Dark Mathematical Magicians, Statistical Sorcery and Superstition
If there is one most important lesson to get from this article it is that you can know fake science is being used if you see the phrases "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."
When you look at what percentage of articles have these phrases in peer reviewed scientific journals, however unscientific you thought the majority viewpoint scientific establishment was you will realise it is much faker then that.
Take the wildest mainstream science denial theories of fake globe earth, fake moon landings, fake pictures of space, fake spinning earth, fake gravity, fake dating of fossils, rocks, manuscripts and artifacts, fake dinosaurs,, fake billions and millions of years, fake big bang, fake nukes, fake discovery of the atom, fake theory of special relativity, fake DNA, fake vaccine theories and fake global warming theories add them all together and they do not add up to even 1% of the amount of fakery there would be in the mainstream scientific establishment if this one claim is true. Although I am not saying whether or not those mainstream science denial theories are true by putting them in this list, simply comparing the triviality of even the combination of all of them when compared with the hoax of the legitimacy of using statistical significance as part of science.
Not all statistics is unscientific. There is a field of statistics called descriptive statistics in which quantities are directly measured. This field can be scientific or used as part of a legitimate scientific method when probability is not involved.
Descriptive Statistics may give you a frequency without a probability meaning that it can be potentially legitimate
A frequency can be directly measured but a probability can not
For example if Cathy the Cat Lady has 7 black cats and 3 white cats and no cats with both black and white fur in her house's cat room right now and she has no other cats anywhere else in the world. Someone can personally count how many cats are in that room of each type and get a number of each type without assigning a probability.
From the numbers they personally observed they can calculate frequencies that 70% of her cats are black and 30% of her cats are white.
Inferrential Statistics is where the line between fantasy and reality is magically conjured into existence through the use of probability and guessing. Inferrential statistics are where you try to guess what quantities are that you never measured based on information you have actually measured in your descriptive statistics.
One extremely common problem with inferrential statistics is infering that data you never measured would be a normal distribution curve if you actually measured it based on the descriptive data you did measure and can objectively know is not a normal distribution curve.
The most common and most serious problem, however, is believing you can know the probability of a meaurement at all. The entire foundation of any and every statistical test that can get a result of either, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is that probabilitiy exists and can be a quantity other than 0% or 100% which it can not and therefore might as well not exist as will be explained much later in this article.
In the infiltrated academic fields of so called biology, sociology, psychology, pharmacy, exercise physiology, healthcare and industrial engineering "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" is used as the standard for knowing "the truth" about the results of an experiment. But this standard has not been used to arrive at any hard science by competant people who know what they are doing.
Although Isaac Newton's work on gravity and astronomy has never beem confirmed by the common person, the rest of his laws are very useful, and he never arrived at them using tests to see if they were, "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant."
The force of Local Gravity can be measured by dropping an object in front of a ruler and filming it without testing for if it is "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant" because the object will be exactly where it is supposed to be based on the model if you adjust for air friction
But the force of gravity in outer space has never been proven to the non space ship affording commoner and the Universal Gravitational constant is a fraud. The mass of large objects like buildings and walls right next to the testing equipment is always ignored making the whole thing a big joke.
If Isaac Newton really existed he has been the most important scientist and mathematician in all of history because of what Newtonisn Physics teaches about, Torque, Work, Force, Mass, Acceleration and Momentum which is a prerequisite for all work in all other fields of science that use those measurements. Not even one theory Isaac Newton arrived at was achieved by testing for being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," every correct theory he ever had are confirmed because they make correct predictions which is how real science works and not because of something labeled as being "statistically significant," or "not statistically significant," occured which is not how real scientists do research only how people who are paid lots of money to pretend to be doing science do research.
In inferrential statistics someone might say there is a 70% chance a cat will be black and a 30% chance a cat will be white because the probability is assumed to be the same as the frequency. But, this is magical thinking
In reality zero of her cats have a 30% chance of being white and zero of her cats have a 70% chance of being black. 7 of her cats have a 100% chance of being black with a 0% chance of being white and 3 of her cats have a 100% chance of being white and a 0% chance of being black.
That is where I am wrong. Pulling a rabbit out of a hat is much less likely to get you bitten than pulling a cat out of a hat [ citation not needed . ] If a magician pulled a cat out of a hat and they personally did not know what color the cat was until they pulled it out of the hat there would be a 70% chance it was black and a 30% chance it was white.
