nihil architecture blogs

Robert Spitzer, M.D. claimed in a 1975 criticism of Rosenhan’s study which sparked controversy regarding the professionalism of psychiatry:

If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behaviour of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labelled and treated me as having a peptic ulcer, I doubt I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition.

Which is obscenely true. Just as it’s true that if you were to come there and complained about a stomach pain, got an interview and they labelled and treated you as having a peptic ulcer that would be irresponsible, and probably do more harm than good. Would medicine be effective if practised in that way? of course not, that’s why they do more than talk with you, they run tests on you via objective apparatus and instruments.

Psychiatry is tantamount to giving people radiation therapy for breast cancer because they claim they feel pain in their chest without putting an X-ray through them first. I’m not saying there’s a better way, I’m just saying that since most mental conditions are not fatal, moving like this is completely irresponsible and does more harm than good.

Science is a wonderful, wonderful thing, it’s simply best not done by humans. The human mind is thoroughly ill conceived for scientific reasoning. There are two main ways in science to gather information, the ’scientific method’ and its stricter subset ‘logic’. If people claim that there are things logic can’t investigate then they are misinformed or simply lie. Logic can investigate every-thing, the problem is that it often takes too much time then, way too much, for a human being. The point of logic is that it is infallible, logic produces undeniable truth that is impossible to be refuted at a later time. It’s far more rigorous than the ’scientific method’ which makes a lot of subtle fallacies to be easy on our infantile brains. That’s why logic is really only applied to mathematics, computer science and theoretical physics the lot. Because those sciences are ‘fundamental’, which is a really cocky word for ‘investigate very basic structures’, sure, one can apply correct rigorous logic to biology, it just takes a shitload more time so biologists like to cheat a lot more with rigour as living organisms are a bit more complicated than your average division ring.

And as a result of that, biology and chemistry and what-not is often wrong. Plain wrong, in fact, more often wrong than right it seems as the majority of things it once claimed seem to be thrown into the trash can now. They cheat on logic, let correlation imply causation too much. Say ‘If we’ve seen it five hundred times, we can then assume it’s always like that.’, biology just happily disregards the fact that the entire concept of species and life itself can trivially be shown to lead to contradictions and are thus erronous concepts logically speaking. Chemistry is working with incorrect physical models which are off a little in their result but the correct ones are just too much a bugger to work with in such complicated systems.

But hey, they never said they proved it, whereas mathematics has a concept of ‘proven’, softer sciences often say ‘proven beyond all reasonable doubt’, but apparently it has thus far always turned out wrong if they said that? And they even admit themselves that they probably currently are at this moment and they will refine it in the future. That’s at least one reasonable doubt I can name against the ‘proof’, so no, it’s not proven beyond all reasonable doubt at all. So why is it put forward then?

Point is that science is part media sensation, there is pressure to obtain results. In fact, more often than not, the fact of having a result is more important than the correctness of said result, maybe not explicitly, but since they find it likely that they are currently wrong, why bring it into the open as a discovery? At max as a rough draft I’d say. But then there is again another result, another new spectacle so that we can say to our mirror image ’species of thinkers thou art indeed’.

Take for instance the wild assumption people had in the classical until mediæval times that an object falls at proportional speed to its mass. They didn’t even know the concept of acceleration back then. Obviously this hypothesis is false as for one it’s clearly visible than an object needs some time to start accelerating and for two a simple test will show that the mass isn’t really that relevant, especially in a vacuum with no air resistance. No one even thought of testing it; Gallilei did though, he found out it was wrong, and he was pretty much ignored? That’s probably because people like it if results are there and don’t like it if you take away results, even if the results are quite simply wrong. People aren’t that good at questioning results unless they have a new even spiffier ‘read: newer’ result to take its place. Often if you find a clear flaw in a result and point it out people say ‘What else can we do then?’, well, nothing? I thought science was about investigating knowledge and truth? No answer is better than prætending as if a wrong answer is right? But having an answer, no matter if it’s clearly wrong satisfies our ego a species of thinkers, wise men with beards in toga and philosophers.

