their having learned that microwave radiation — especially from cell phones — is erratic (pulsing) when communicating, and it was the pulse itself that was harmful.
It is useful to give attention to how the self-proclaimed 'expert' used the two-dimensional scientific interpretation of 'pulses' when describing an electromagnetic field's patterning, which in itself proved that the individual still held no knowledge of the topic.
The self-proclaimed 'expert' knew nothing useful about electromagnetic waves when the individual first claimed that microwave radiation was safe, and the individual was still ignorant of electromagnetic fields when the person later reversed their opinion: the scientist purposefully lied about their being an "expert". At least some of today's global safety regulations are still formed and based upon the lies of fraud scientists (here 'fraud' is defined as 'a person who pretends to be something that the person is not').
"For exposure to RF energy from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue." (Wireless Devices and Health Concerns as quoted on the Federal Communications Commission website.)
Almost humorous was of another video showing the self-proclaimed 'expert' bemoaning the dangers of electromagnetic radiation while the individual stood on a stage and spoke to the audience while the individual held and used a wireless microphone.
Not humorous at all was of the self-proclaimed 'expert' sitting within about three feet of a cell phone while claiming that the radiation from cell phones was safe at that distance. If the 'expert' knew anything about electromagnetic radiation, or could at least feel electromagnetic fields, then the fraud scientist would have known that the three-foot distance is one of the most painful and damaging.
The self-proclaimed 'expert´s' original claims of cell phone radiation being safe were based upon a two-dimensional assumption that the wattage of cell phone microwave radiation was low as compared to the microwave radiation of a microwave oven, and so, therefore, lowered wattage must somehow equate to no health hazard. One estimate has a typical cell phone emitting roughly a similar wattage as about sixty salt-sized grains of radioactive plutonium (reported estimates and averages vary relative to isotopes; I have not personally measured plutonium's output), and though most people in industrialized countries might know that touching or placing plutonium to one's head is dangerous, the same people still believe that holding a cell phone to one's head must be safe. The most common response is of individuals and the FCC quoting the low thermal heat of low wattage, plus the alleged absence of ionization within microwave. While it might be true that cell phone radiation might usually not pose a threat of quickly burning the skin, and that the radiation is not of the same behavior as radioactive minerals, there are little or no references being made to the electromagnetic waves themselves.
Almost no cell phone user knows anything useful about electrical physics, electronics, nor much of any related topic, and so it is expected that most cell phone users are unaware of the types of electromagnetic fields that are emitted by cell phones (as well as by Wi-Fi, cordless telephones, Bluetooth, and all other wireless devices). For the readers who have little experience with electrical theory, I will provide several examples to help illustrate why wattage is not what some 'experts' claim.
A large percentage of cell phone users are familiar with the differences between heating water on an electrical stove top and the heating of water in a microwave oven, but the two methods of heating water appear to rarely ever be cross-lighted. A conventional 600 watt electric stove element will boil a cup of water within about three minutes or so (depending on many variables including the pot's shapes, materials, and how well the pot makes physical contact with the heating element (your mileage will vary)). A 600 watt microwave oven may boil a cup of water in about one minute. Placing ten each 60 watt light bulbs next to each other (600 watts total) may never boil water. An individual does not have to know anything about electrical physics to recognize that there are very large differences between stoves, light bulbs, and microwaves, even when the stoves, light bulbs, and microwave ovens emit the same wattage.
Wattage power (P) is merely a mathematical term given to the mathematical sum of multiplying voltage (E) by amperage (I) (P = E x I). Wattage does not describe the voltage (pressure), nor the amperage (quantity), nor the wave patterns, nor anything else. An easy analogy is to think of electricity to behave similarly as a garden hose: the water pressure is the voltage, and the quantity of water is the amperage. One pound of water pressure multiplied by a million gallons of water per second would sum to a million 'watts' of water per second. Similarly, a million pounds of water pressure multiplied by one gallon of water per second would sum to a million 'watts' of water per second. It is very easy to recognize that the 'wattage' of water does not tell you if the water is clear, brown, acidic, stinky, of milk, of motor oils, or anything else, and the 'wattage' also does not tell you if you need a steel-reinforced hose or a boat.