But I am not wrong at all. Just because the magician does not see the cat before he pulls it out does not mean it is not a black or white cat. If the cat is black there is a 100% probability the cat he pulls out will be black and a 0% chance it will be white. If the cat is white there will be a 100% chance it will be white and a 0% chance it will be black.
If he pulls out each cat exactly one time then the frequency he pulls them out will be 70% black and 30% white but there will be no probability of a 70% chance of being black nor a probability of a 30% chance of being white each time he pulls a cat out as I already explained.
The scientific method involves proposing a possible mechanism by which things work and making a measurable mathematical model to make future predictions based on what would happen under experimental circumstances if that mechanism genuinely existed and followed that mathematical model. The model is then tested based on experiment.
There are three types of mechanisms
1 A physical mechanism
2 A chemical mechanism
3 A mechanism of choice - Something that explains why someone will choose something based on their goals and the information they have access to
None of these types of mechanism can be based on probability
1 Physical and Chemical mechanisms
There is either a 0% or 100% chance any claim about a specific object at a specific location, at a specific time is true and those are the only two probability values that can exist in reality. There is never a probability that is less than 100% and greater than 0% such as 50% of something being true. Just like not knowing the cats color did not mean there was a probability a cat has a certain fur color other than 0% or 100% in reality
2 Choice mechanisms
Although what goals and knowledge someone else has is unknown there can likewise be only a 100% chance or 0% chance any claim about their goals or knowledge is true at any specific time and not any value other than those two values such as 50% for similar reasons
No legitinate mechanism of explanation therefore can be based on probability theory
A legitimate scientific model has a mechanism of explanation
There is then no scientific basis for any model to represent reality that uses the type of inferential statistics based on probability theory, since no legitimate mechanisms are probabilistic
In Short : Inferential Statistics that are based on probability theory are not legitimate science
Statistics is Neither Math Nor Science when probability is invoked or evoked
Statistics is magic.
Statisticians can be of the spell school of geometry in which geometric bell curves and tables are drawn on paper to work mind deceiving magic on the reader
http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf
Statisticians cast wild magic spells where their methods are based on occasionally arriving at the right conclusion for the wrong reason
http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf
Statistics is evocation magic because it calls to mind people to imagine things that are not true
transitive verb To call to mind, as by suggestion, association, or reference.
transitive verb To create anew, especially by means of the imagination.
transitive verb To summon by magical or supernatural power; conjure.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220707094055/wordnik.com/words/evoke
Statistics is of invocation magic because it is a religious act of imploring aid from a belief in the higher power of probability theory
late 14c., "petition (to God or a god) for aid or comfort; invocation, prayer;" also "a summoning of evil spirits,"
http://web.archive.org/web/20211023090227/etymonline.com/word/invocation
Of the spell school of song magic in which word are used like magic spells to trick people into believing in something that is not true
http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075624/https://www.docdroid.net/e2GQmdw/players-option-skills-powers-rtf
Statisticians use mind effecting magic from the school of enchantment charm when people are forced or charmed into obeying stupid ideas because they are labeled as statistically significant
http://web.archive.org/web/20220811075323/https://www.docdroid.net/4adfMyZ/the-complete-wizards-handbook-rtf
Syatistics is illusionary magic in which people hallucinate reality being other than what it is caused through the suggestion of things being "statistically significant" even if they are not practically significant
Statistics is a form of necromancy. Not necromancy in the sense of creating undead beings but in the sense of trying to foretell the future or past from the dead through ways that do not logically make sense except to someone doing magical thinking.
With statistics people imagine to get information from the dead they simply do not have access to when statistics is used instead of understanding physical and chemical mechanisms of biological causes of death and the fossilization process in forensics, paleontology, osteo-archeologists and actuarial "science." A paleontologist with no soft tissue might use "rigorous scientific methods" to know what a dinosaurs body was like from statistical analysis of bone measurements, while ignoring the fact that no such physical mechanism of how the dinosaurs body worked could be observed without the never found muscle and connective tissue. But, that is ok because no physical mechanism is needed when it comes to statistical science, so why should a physical mechanism like a body be needed for any biological science experiment.