Not really, the human mind seems to have the ‘thinking’ power of using correct decuction (logic) only at the most simplest of structures like those devision rings, axiomatic set theory, nonstandard analysis and what other obscure terms I can come up with to gain internets. And most people will even be struck as if reading Cardassian if they find literature in that field, for any structure complicated enough to have any meaning to it we can no longer apply the correct deduction and have to smuggle a little with results. Apparently more than a little as thus far we’ve always been wrong.

People really seem to forget that in a lot of cases just saying ‘I don’t know.’ is really the best answer a scientist can have, but then again, most scientists are actually employees, not scientists, so I can understand.

Also, science is currently not in a position to either say that God exists or it doesn’t, same for what the origins of life are. Sure, evolution is ‘proven beyond a reasonable doubt’, but no theory of the origin of life is currently remotely falsifiable, that’s a difference. Also, evolution has nothing to do with the big bang, physicists calculate things, biologists just guess along really, educated guesses though.

What I mostly encounter on the vast new world of unlimited uppertunities under God that is the internet in the debate about evolution is this:

• People who believe in God and believe that in science, ‘theory’ means ‘not yet proven’
• People who are atheist and consider the nonexistence of any ‘god’ to be proven, also evolution.

Both sides are redundantly stupid and the latter one often LOL biologists LOL. Let there be no mistake about it, the occurence of evolution is scientifically proven beyond all resonable doubt, the evidene is overwhelming and if you cannot see this you simply don’t want evolution to be there. We have fosiles, we have documentation in fosiles of life slowly changing from how it was 40 000 000 years back to how it  is now. We have fosiles documenting man evolving. We have fosiles of dinosaurs evolving into Birds, and please, do not say there aren’t any ‘missing links’. That’s bullshit, evolution is continious, it continious evolving, every species found is a link between the former and the next, we are a link between the homo ergaster and what may come after us. We have observer bacteria evolving in the lab into new species so don’t come with that ‘micro-evolution’ versus ‘macro-evolution’ crap.

However, atheist biologists. still. fucking. suck.

Arguments thereto are so enourmously simple. Their inability at coherent logic is saddeningly vast. Atheism for instance, they have argued thereto with the same amount of absurdity we often see from Young Earth Creationism against the age of the earth. Some simple arguments I have seen:

I have no reason to believe a god exists, therefore I don’t believe a god exists.

Logically fallacy, reduced to the absurd by: ‘I have no reason to believe all the specific people I’ve never met exist, therefore I don’t believe they exist.’ next:

Russell’s teapot shows no god exists and it’s random to assume it does.

False, Russell’s teapot says this: ‘If I were to point at a specific place in space and tell you there is a teapot there with no way for you to check that place, would you say there was a teapot there? If no, why say the same about God, it goes against occam’s razor.’, the difference being is that this shows the unlikeliness of the Abrahamic monotheistic God to exist, quite true, however for it to show that no god exists we would need a formulation of: ‘If I were to point at a all random places in space and tell you there is ‘any-thing’ there with no way for you to check those places, would you say there was ‘no-thing’ at any of those places where ‘any-thing’ is for your imagination to decide. If no, why say the same about any gods?’, this makes it a tad more complicated to overrule I hope.

Creationism is proven false in science.

Nonsense, Young Earth Creationism is contradictory to modern scientific consensus, creationism isn’t, in fact, creationism is currently independent of the modern physical framework. For fucks sake, I have to continue explaining to theists that Creationism and science aren’t contradictory, but Young Earth Creationism and science are. In fact, Creationism solves a great deal of puzzles, but those can also be solved of course by the multiverse hypothesis, and neither can we prove false or true at the moment. How could we, we can’t look before the big bang of course, we can’t say if the big bang was ’started’ by some intelligent force who devised all almost perfect laws of physics for complex structures to occur. Or it’s just so that this universe by sheer chance allows it because there are countless more in which they don’t occur combined with the anthropic principle. Biologists oft.. always think that the multiverse combined with the anthropic principle is more ’scientific’ as it has an ‘aurora of scientificness’ around it, this is is complete nonsense.

It’s important to realize though that we can’t speak of ‘before the big bang’, this is what a lot of people get wrong about the concept, that there used to be a certain long time of silence in a large void and then, BAM. Not quite, there was no time before the big bang, that’s the zeropoint of time. The universe started with a bang. It isn’t that ’some-thing came from no-thing’, ‘every-thing’ simply started in one point and then banged.

