Pathological Science Updates
||| Logics Home || Logics Site Info |||
Pathological Science Updates
Copyright©2017 by Larry Neal Gowdy, September 20, 2017
I had already planned to create this page to be as a collective addendum for all of the other pathological science pages, as well as to be a page that I could use for responding to the feedback received from visitors. When I feel that I have presented enough articles, I will reread them all and then add links to this page for items that I feel ought to be better explained.
Why Write About Pathological Science
As I have pointed to several times in my other articles, I personally have no interest in science. To me, science is just one of the many religions that people tell me I must believe in. To me, when people open their books and point their fingers at 'true words' while the people tell me that their books are the only books that hold true truth, then to me their belief is a religion.
About thirty-seven years ago I began investigating popular religions, and one of the things that all of the religions shared was the claim that they alone held the only true truth. To me, if a thing is true for all people, then it ought to be provable in one's own life. Through lengthy effort I was able to prove a couple religious claims as being valid, but one correct claim out of a million wrong claims does not make a religion true. I learned valuable lessons during my investigations, and the investigations continue today, but not under the name of any religion or system of faith.
Over twenty-five years ago I investigated numerous racist groups (I was just curious of what the loud-mouths believed), and I found it to be somewhat humorous that the groups' books and articles spoke very similar words and claims, almost as if there had only been one author, but the author pretty much only changed the words white, black, red, yellow, and brown to suit each individual group's claims. A lesson better learned during the research was that it is common for people to make stuff up, claim that it is true truth, and then believe that their voiced claims somehow prove something to be real.
About fifteen years ago I had a personal reason to begin leisurely investigating the popular beliefs within western philosophy and science. I already knew that philosophy and science were peculiar systems of thinking: of individuals rambling about things that are not real, the individuals merely inventing the things in their minds, and the followers opening their books and pointing at 'true truths'. Religions, philosophies, racists, science, they are all pretty much the same to me because they have millions of followers speaking a lot of words, but maybe only one sensible member out of a million who actually exerts the effort to be positive.
Most existing religions help to guide their followers into peaceful and productive lives, and though all religions have flaws, still the religions are usually of more benefit than harm. Science, however, does not guide its followers into peaceful and productive lives; science promotes the callous disregard for all things, including living beings. The rapid increase of violence committed by science worshippers is largely aided by the presence of the Internet, and I suspect that the violence will continue to worsen.
At present, the largest search engine is judging websites by how well the websites agree with popular science. If an online article does not appear to worship popular science, then the article might be black-listed (it does happen, it is my occupation to research the topic, I have had pages black-listed, I know what happens and how to remedy the problem). The religion of science wants to be the one that decides what you are permitted to see and to think: it is here already, now.
I am writing the pathological science articles as a means of  being a voice that asks people to please stop being cruel in the name of science,  to point at some of the most obvious of errors in science,  to observe how my pages will be received by the big search groups, and  as self-therapy of expending the emotional turmoil of my having been forced to endure the negativities of science worshippers'. When the turmoil has been depleted, then I will once again ignore sciencism, and I will go back to another project that I am wanting to further investigate, a project that promises usefulness of positive things that are very real and very kind.
This topic is difficult for me to speak of, because the topic is so obvious to me that it is felt to be irrational to have to so much as mention the topic. Nevertheless, I do recognize that the public has been taught to accept some non-real things to be real, and so it is useful that I offer an explanation of why my words may not appear to agree with popular assumptions.
To me, if a line can be seen, then it has three dimensions of width, height, and depth, plus 'dimensions' of duration and others. To my knowledge there does not exist any 'real' thing in the known universe that is one-dimensional or two-dimensional (of only width, height, depth, or a mixture of any two). For me, I tend to think within concepts of things that are real to me, and I do not limit my thoughts to conform to popular beliefs as taught and memorized in schools.
Within mathematics it is taught that drawing a line from left to right infers the single dimension of width. Okay, I understand that; the idea within mathematics is to ignore what is real, to ignore what is occurring at the moment, to ignore what is seen, to ignore one's memories, to stop all awareness of the world around one's self, and to simply invent within one's mind an abstract thought as taught by the teacher (which is unsurprisingly very similar to the brain-washing practiced within cults). Here, to me, the word abstract implies a mental act of willfully creating reasoned relationships to memories of things that were sensorially perceived as 'real' (really perceived, the real firsthand experience of perceiving, but the perceived things are not 'real-real' because what is perceived by the body cannot be the whole perception of what exists: my perceptions are my own personal interpretations of the world around me).
Within the abstract thought of mathematics, a one-dimensional line exists all by itself, with no beginning, no end, no origins, no attributes, no personality, no motion, no flux, no duration, no curving, no time dilations, no awareness given to the line itself, no analyses given to the line's existence, no anything beyond the mind dream-like pretending that the line impossibly exists all by itself. Man's mathematics purposefully ignores Reality while pretending that the imaginary line is real.