A typical mid-range car battery has a potential of around 700 amps at 12 volts, for a total of around 8,400 watts. You can touch the battery's terminals and likely feel nothing. A common stun gun may have a voltage of about 1,000,000 volts with .003 amperes, for a wattage of about 3,000 watts. Regardless of their wattages, stun guns cause severe physiological disruption and can kill, while car batteries usually cause no harm. If an individual were sufficiently wetted-down and somehow connected well enough to draw 3,000 watts from a car battery, the result would mostly be limited to a serious burn (each person is different, and the effects would be different for each individual). High voltage usually equates to physiological impairment, while high amperage usually equates to thermal burns. Without knowing the voltages and amperages, as well as the composition, continuity, and resistance of each body, it is not possible to predict the effects. Electrical wattage infers absolutely nothing of whether a device is safe or dangerous.
A humorous example: while installing security controls in an elevator (the building was owned by a company that stores sensitive national data on a floor of servers), I enjoyed teasing some of the employees riding the elevator by my leaving a couple wires hanging out of the control box as I worked, and my then speaking out-loud "I wonder what these wires are for?" The employees usually gave me concerned looks (especially if we were on an upper floor), but when I grabbed the wires with my fingers and pretended to be shocked, the employees were emotionally shocked. Some of us thought it was hilarious, but not everyone. The elevator control voltages were 150 volts DC, which to me feels like a light tingle, less of a tingle than a 9 volt battery stuck to the tongue. 120 volts AC is uncomfortable to touch for very long depending on the amperage, 240 volts AC gives a sizable bite, and 480 volts AC is something that I prefer to not touch. A 660 volt DC discharge from a capacitor can leave a black spot of dead skin. Wattage means absolutely nothing; the voltages, amperages, and wave forms are amongst the first things that define what is safe and what is dangerous.
Wattage is also comparable to kinetics. A three-thousand pound wall of steel moving at one foot per second (3,000 'watts' of kinetic energy per second) may gently push you away, but a 450 gram (about one pound) ball of steel moving at three-thousand feet per second (3,000 'watts' of kinetic energy per second) can cause serious physical injury. The wall is safe, but the ball is close to the ballistics of a .50 BMG bullet, which is very deadly from miles away.
Beyond wattage and kinetics are other variables, including how a thing is shaped, how the thing contacts other things, how the thing changes shapes and directions as it moves, and many more, none of which can be known within wattage.
Light is measured to be both a wave and a particle depending on how it interacts with the observer. How does microwave interact with the body? As a harmless wave, or as a speeding-bullet particle? Unfortunately, most people do not know, nor care to know.
Some individuals do feel x-rays and other frequencies from the sun and medical equipment, and the waves are sometimes reported to feel like tiny little particles penetrating through the body at high speed. As I have spoken of for over two decades, at the moment that the pre-dawn sun's radiation is felt to bounce down to the ground from the upper atmosphere — feeling like little particles traveling through the body at high speed — it is also when roosters begin to crow. During times of thick clouds or other weather patterns, of when the sun's intensity of radiation is delayed, again the roosters delay crowing until when the radiation is felt. Similarly, some of the individuals report the sense of microwaves as being felt to be dense fields of erratic electromagnetic radiation that are mixed with particle-like projectiles (the particles are felt to be similar as radioactive minerals' particle emissions). All waves become particles relative to the objects that the waves touch, including microwave radiation.
Electromagnetic waves also behave somewhat similarly as sound waves. Though an individual may be standing ten feet from a cell phone, if there are many wireless devices nearby, then there will be a roar of unheard noise. Noise is a health hazard, and so is unheard electromagnetic noise.
Sound waves are also easily observed to interact at specific distances and frequencies relative to their environment, especially within water and fine sand (cymatics). The topic of transductance and patterning is profoundly important for sound waves, electromagnetic waves, and physiological states. A biological discussion about microwave radiation without an accompanying discussion of wave patterning is willful ignorance and pathological science.
Each location and scenario is different. A single cell phone's radiation field on the dark side of the moon may not pose much of a problem to an individual on the other side of the moon, but here on earth there are many billions of microwave radiation fields. All locations always have different quantities and intensities of microwave radiation that interact with the others, and it is not possible for the fields to interact with only one manner of shapes and patterns. When an individual or corporation claims that a wireless device is safe, the claim is "the science of things that aren't so", and proves that the individual is not an expert.
Humorous in a way were the recent 'March for Science' political demonstrations. The demonstrators claimed that they were pro-science, and many carried their signs, some of which voiced concerns of global warming, but it is a very safe bet that almost all of the individuals also carried cell phones and used wireless devices in their homes. The marchers' hypocrisy earned my smile and a remembrance of Lewis Terman's "ideas do not cross-light each other".
I wasted over two days trying to find output voltages and amperages of cell phones within manufacturers' specifications and online. Maybe I just looked in all the wrong places, but all that I could find were many people saying the same thing: watts. Most of the references spoke of wattage as if it were a true measure of electromagnetic fields, and not so much as one reference gave an indication of knowing what a volt or amp might be. Where is the science?
