nihil architecture blogs

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.

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]

Imagine a live broadcast on national television debate between a homosexual Jew nigger and a stupid Nazi fuck teenage kid who’s just like that either because his mommy was—not unlike the Jew, of course—or because he just wants to impress his friends and score chicks—one-hundred-and-eighty degrees away from the Jew, of course. The whole audience expects the stupid Nazi fuck to make a fool out of himself. Which he will do naturally by his haircut. But suddenly he says:

I will deny the slaughter of your ancestors just as long as your little book denies the very existence of mine.

Then obviously eighty per cent of the audience here won’t even understand his point—much like his other points. However, I hope the average reader of this nice critical piece of literary inappropriateness here will understand the point he makes. Yes, scientific research has shown that beyond all reasonable doubt, the holocaust did happen, and any-one denying that is just blind and makes the world as said wants it to be. However the same is true for evolution. I’m pretty sure the abundancy of Neo-nazis tends to believe in evolution as they normally are atheist and atheists often take pride in that.

To lampoon the holocaust even more, when you think of Jews, you think of Israel, I think of making easy money via some, admittedly clever, scam, but you think of Israel. In Israel, there is blatantly discriminated upon not only religion, but also ethnicity, naturally Judaism and Jewish people respectively gain advantages and privileges which are not merely de facto, but also de jure. [source] But of course this is done to provide for a ‘Jewish State’, which in itself pretty much is discrimination in different words put. And do Jews really need it? I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel is actually the place where the most Jews are killed for being Jew every year. Allahu Akbar chaps, good jobs for aiding me in my points at the cost of some minor collateral damage. Jews aren’t killed any-more in Germany, France, The Netherlands, Poland, Austria, they are killed in Israel. A country they annexed under narrow coöperation with The Holy Empire of Britannia from a people that already lived there, whom they now oppress, the irony. The US is okay with it as they need some friend there.

The præsident of the Islamic Republic of Iran came to the Michigan university to have a chit chat about irrelevant things and also world politics and the holocaust recently. [source] Mr. Præsident got his arse burnt by a spokesman there who completely in his right thought he was a wishful thinker and really deep down inside a flaming homosexual Aryan in denial, or hoped. That while the vast majority of the country he lives in, his own Mr. Præsident even still deny evolution and believe a guy with a beard, toga and the power to create a stone so big he could not insert it into his own arse and can indeed at the same time created our entire world. Probably also believes in Microgravity and Macrogravity, he also believes he can lead a country and Terrorism is a serious thread to name a few dubious things about this already too often criticized man of state here. The slaughtering of a couple-odd million Jews or so with the added bonus of making good proper Germanic officers have the time of their lives for a couple of years half a century back is pretty insignificant next to 3 000 000 000 years of history of the planet and the life thereon I’d say. Come one… they’re only Jews, it’s not like they work to earn a living. They just worked to remain living.

Point being that there are countless things people around the world which Lady Science holds true keep denying because they don’t want them to be true. But the holocaust is ’sensitive’. In all fairness, a lot of people want it to have happened to so they can feel being wronged. If I just say now to a random New Yorker ‘9/11 never happened yo.’ most likely said would get offended because of being denied compassion and acknowledgement of how poor the little creature’s been treated. Tell a kid who just bumped its toe that it’s not hurting and it’s overreacting and the kid will reply with ‘IT HURTS TOO.’, people want to feel wronged, people want there to be a terrorist thread so that they can feel wronged. Not feeling the victim, but feeling wronged. Also, in case of oil crises, it’s a better solution for re-election to invade Iraq than just extract oil by putting one tenth of your nations population in one giant citrus juicer.