Trusting the Science and Doing the Math – The Ancient and Modern Cults of Lies

Introduction: The Context

A few days ago, for some reason now lost to me, some evolutionary science denier quoted Vox Day (who is a christian evolutionary science denier), claiming to have ‘done the math’, and that it wasn’t possible for humans and chimps to have evolved from a common ancestor (or something of that nature.)

In response I made five rather obvious statements 1) vox’s math is not his own 2) it’s a primitive copy of a certain yale theologian’s 3) it demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of mathematics, and worse 4) a fundamental ignorance of genetics 5) and lastly, that an understanding of math, genetics, and evolutionary computation, would demonstrate just the opposite of his claims: that evolution is capable of extraordinarily rapid variation (fixation of successful traits), because the math rapidly results in infinities, not limits.

Now, The Marxism-Neomarxism-Postmodernism-feminist-PC-Woke  evolution is just a repetition of the evolution of judaism-chrsitianity-islam of the ancient world  : a warfare from within against the institutions of cultural production by false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe, by pretense that the aristocratic classes are oppressors of fallen angels, rather than the domesticators trying to raise primitive beasts. So I have as litte patience for damage done by supernatural fundamentalists lying about the universe, as I do as the woke pseudoscientific fundamentlists lying about the universe. They are Liars and Frauds All.

So I thought I’d work through my usual prosecution of the subject for those who are intersted in a deeper understanding of false claims of ‘doing the math’.

Especially given that fraudulent claims of “Doing the Math” are also evidence in two other famous frauds: “Trust the Science“, and “She Must Be Believed“.

We can pass on ‘she must be believed’, because that’s just psychosis talking and the psychotic and neurotic self select into that self-discounting contingent.  But when we get to ‘Trust The Science”, we mean ‘Trust The Settled Science” – meaning whatever survives the market competition over time. It does not mean we trust the highly irreducible shit-science that consists of student quality work, publication checkmarking, and grant chasing, instead of Settled (Surviving) Science (Scientific Theories).  We have to grasp that just as most salesmen are shit, most politicians are shit, most academics are shit, the same is true of scientists -most scientists are shit. And the reason of course, is that the government, academy, and the sciences have become a jobs program for what’s called credentialism. Whereas in the sciences like in every other field of human activity the power laws are inescapable. Only a tiny fraction of scientists producing a tiny fraction of publications produce anything that survives over time, and less so that provides any criteria for decidability over time. That’s why we have what’s called ‘the reproducibility’ crisis. It’s also why physics hasn’t moved the needle since the 1970’s.

In economics we are profoundly aware that knowledge is not commutable between subdisciplines. To some degree physicists know this as well. But the public can’t tell the difference between an idiot in a white coat and the top .01% of people in the subdiscipline in a field, when there is almost no chance anyone else in that field and provide the public with anything useful whatsoever.  (Look at the talking heads in quantum physics, string theory, psychology, sociology, and political ‘science’.)

Therefore

“Trusting the Science equals and only equals Trusting the Settled Science, not what any random scientist says, and certainly no one in political office that’s bound by motivated reasoning.”

 

My favorite example of lying by claims of ‘trust the science” being that the entire marxist-neomarxist-postmodern-feminist-pc-woke, anti-west, anti-whiteness, anti-white, anti-white male evolutionary sequence of sophistry, pseudoscience, fictionailism, deceit, and fraud is at it’s heart, a denial of darwinian explanation for the condition of man, the large difference between sexes, classes, civilizations, and races at scale.

I mean, there are only four sets of laws of the universe:

– The Physical (before action),

– The Behavioral (during action),

– The Evolutionary (results of action) and

– The Formal Logics that we used to describe them

What does the marxism-to-woke religion propose? violations of every single one of those laws.

– Marxism = Denial of Physical Scarcity and Evolutionary Selection, (economics, and genetics of class)

– Neo Marxism = Denial of the Logical, Behavioral and Evolutionary, (culture, and consequences of genetics)

– Anti-Male Feminism = Denial of Sexual Division of Labor and Sex Differences, to destroy family and rates of reproduction

– Postmodernism = Denial of the Formal Logics (denial of truth, meaning all four sets of laws of the universe), to destroy rational discourse.

– PC-Woke = Denial of all of the above, to destroy cooperation between identities.