There are countless individuals claiming that they are experts of microwave radiation, and yet they continue to speak of wattages, and use cell phones. It is useful to remember that whenever anyone speaks of cell phones being safe relative to wattage, the people are frauds because they do not know what they are talking about. The current 'popular science' of cell phone safety is always pathological science.
Common Effects of Cell Phone Radiation
The following are common symptoms that I have personally observed amongst some customers and others who use cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices. It cannot be proven in a court of law that wireless devices caused the symptoms, but proof is irrelevant; all that mattered was that the symptoms were alleviated.
Headaches while using a cell phone or computer — this symptom often goes away the same day that all wireless devices are turned off. Building new computers with lower frequency CPUs are sometimes necessary (CPUs of 2ghz or less have been very effective in eliminating headaches in homes that have computers but no wireless devices).
Sleep disturbances — less deep sleep, feeling sleepy during work hours, fatigue, irritability, often resulting in short tempers and emotional outbursts. The symptoms usually fade or go away completely within one to three days of removing all wireless devices, but if exposure to wireless devices has been for several years, the symptoms might never go away due to psychological changes.
Darkening, toughening, and rapid aging of the skin — what I refer to as 'nuked weenie' skin like what a weenie looks like if heated too long in a microwave oven. This one is greatly upsetting to the ladies in cultures who value light skin and do not want to appear to be farmers who work outdoors. The effect is most recognizable within a family's members all having darkened skin except the one family member who does not use a cell phone (and who also looks to be the youngest of seven in spite of being the third-oldest). This symptom is not yet known to be reversible.
Skin and internal organ cancers precisely where cell phones are carried or used most often (e.g. right-rear pocket, shirt pocket, etc.). The odds are rather miniscule of having a cancer only where a cell phone is carried or held to the head. Known cancers are usually at the approximate 3 inch depth where the first major harmonics occur within microwave radiation. I myself have only witnessed several cases of cancer, so I do not know what a global average might be.
Memory loss — whether the memory loss is caused by RF emissions or simply by cell phones being a constant negative distraction, much of the memory loss may eventually be corrected when the individual removes all wireless devices from the home and workplace.
Loss of cognition — similar to memory loss, the exact cause is unverifiable, but clarity of thought usually returns when wireless devices are eliminated.
Dementia — it is not yet known what percentage of dementia might be related to wireless use, because most people are now using wireless, and there are not enough non-users to create a sufficient base of data for comparisons. Nevertheless, preliminary observations appear to suggest that non-wireless users tend to develop dementia less frequently, and it is suggested that individuals with borderline dementia are more easily susceptive to developing chronic dementia when subjected to wireless devices. At present, no known cases of chronic dementia have been reversible, but the individuals had refused to stop using wireless devices, so it is unknown if eliminating wireless devices might have helped.
Nausea — in the 80s there were some neighborhoods where I stopped accepting customers because of the nausea. The neighborhoods are in the direct path of large telephone microwave towers, and all of my customers in the neighborhoods were very ill with higher degrees of the above symptoms (local gossip was that the death rate was very high in the neighborhoods). All satellite installations were stopped because the microwave radiation was too strong for the 9 foot and 12 foot diameter dishes to receive satellite signals. My own nausea usually dissipated within an hour or two after leaving the neighborhoods.
The thermal effects of low quantities of microwave radiation are pretty much immaterial relative to organic tissue, but the headaches and psychological disturbances can become severe. To date, 100% of all homes and businesses serviced with electromagnetic radiation remediation have shown a sharp reduction of headaches, nausea, and psychological irregularities. The focus has been to do what works, and to ignore what 'expert' biologists might claim.
While editing the final version of this article and searching in my files for a reference to a specific group of Researchers, I came across an old PDF that I have not yet read. A quick glance landed upon two graphics that mark very similar symptoms of the adverse health effects caused by cell phone radiation as what I mentioned above. Below is a brief quote.
There have been no studies to date on the effects of exposure to Wi-Fi. This in itself is unusual since populations are already being exposed to this energy without any studies on how they might be affected. Since there is not yet enough information about exposure to Wi-Fi there is a need to rely on studies of exposure to similar types of radio frequency radiation. The closest case studies are those of exposure to cell phone antennas and cell phones.