A necromancer is a person who practices necromancy, a discipline of black magic used to communicate with the dead to foretell the future.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200323070613/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromancer_(disambiguation)
Statistics is faith healing magic. I do not know how the chemical mechanism for this medicine works but it showed "statistically significant differences" compared with a placebo, so if I just trust the science I will be healed by my faith in the scientific study, if I shut up and do as I am told.
Granted I could think that it did not work for some of the patients to heal them and some got worse after taking the medicine, and without knowing the chemical medicine I could not know which category I am in. But if I actually knew the chemical and physical mechanism of both the medicine and my body I could know if there is a 100% chance the medicine will heal me or a 100% chance it would do nothing or a 100% chance it would make me worse.
But that type of thought would just be the devil trying to get me to doubt the, "statistically significant difference" and I should just take the medicine without knowing what category I am in, because I can not be healed without enough faith in statistical science
Statistics is like ancient divination in which people imagined to be able to detect things they can not know by normal means with the use of magic. What kind of magic was this? In ancient days people would intentionally do things that people today would consider to produce random results. People in ancient times thought these random results could produce supernatural guidance through auspicious signs and omens.
Using random results to get supernatural guidance would be called laughable in modern times. But, today scientists with real credentials devote their entire career to studying randomness but instead of calling the study of randomness divination, they call the study of randomness statistics.
They still look for auspicious signs and omens, but today call these signs and omens, "statistically significant results" and "not statistically significant results."
A result is said to randomly change from the omen of "statistical significance" to the omen of "no statistical significance" randomly every once in a while no matter how an experiment is set up, unless G-d forbid, they actually observe the causal mechanism and measure the data directly instead of statistically inferring it.
They laugh at ancient people for seeking omens from randomness, but their very admission to random false positives and false negatives shows they are still seeking omens from randomness today every time they test to find out if a result is, "statistically significant," instead of testing a mathematical model for a hypothetical mechanism.
In statistical hypothesis testing, a type I error is the mistaken rejection of an actually true null hypothesis (also known as a "false positive" finding or conclusion; example: "an innocent person is convicted"), while a type II error is the failure to reject a null hypothesis that is actually false (also known as a "false negative" finding or conclusion; example: "a guilty person is not convicted").[1] Much of statistical theory revolves around the minimization of one or both of these errors, though the complete elimination of either is a statistical impossibility if the outcome is not determined by a known, observable causal process.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220602144427/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
When probability theory, which is the basis for much of inferential statistics is first taught, to defenseless children held captive to the dark magicians ways in public schools, six sided dice are often mentioned a lot in calculations. These dice trace back to the ancient divination magic of casting lots called cleromancy.
Cleromancy is a form of sortition (casting of lots) in which an outcome is determined by means that normally would be considered random, such as the rolling of dice, but that are sometimes believed to reveal the will of God according to Proverbs 16:33.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220602113150/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy
Statistics is like the occult school of numerology in that measured numbers are imagined to work according to patterns of statistical magic, without any need to examine mechanism of how something works. Where as in numerology measured numbers can also magically tell you information without understanding the mechanism of the source of data you are measuring the numbers from.
Numerology and astrology are not considered to be math nor science but numerology uses math to make predictions, and astrology uses both math and astronomy to make predictions.
Statistics is neither math nor science but statistics uses math
Numerology and astrology actually are more useful than statistics.
Numerology and astrology can have a linguistic purpose to communicate messages symbolically.
Numerology should be viewed as a form of linguistics that uses math and numbers to communicate coded messages to other people who know numerology and not as a field of mathematics or physical science.
For example if a shoe is One foot and One inch long that does not mean bad luck but if you say a shoe is thirteen inches long someone who knows the code might know you are sending a coded signal which means bad luck. The Number Thirteen is not an unlucky number because a shoe that is thirteen inches long is no more likely to cause you to trip than a shoe that is one and one twelth of a foot long even though they are both the same length. Thirteen pairs of an object is the same as Twenty Six objects. But if you want to communicate a message of bad luck you might call it Thirteen pairs of objects instead of Twenty Six objects. If you want to make sure you do not give people less than the dozen donuts you asked for you give them a bakers dozen. A bakers dozen is one dozen donuts plus one extra donut. They will be happy to have an extra donut if you tell them it is a bakers dozen but do not tell them you are giving them thirteen donuts or they will freak out if they are superstitious. There is no lucky or unlucky quantity therefore because the same quantity can be changed from considered lucky to unlucky by a change of word labeling magic. There is no physical mechanism for numerology because when you measure real things you can assign any number you want to them by changing the units. The purpose of changing around the number in front of the unit is therefore clearly to change each number to a different to code word when numerology is used. Therefore numerology clearly is not a physical science but clearly is a real linguistic tool.