So while the ancient world supernatural fundamentalists deny evolution, the pseudoscientific modern world denies the consequences of evolution.

And with this explanation we now know what constitutes a ‘Religion‘:

Social construction of a false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe in exchange for reduction of anxiety at one’s status, value, irrelevance, that is contrary to both the feminine equalitarian herd and male hierarchical pack instincts. This false promise can be constructed by any combinationof the fictionalisms: sophistry-to-idealism, magic-to-pseudoscience, occult-to-theology, and denial-to-lying.

This is why the Jewish-to-Christian-to-Islamist war against evolutionary pressures, and the Marxist-to-Woke war against evolutionar pressures are just wars of hate against those with superior genetics and culture by those who evolution would otherwise leave behind. And just as religions anthropomorphize gods, and pseudoscientific cults lionize heroes (marx, lenin, etc), white man is and al ways has been the most aggressive evolutionayr force in recorded history, and as such they turn their hatred against and build their religon against white people, as a proxy for hating the unvierse (and the universe’s god if their is one) for the same reason they anthropomorpize the gods and lionize their prophets and pseudoscientists.

So let’s have a look at ‘doing the math’.

1. What does Math Mean, Say, Compared to other the other logics? So let’s disambiguate the term math.

So for example, in ordinary language, we have the series:

***honesty (lacking due diligence)

testimony (with due diligence),

narrative (description),

story (meaning),

fiction (analogy),

fictionalism (mythology),

loading-framing-obscuring (coercing),

denying,

lying,

fraud,

baiting into hazard,

undermining,

reputation destruction*.**

This is a set of paradigms we use to communicate meaning … or deceiving.

Note for those unfamiliar with P-Law we refer to these paradigms as a seuqence of ‘grammars’.

Now in programming, we have a similar evolution from:

***– sequential, branching code ,

– to functions,

– to object oriented for simulations,

– to what is emerging now** that hardware is so cheap, reversible datastores,* which is the equivalent of back-tracking in functions and simulations. This is  a technique I assume will evolve into the ‘missing link’ between bayesian (ai) prediction, and autoassociation necessary for recursive thought: context and context change.

In other words, programming is an operational logic of one testable operation after another – just like testimony in ordinary language.

Now, why do we have to invent math? Because there are limits to our perception, cognition, memory, and state-preservation. We need assistance (what we call instrumentation) to function beyond biological limits of human abilities.  In other words, we cannot testify to what is beyond our sense, perception, cognition, memory, and prediction, without logical or physical instrumentation.

In that discipline of measurement we call mathematics we find another series:

*Arithmetic(Computation: referent, ordinal name, positional naming, add,subtract operations, and less,equal, greater than tests. So this is just another language),

Algebra (Deduction: variables),

Geometry (points,lines, planes, geometries(space, objects)),

Calculus (Curves(change)),

Algebraic Geometry(Internal Change(deformatin), Collision Change),

Analysis (n-body relative change: rotations and projections),

Statistics: search for comensurability.

And next we get into the really interesting problem of wave forms (competitions).*

This series of names helps illustrate the difference between the operational meaning of labels in the spectrum of the language of meaning, and the archaic meaning of labels in the spectrum of the science of measurement we call mathematics.  IMO math is difficult to learn because it is not consistently taught as computation, deduction, and geometric measurement. So to some degree math is a ‘gatekeeper’ discipline, requiring common folk to learn magical codes rather than operational names. When that’s just nonsense.

Of that series of mathes, we note that all actions are operational other than algebra and statistics. Statistics is an attempt to use fragmentary information to produce an analogy from which we can seek operational causeality: what sequence of events caused this distribution of data? While all maths are scale and context independent logics when refering to the same referrent, statistics serves to attempt to provide commensurability between different scales of different referents. And then we can use the resulting commensurability to help us infer or deduce causality from correlation between different scales. But that causeality will aways and everywhere consist of some operational description of why that correlation exists. And then we can subjectively test each of the sequence of operations that we theorize. This is how statistics is rendered meaingful. By survival from falsification of the operational explanation of the causality of the statisticsal corrleations. Even then, it’s still easy to inflate, conflate, and fictionalize. So until we reduce any statistical claim to the first principles we do not know if we are misinterpreting, empoloying motivated reasoning, or just outright lying about our claims – most of which are in economics – because economics has replaced morality in politics, and in doing so generated vast opportunity for lying.