As of 2007 there have been seven epidemiological studies of people living near cell phone antennas in Spain, the Netherlands, Israel, Germany and Austria and each one of these studies documents adverse health effects. Studies in Israel and Germany show increased risk of cancer and the others show increased symptoms of electrohypersensitivity. In all of the studies, exposures are orders of magnitude below the FCC guideline. Three of those studies are summarized below. Note the critical distances and, where available, exposures to RFR. (Magda Havas, B.Sc., Ph.D., Environmental & Resource Studies, May 29, 2007, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, Canada)
Please invest a few minutes of your life into using a search engine to find and download the paper. Also visit the author's website for more information.
I hope to eventually read the full paper as time permits, but for the moment it is important that people know that some of us have been loudly and frequently voicing our concerns about microwave radiation for over thirty years, and yet the fraud 'expert' scientists continue to claim that no one ever has experienced and no one ever can experience an adverse effect from microwave radiation. It is obvious that no government in the world will lift a finger to do anything; the only thing that anyone can do is to ignore all 'expert' scientists and all government employees while making our own decisions for our own lives. But will anyone actually do anything? Probably not. Most people are so addicted to their cell phones that the people literally cannot let-go. Most cell phone users cannot go to the bathroom, go to bed, eat, go to work, nor so much as attend a wedding or funeral without keeping their cell phones in a pocket or in their hands. Of the funerals that I have attended in recent years, almost everyone there had a cell phone in their hands, texting and playing online even during the services. It has been reported that even when a couple is being romantic, many will stop if their cell phone rings. Opiate drug addicts are not as addicted as people are to cell phones. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence, still almost no science believer has enough mind left to turn off their cell phones.
"Fixed adaptations, stable habits, tend to raise the thresholds of mental life, tend to inhibit the liberation, the output of reserve-energy. Avoid routine. Do not... fall into the ruts of habits and customs. Do not let even the best of habits harden beyond the point of further possible modification.
...Remember that rigidity, like sclerosis, induration of tissue, means decay of originality, destruction of man's genius. With solidified and unvariable habits not only does the reserve energy become entirely inaccessible, but the very individuality is extinguished.
Do not make of our children a nation of philistines. Why say, you make man in your own image? Do not make your schools machine-shops, turning out on one uniform pattern so much mediocrity per year. Cultivate variability. The tendency towards variability is the most precious part of a good education. Beware of the philistine with his set, stable habits.
...The power of breaking up habits is by far the more essential factor of a good education. It is in this power of breaking down habits that we can find the key for the unlocking of the otherwise inaccessible stores of subconscious reserve energy. The cultivation of the power of habit-disintegration is what constitutes the proper education of man's genius." (Philistine and Genius, Boris Sidis, Medical Director, Sidis Institute, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 1917.)
Science Experts Meet Philosophy Experts
About thirty-five years ago I investigated a modern ideology that claimed its doctrines originated around 600 BC in North America, but when I read the doctrines I found that the wording and mental patterns were derived from 17th century northwestern European English literature — that was itself colored with the Greek and other languages that spanned several thousand years of different social and cultural periods — and then arranged relative to the mental and social patterns of early 19th century North American English. The doctrine's wording was also phrased from the observer's point of view, and not from the point of view that would have been given by an individual who actually experienced the thing himself as the doctrines claimed. The ideology, therefore, of course, could not have originated in North America twenty-six-hundred years ago as claimed, and so I permanently dropped all interest in the topic.
I replied with a handwritten letter to the fellow who had been kind enough to mail me a copy of the ideology's doctrines, and in the letter I briefly explained to him some of the verifiable reasons of why the ideology could not be valid. I later learned that the man had spoken well to other people of my reply — I was told that he said my letter was very courteous — and it was near the same time that the ideology's own headmasters made a public announcement that the ideology was in fact a hoax. (Oddly and humorously, a lot of people still follow and believe in the ideology, which is okay, but still odd. The followers are mostly good enough people, but I wish for them something more than to follow other men's words)
As I am reading or listening to another person's words, I am in a conscious act of simultaneously analyzing the words' rhythms, patterns, tones, emphases, and other attributes while I simultaneously compare the attributes to the patterns of other known languages, social eras, educational backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, and so on. Every word spoken by a person describes that person's life and mental-processing as well as the individual's culture. A person's choice of speech is sort of like a song, and for me it is easy to observe each person's song, and to weigh and to divide the songs into the patterns that describe from which angles the 'songs' originated. All musicians have their own unique styles — from Bach to ZZ Top — all authors have their own unique styles — from Aristotle to Twain — and similarly, all humans have their own unique styles of phrasing words.