To me, a single line has width, height, depth, color, flux, duration, and it has many other features that must exist before the line can exist. Yes, I can consciously create the abstract thoughts needed to perform the mathematics demanded within schools, and for me, when I scored at the ceiling of an IQ test's mathematical section, I interpreted the score as merely being adequate, of merely answering the questions correctly as the teachers requested on all other tests (I quickly learned that scoring well on IQ tests greatly displeases teachers — causes teachers and doctors to become emotionally unstable — so I strived to score lower on future tests). So, to me, it is not that I do not know mathematics, but rather I have no need to restrict my thoughts and awareness down into the false abstracts of mathematics.
To me, a single line has a beginning and an end — two things — plus the many other things that occur in-between the two ends. Man's mathematics does not and cannot recognize what occurs between nor after the two ends of any measurement, and thus, man's mathematics — to me — is limited to two things, which I sometimes refer to with various terms like binary and two-dimensional. To me, a 'dimension' is a thing that has a substance of presence, a thing that has 'stuff' occurring within the thing, a point of reference, a concept of many things summing into a concept of the whole, and to me, I do not think of there possibly existing a single thing all by itself.
The triple integral graphic helps me to point at what, to me, is a tiny portion of a thought that combines countless similar 'sphere' analyses occurring simultaneously and are all influencing and being influenced by the other. To me, the mental act of reasoning is analogous to the sphere, of 'things' occurring within a fluid sphere, of all of the things existing, moving, influencing, and being influenced by all other things simultaneously. To me, reasoning is an act of weighing the fluid durations, ratios, and other events occurring simultaneously, and as the graphic's dV moves or changes shapes or patterns, so are the other attributes influenced, all of which are simultaneously weighed as the influences occur. To me, thoughts are fluid, mindful of the many relationships, and as per the example graphic, when dV is in motion, so are the other attributes in motion, all of which are held within the mind's observing and analysis.
To me, the idea of destroying the fluid relationships of the sphere so as to mathematically mark X and O, to me the act is crude, not sensible, and the act renders measurements to be terribly slow, inaccurate, and permanently incapable of measuring what is real. When dV moves, so do all other 'lines' move, which sums to the obviousness that man's calculus cannot perform an accurate measurement because once one measurement has been made, all of the other measurements will have changed. For mathematics, without there existing a conscious attention and analysis of the analyses as they occur in the present and are weighed by the pasts and projected futures, then yes, it is understandable of why man's mathematics struggles so with attempts to grasp time dilation: that which is obvious to some of us, is simply not possible for man's mathematics.
Within Pathological Science #2 Binary I wrote:
Man's mathematics can only measure two-dimensional features of closed systems; mathematics cannot measure open systems. Reality is an open system, which mathematics cannot measure. Yes, there are many individuals who energetically claim that mathematics can measure three-dimensional objects, but if math could measure three-dimensional features, then I would very much be interested in seeing the math. To my knowledge, height, width, and depth are still height, width, and depth, and mathematics still measures each of the heights, widths, and depths two-dimensionally. If mathematics were not two-dimensional, then please show how the volume of a cube can be known by omitting the two-dimensional measurements of heights, depths, and widths. Please make one measurement that sums three dimensions as well as the volume, spatial shapes, and motion. Some individuals can do it, but science and mathematics cannot do it — ever.
Man's mathematics is self-restricted to the measurement of lines that have two points, a beginning and an end: two mental dimensions that ignore all of the Reality that exists in-between and around the two points. If man's mathematics could measure in-between the two ends, then man's mathematics would not be the 'picket fence' of averages and Pi.
And so, yes, I have written words that do not conform to man's mathematics, nor do the words agree with what schools popularly teach as being the one and only true truth. No, I do not accept man's mathematics to be my own manner of processing thoughts, nor do I believe in — nor support — schools' beliefs, and so I do not unnecessarily contort my words to dishonestly conform to a mathematics that I know is inferior and very much stunting of mind.
Pathological Science Articles
Pathological Science #1 touched on a few examples of how some scientists have invented some rather ridiculous theories, Pathological Science #2 Binary touched on the false science of a binary universe, Pathological Science #3 Experts gave examples of frauds who claimed of themselves to be 'expert' scientists, Pathological Science #4 Emotions illustrated how science's lists and descriptions of emotions lend evidence of fake 'expert' scientists as well as science itself being a negative ideology, Pathological Science #5 Fermi Paradox provided a few examples of why the Fermi paradox illustrates the negative nature of science itself, Pathological Science #6 Animal Migration touched on some the underlying fallacies found within all of science's theories of animal migration, Pathological Science #7 March for Science Signs gave several examples of the pathological science written on March for Science signs, Pathological Science #8 March for Science Environmental Signs gave several examples of the pathological science of written on March for Science environmental signs, Pathological Science #9 March for Science Hate Signs gave examples of the hate expressed within the March for Science protests, Pathological Science #10 March for Science Religion Signs gave examples of how Science is interpreted as a religion, Pathological Science #11 March for Science Appeal to Authority Signs gave examples of how popular science is based upon appeals to authority, Pathological Science #12 March for Science Signs Make Stuff Up gives examples of how the March for Science protesters made stuff up, and Pathological Science Updates gives updates and explanations of some of the topics mentioned in the other articles.
More articles on The Logics home page...