So this brings us to the difference between computation (operations) and calculations (deductions).  Nature can compute but it cannot calculate. In fact, so far as we know, only humans can calculate. And for humans it largely requires instrumentation. That first instrumentation is language – which is our first system of commensurability. Then writing then the range of the maths that in the american world we call mathematics as one thing where in the british world they still use the term maths, because it consists of a series of things.

Now the counter-intuitive part: that the entire universe is continous, and only not continuous when it evovles a stable state of subatomic relations. So we have to artificially break it into measurements so that we can convert that continuity into measurements that we can use to describe it.  So, while we natively understand arithmetic fairly easily, and we struggle with the competition between wave forms at the level of the quantum background, whose behavior is only at present statistically predictable, the universe operates in the opposite direction of our mathematical description of it. Which I suppose, once we recognize makes sense – I mean i’ts complicated and we’re pretty simple.

But what’s not intuitive is that means all of mathematics is to some degree, analogistic, and statistical, where we humans try to create commensurability between many competing continous functions. For example, we can count apples but they are only statistically similar because we only care about that level of precision to count apples.

So unless we can fully enumerate all the operations (causal properties) we are only speaking in analogies. And while analogies can confer meaning in the absence of knowledge, they also create the opportunity for inflation, conflation, loading, framing, obscuring, fiction, fictionalism, deceit, fraud, baiting into hazard, undermining, and reputation destruction. This is of course why we use testimony in court: to disambiguate various narratives into a sequence of operations that are subjectively testable for both possible action and rational incentives of self interst. Because sequences of operations are the most informationally complete descriptions humans can narrate, and they are also the most falsifiable.

So statisics then, are analogistic – a means of conveying meaning at human scales of sense, perception, cognition, memory, prediction, calculation, and computation.

Ergo, any statistical statement (correlative summary for the purpose of meaning) in the absence of the operational construction (explanation of causality), carries no persuasive,  coercive, or decidable (truth) value, and this is why the population is skeptical of statistics – because statistical claims in the absence of a sequence of operations that produce them are, like narratives, stories, fictions, fictionalisms, loadings-framings-obscurings, denials, lies, frauds, baitings into  hazard, undermining, and reputation destruction just another extremely effective form of lying.

So how do we know statistics are not false? From simple to hard.

  1. Make a list of all the properties(states) and methods (changes) that can vary

  2. Organize them into an algorithm (justification) or simulation(falsification)

  3. Falsify it against as many data sets as possible.

Now JFG published his algorithm for evolutionary rates of humans, I dunno, years ago.  (insert link here)  And if we event take a cursory look through it, we see he has accounted for the variables and that with this accounting he refutes Vox Day’s (amaturish if not childish) ‘math’.

For my part I know that unless all the variables are accounted for – all the means by which human evolution can occur – then we cannot make a claim that we know the limits of that evolution.  Secondly, if we do account for all the variables involved in human evolutionary development, we run into the opposite problem from that of limitations, instead we run into the problem of infinities, over, and over, and over again.

So not only is the rate of human evolution mathematically possible, the only questions are (a) why do we evolve with so few errors (variations that limit survivability), and (b) why do we evolve so slowly (c) until we look at how extremely rapidly we evolve under selection pressure (europeans over the past few thousand years being the most interesting living example.

And Vox Day and all other of these creationists are claiming they are doing the math – when either they are lying, engaing in motivated self deception, wilfully ignorant, or incompetent.

Crimes by Statistical Fraud

In technical terms (law of testimony) the misuse of statistics by the failure of articulating operational constructions under them, consists of the fictionalism (lying) of sophistry, and that subset of pseudosicence we call pseudomathematics.

Now, in common vernacular, where there is no public commons or private property involved then these ordinary disputes (adversarial competitions) are necessary for either self correction, mutual progress, or deception and coercion.

But in speech to the public, in public, in matters public, that might cause involuntary transfer (theft) from the physical, cooperative, or informational commons, or from the individuals physical, cooperative, or informational property, then such discourse crosses the line from coercion to fraud (crime).