As English-speaking individuals in different regions of the USA pattern their thoughts relative to each region's culture, and as English-speaking individuals in other countries pattern their thoughts relative to their own countries' cultures, it is usually easy for me to recognize which general region of the world a person lives in, including the individuals who learned English as a second language in non-English countries. As an example, one individual's words described English as a second language, with tones, tempos, and sequences that harmonized south of Norway, north of Germany, east of England, and with hints of California. I later verified that the individual was from the region that I chose, and that the person had lived a short time in California. Numerous further experiments verified that humans do indeed choose words relative to the individuals' regions and cultures, and that the patterns are easily observable.
I observe patterns, I give conscious attention to the patterns, and I continuously analyze the patterns to sum for myself a knowledge of a person's present background so that I can then adjust my own words to better communicate with each individual (I observe similar patterns to choose how best to interact with all natures of Nature). I do not purposefully judge nor intrude into a person's private thoughts (many people are ugly inside, and not what I want to observe), but when the situation warrants a dedicated investigation — as in the example of the fake ideology — I aggressively analyze the topic with my aim being to find how the patterns' backgrounds were formed and made present.
For several years, numerous famous and non-famous 'expert' scientists have been publicly meeting with a small group of 'expert philosophers' — not so unlike Krishnamurti — of whom I will not mention by name because the individuals are all still living (it would be very rude to speak of them in public). The 'expert' scientists have made numerous videos available online for the public to watch the 'experts' speaking to each other. The two items that stand out most are  the 'expert' scientists are expert only by title (not expertise), and it appears that the scientists may assume that since the philosophers also have titles, then the philosophers must also be experts, and  while the philosophers were speaking of love and compassion with arrogant, impolite, uncaring, and crude tones of voice, the 'expert' scientists appeared to not notice the deceitful tones nor the incorrectness of the philosophers' beliefs.
I will give additional details of the 'experts' in the following article about emotions, but for the moment it is enough to merely point at how the 'expert' philosophers' claims were mere recitations of the philosophy's doctrines, and that the philosophers had no firsthand experience of what they claimed. Two of the very most obvious evidences of love and compassion are within gentle body language and softly emotioned tones of voice. Individuals who are mindful and care about other people, their voices are as gentle as their hearts, their words are slow as the mind chooses the proper words that will not cause harm, and every behavior is in harmony with being mindful. The philosophers expressed no harmonious body language, no harmonious emotions, no harmonious tones of voice, no harmonious rhythms of a gentle heart, and instead the philosophers spoke fast words that included vulgarity.
The philosophers' absence of experience reminded me of a book on prodigies, in which there were numerous contradictions and other conflicts of data, and to me it seemed odd that the author would not assume that prodigies would likely read the book and spot the contradictions and conflicts, or, perhaps, not even the author recognized their own contradictions. It is easy for an experienced individual to recognize inexperience, and it was also easy to recognize the philosophers' inexperience.
The 'expert' scientists were so inexperienced that they could not so much as perceive the grossest of errors within the philosophers' doctrines, teachings, claims, and tone of voice. It is understandable that scientists might not know much about ideologies outside of their own, but still it is odd that so many scientists have had their pictures taken with the philosophers without the scientists having at least asked experienced individuals if the philosophers' teachings were valid. The questions arise: did the scientists merely meet with the philosophers as a publicity stunt and for self-glory? For what other purpose could there be? Were the scientists enviously competing with Bohm's popularity? Why did the scientists not research the philosophers' doctrines before meeting the philosophers? Do 'expert' scientists not know how to do research?
The core problem, however, is rampant throughout all ideologies: people have memorized words from books, and upon having received a clique title for the reciting of words, the people sincerely do believe of themselves to be experts. It is unfortunate that today's cultures have been founded upon the interpretation that memorizing the cultures' holy words makes an individual an expert, and that no one can know anything unless the individual holds a title. Within society, a person can be an expert Christian without having love, a person can be an expert Buddhist without having awareness, and a person can be an expert scientist without knowing the difference between a watt and a volt, but the titles were given by the very least qualified individuals within each society, which renders the titles to be as seals of approval from the lower strata of man
And the circus continues...
The fake 'experts´' lack of firsthand experience is a portion of Langmuir's pathological science symptom #4: "fantastic theories contrary to experience". Everyone has the choice, to experience and to observe what is real firsthand, or to read a book. The next article on emotions begins touching on some of the fantastic theories that Sciencians and Philosophians have been inventing for thousands of years, of which, apparently, no 'expert' scientist has yet recognized the theories to be so obviously incorrect. Individuals with firsthand experience, however, easily recognize what science cannot see.
(This article has been greatly abbreviated from the original, leaving some of the topics and paragraphs to not be as smoothly uniform of sequencing.)
More articles on The Logics home page...