Obviously Young Earth Creationists are blind, but the same can often be said about biologists in the vein of Dawkins, they aren’t ’scientific’ in the sense that they also true to prove right a certain thing, they’re not trying to investigate what’s true, they have their minds made up and then try to prove it right. However what they try to prove right has an ‘aurora of scientificness’ around it, making Dawkins appear attractively British-the end.

Theorem: Biology is a pseudoscience
Proof: Biology does not offer proofs or if it does does as stupidly as this little ‘proof’ here.

One of the most dire things wrong with this ‘proof’ is that it lacks a definition of ‘pseudoscience’. In order to define pseuoscience, let me first give an informal definition of the scientific method as used in this article:

Any form of deduction which is:

1. Objective, any scientist at any time and any place and from any culture most come to the exact same results from the same set of data.
2. Not contradictory to classical logic, the propositions derived in science may not be proven false in logic, however they do not necessarily have to be proven true, as in experimental results.
3. Investigative, scientific deduction is to investigate what is true, not trying to prove certain things true.

With the occasional slips, biology remains largely innocent of malperformance on point 1 and 2. However on point 3 they fail graciously. Let’s examine some of their slips:

Species

Biology postulates the existence of the concept of ’species’, which is commonly explained as ‘Two individual forms of life who can produce fertile offspring together if and only if in the same species.’ this isn’t even a definition of the concept of species and what is an ‘individual form of life’ isn’t even defined. Is an ant-hill one invidual or not, that is the question? But we need no more to quite simply show the concept of species cannot exist. Using the argument of clines.

A cline in biology is simply a group of related organismes diverge continually over a large area. Its inhabitants can most likely produce fertile offspring with its neighbours, and the whole street. But not much further than that, and this applies for every inhabitant of the cline. Assume members x,y,z in a random cline X. It occurs that x can produce fertile offspring with y, and y with z, but x not with z. x is then of the same species as y and y likewise with z, since in biology. An individual can only belong to one species. We may conclude that x is of the same species with z. But x cannot procreate with z we first established, so it’s also not of the same species. A contradiction to with what we started. Q.E.D. the concept of ’species’ cannot exist. And of course, given with that biology has shown continuous evolution of species and common ancestors, we may also conclude that the Mushrooms I have on my Pizza are in fact of the same species as I. Cannibalism is tr00 kids.

Diseases

Biology seems to postulate the existence of ‘diseases’, what are they? I’ve yet to read a good definition thereof, some common once we encounter. ‘Every-thing that is substantially different from normal’. Assuming we can take averages in some-thing as complex as ‘life’. How much is ’substantially’ then? Are extremely intelligent people born with a disease? Extremely pretty people? Furthermore. It’s probably extremely rare for all people to be in the room you read this in right now, it’s a disease to be in your room…

So let’s sharpen that definition to ‘Every-thing that is substantially different from normal which causes a disadvantage to the organism’. Like being on a deserted Island, that’s disease now.. and still being exceptionally intelligent. Or being homosexual in Iran, or wait was a disease.. or wait, it’s not.. or is it? Yeah… we haven’t even been able to define what we mean with ‘disadvantage’ by the way.

On that homosexuality issue, DSM used to consider a disease.. not any more, and now people get offended if you call it a disease… what the hell, first get a good working definition of disease, then prove them wrong and get angry at them. It’s like getting angry at some-one for not liking the Mona Lisa… also, calling people with Autism, Depression or whatelse mentally ill is still politically correct to do it seems. Psychiatry seems to fail at point 1 here, not objective, clearly they are influenced by culture.

Life itself..?

The entire fundament of biology, the existence of the elusive concept of ‘Life’, the very start. And they still can’t show there exists such a thing in the first place. Namely, they can’t define it. Every definition they try ends up with unwanted stuff like mules not being life, or fire being life. Give up, admit it, there is no distinction between lifeless and dead matter. It’s such a naïve distinction you cannot make into a scientific one. Seriously, biologists are amateurs, never have they made a valid logical step and a complete idiot like myself can use valid informal logic to prove them wrong. Oh boy.

[further reading]