Now we recognize the difference between Crime: intent and should be obvious, requires restitution, punishment, and prevention of repetition and Tort, where one need not intend to act criminally, but has merley failed due diligence against damage the the physical, cooperative, and informational commons, or the physical, cooperative, and informational private property. In tort we are largely concerned with restitution unless we detect intent, and then we include punishment and prevention of further repetition.

When Harm to the Informational Commons Is Punishable

  • Intention – Yes
  • Conspiracy of common Interest – Yes
  • Motivated Reasoning – Yes
  • Failure of Due Diligence – Yes
  • Accident of Ignorance
  • Incompetence

So you do not have to intend to lie (crime) you need only fail due diligence (tort).

And then once we have a crime or tort the community decides by political means whether to suppress the crime or tort by intepersonal, normative (social), or institutionally legal (judicial) means.

In other words in the past we could claim creationists merely ignorant, but today we know they are commiting a crime of fraud and damaging the informational commons, just as much as the progressives are committing a crime of fraud by denying scarcity, behavior, genetics, evolutinary differences, and the necessity for the preservation of natural selection.

2. Via-Positiva: Teachers and Professors and Public Intellectuals vs Via-Negativa: Prosecutors and Judges.

(a) Prophets, Philosophers, Public Intellectuals, Politicians, Advertising and Marketers, Salesmen, snake oilers, fortune tellers, magicians et al, are trying to obtain attention in order to influence outcomes for themselves or for their group, or for those of common interests. This information is largely free.

(b) Family, Relatives, Mentors, Teachers, Professors, Sages, and Therapists are those we pay to educate us as individuals or groups, by providing information we do not have, assisting us in understanding we cannot, and providing counsel we need. This information is often paid for in some way – from attention and reciprocal care to monetary payment.

(c) Judges, Prosecutors, and Lawyers provide dispute resolution when we are in conflict. A judge must have a criteria for decidability.  We call that decidability the law. that law at least in the anglosphere is a combination of natural common law, and accumulated legislation and policy. This information is terribly expensive.

When a judge uses that criteria of decidability, he has three functions: Facilitation of adversarial competition (trial), Articulation of the Decision (jury), Rendering the jury’s decision (conviction-for or innocence-against), and if convicted i) restitution, ii) punishment iii) prevention of repetition or imitation by others.

Note that a > b > c produces an increase in the precision of decidability, and increase in the precision of objectivity (indifference of opinion, trust, belief, or faith), at increasing cost.

3. The Economics Of Deceits

And therein lies the problem: it’s cheaper to invent false promises, baitings into hazard, frauds, and deceits than it is to falsify, punish actors, and correct them. And the advent or roman roads and scriptural religion, the printing press and literacy, the industrial revolution reduction of costs of production of information, the rise of mass media, and now social media, have continuously reduced the cost of manufacturing and distributing frauds, while dramatically increasing the cost of falsifying those frauds.

And our law has not kept pace with the industrialization of lying. Worse, our constitution does not limit free speech to free truthful, reciprocal, possible speech. And the state has deprived us of fighting, duel, libel, and slander, thus facilitating not only falsehoods but undermining and reputation destruction.

4. The Economics of Truth

Prevention is far cheaper than correction by restitution, punishment, and prevention. And it is the only means by which a population can defeat the economics of lying. For these reasons it is always and everywhere necessary to discover the first causes, methods, means, examples of and criterial of lying – at least in public to the public in matters public. And to enumerate those methods of lying in the law, and to allow the people to slowly adapt as this law works its way through the population.

The only problem has been a science of truthful testimony and conversely the science of the unjustifiable.

(And now we have it. You wouldn’t think it’s possible, but it is. And it’s rock solid and complete.)

The primary result would be far more questions asked, and opinions offered than false truth claimed. And claims that one had done due diligence not that one’s statements are true. And that one has a theory not a truth claim. etc.

But no one gives up the advantage of his criminality and immorality quietly. And preventing such lies crimes and immorality will be resisted as much as every other increases in the suppression of irreciprocity in history.

My Job Is Judicial. In the Sense of Constitutional.

My work is the law. The purpose of the law is to defeat the industrialization of lying. Because prevention is the only means of defeating the enemy – whose only weapon is the means of lying, by the industrialization of the female means of warfare, against the institutions of cultural production – and men.

Economics in everything.