Back

@Pineywoozle I drive some people nuts, though, because I ALWAYS look for a way to blame the scientific community. Why? Because I know they will ALWAYS have done something wrong but will REFUSE to do correctly.

If THEY can't do things right, what's the point? The situation is hopeless.

Do you notice what is missing from the article? Try predicting from natural selection theory whether letting the bird flu go through flocks would actually produce disease-resistant birds...

@Pineywoozle From what they teach us in school, you might think so. Surviving birds would be the "fittest".

But actually all we know is these are birds that survived this epidemic. There is nothing in natural selection theory to reassure us these birds are prepared for the next epidemic!

Furthermore, diseases may damage the immune system. It was probably in "Science" I read about measles destroying immunity. Few doctors probably even know "Science" exists, despite it being the top journal.

@Pineywoozle So these things are not even mentioned by the quoted scientists, from what I can tell. Only that it is dangerous. Not that it is actually pointless.

@chemoelectric It’s a short article it just has a few quotes. I wouldn’t expect them to include everything. I think the Scientist probably know and understand that and might even have said it, it just wasn’t included.

@Pineywoozle No, I'm sure that's not there, and do you know why? Because I never see scientists applying theory and logic to such problems. They merely quote statistics and "expertise".

@Pineywoozle That's not good enough. It does not provide insight. It is intellectual authoritarianism rather than scientific orientation. It is why our society is progressively declining into darkness.

It's not religion, as many claim. Religion has never been weaker.

@Pineywoozle People have to be shown how to figure it out for themselves. Not told to stop thinking and do only what they are told. But it is the latter that they are instructed to do. "Being intelligent" is equated with repeating what "scientists" tell you. Not with figuring it out yourself somehow.

You are told it is literally impossible for YOU, A MERE LAYPERSON, to figure it out!

Yet I figure out all sorts of things.

@Pineywoozle Find someone who says "I believe in Science!" and quiz them well on scientific methods. They won't do well. At the least they will most likely completely leave out the role of logic.

It simply is not even taught anymore.

@Pineywoozle Neil de Grasse Tyson tweeted specifically that reality is what the vast majority of scientists say it is. Not what it it actually is, but what scientists say it is.

The man is an ignorant lunatic, and is the most popular science educator.

@Pineywoozle Let me go over my reasoning in detail. It has nothing to do with statistics, and I assure you I am not a biologist or medical doctor. I am simply not frightened into not using my own brain.

What people like RFK imagine is that birds who survive the bird flu will be those with "stronger immune systems" and so more disease resistant.

Nothing any teacher or doctor or "expert" has ever told me has contradicted this. Maybe it seems reasonable. But to me it is obviously untrue. Why?

@Pineywoozle BECAUSE IF IT WERE TRUE THERE WOULD BE NO DISEASE ANYMORE!

What "survival of the fittest" means is actually a tautology: that those who are still alive are those who were fit enough to survive that bird flu.

But being fit to survive that bird flu doesn't mean you are any fitter to survive the next disease that comes along.

So scientists are at fault for not teaching that "survival of the fittest" is a tautology.

They do not counter the teleological interpretation of evolution.

@Pineywoozle This is, in my meaning, the description of evolution as leading to improvements in the individual organism. This is illogical because it defies Time's Arrow. Nothing is scientific if it requires action that is instantaneous over a distance (you've likely seen me tear physicists to shreds) or going backwards in times. Evolution cannot "design" improvements in an individual who does not exist.

What it does is merely wipe out individuals who weren't "fit".

@Pineywoozle So all the "improvements" are actually just ordinary births. It's just the other guys got killed off. There is no teleology.

So I see people who think themselves "scientific" thinking Mars colonists will generation by generation adapt to the lower gravity. It is evolution, after all. No, they won't. Unless they want to interpret "Mars Colony will experience massive rates of death" as "adapting to lower gravity".

The important thing here is: I HAVE NO "EXPERTISE" IN THE SUBJECT!

@Pineywoozle That's what I am getting at. I am using scientific theories and logic. This is not even taught anymore. People are actively discouraged from doing it. People block me for complaining about it.

And I am getting ever more angry.

@Pineywoozle And a guy is the most popular science educator who teaches, by implication, that Galileo's theories were contrary to reality, because the consensus of scientists disagreed with him.

@chemoelectric Like I said earlier, it doesn’t apply to something like that. It applies to something where concrete facts show the truth and comparing scientist at Galileo‘s time and scientists now is apples and oranges. It doesn’t really work.

@Pineywoozle This is completely untrue and introducing Feynman is good because he was a quantum physicist.

The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics was given for the supposed proof of "entangled particles" that exhibit ludicrous "instantaneous action at a distance". This research was debunked convincingly in the 1980s by E.T. Jaynes, the Wayman Crow Professor of Physics at Washington University in St Louis, and a well known expert in random process analysis! Never mind, like Galileo he was ignored...

@Pineywoozle Around 2000, at least three other physicists rediscovered the errors in the research. One was A.F. Kracklauer, who in 2004 also modeled the experiments using only Maxwellian physics without particles at all. Another was a Professor Unnikrishnan who headed a gravity research lab in India. The third was W.A. Hofer, who wrote a book that has been published only in Chinese translation. He also has modeled the electron in a way that EXPLAINS its spin.

All were ignored...

@Pineywoozle I myself, being a bit educated in random process analysis—but far more than a quantum physicist would be—spent over 20 years working on the problem. I now have a GitHub account (see my bio) full of computer programs that simulate the experiments without the least bit of "entanglement" or "instantaneous action at a distance". I do not use Maxwellian physics, but particles.

I also have mathematics to explain why my simulations work....

@Pineywoozle Furyhermore, I developed two simple logical reasons why there cannot possibly be such a thing as quantum physics, distinct from "classical" physics.

1. Once written down, a quantum physics problem is a math word problem. Therefore it has an infinite number of logical equivalents having nothing to do with the supposed special "quantumess".

(And, indeed, an "entangled particles" prof looking at my stuff failed to notice I was solving an equivalent problem about signal processing!...