Overt is the opposite of covert
If someone wishes to use the news to signal out coded messages they may chose things like fabricating numbers in news stories which are actually fiction being portrayed as non fiction. They could for example use the code number three hundred and twenty two in order to covertly communicate the message "skull and bones" to everyone who hears the message while only people who know the number means "skull and bones" understand they are receiving the message "skull and bones" and everyone else thinks a quantity is being measured when no such quantity of whatever unit they claim to measure occured. The number was not used as a measurement but a code word.
The most popular numbers overtly used as code words when trying to make sure the general public does know to put the public in a state of fear are triple sixes or six hundred and sixty six, and thirteen. Culturally people are taught to fear those numbers so they are displayed on purpose not to measure a quantity but as a overtly displayed code word.
Some people believe astrology predicts the future so choose to change their behavior based on astrological predictions. The news cycle contains fictional events prewritten to fit astrological time tables. Corporate and government managers of society on the top level create a timetable for what policies to set in place at what time based on astrology. In this way astrology is a communication tool to modify people's behavior which uses math but is not a science. Even though astrology is not a science, knowledge of astrology can be used to predict the behavior of people who are being influenced by the tool of astrology.
Probability based statistics is neither math nor science but it is used as a magical communication tool to control people's behavior.
You can look at astrology horoscopes and guess how their believers will behave even though they are not fields based on the scientific method.
The phrases, "statistically significant," and "not statistically significant," have no scientific merit. However, like astrology and numerology which also have no scientific merit, if a scientific journal article claims something, "is statistically significant," or "is not statistically significant" you can guess how it will change the behavior of the superstitious believers.
The scale matters. If we play make believe and pretend probability theory is true a certain percentage of articles will have the opposite result in terms of statistical significance changing from significant to not significant or not significant to significant for each alpha value. Then the people in charge only put the one's that fit the scientific consensus on a large scale for distribution. It is like rolling a die over and over until you get the number you like. But in reality, data is often simply fake, and people who try to do honest studies simply do not have their work published unless it fits the agenda. And even if they followed the proper statistics methods and did not get their work censored it is still a victory for the dark magicians because they are perpetuating the lie that inferential statistics based on probability theory is legimate science and inferential statistics is real math, when neither of those claims are true.
Copyright Carl Janssen 2022
This generally means that descriptive statistics, unlike inferential statistics, is not developed on the basis of probability theory, and are frequently nonparametric statistics
http://web.archive.org/web/20220529222853/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descriptive_statistics
The thing about social science is that it hasn’t produced much. We social scientists don’t have an inferiority complex; we really are inferior.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/
The past two hundred years of social science have given us nothing as useful and important as what gets produced every day in biology, chemistry, and physics.
http://web.archive.org/web/20220519231153/statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/03/12/the-social-sciences-are-useless-so-why-do-we-study-them-heres-a-good-reason/
Keep Psychology Out of the Science Club
http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160649/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2012/07/keep-psychology-out-of-science-club.html
Why Psychology and Statistics Are Not Science
http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160650/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/why_psychology_and_statistics_are_not_science.html
psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either.
http://web.archive.org/web/20210705160654/https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/11/the_trouble_with_social_science_statistics.html
no statistic has any application to an individual
http://web.archive.org/web/20220608134204/https://public.wsu.edu/~taflinge/evistats.html
psychology is not a science, and statistics in and of itself is not science either.
What would be missing, in a world without statistics?
Science would be pretty much ok. Newton didn’t need statistics for his theories of gravity, motion, and light,
http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/
Modern biomedicine uses lots and lots of statistics, but would medicine be so much worse without it? I don’t think so, at least not yet. You don’t need statistics to see that penicillin works, nor to see that mosquitos transmit disease and that nets keep the mosquitos out. Without statistics, I assume that various mistakes would get into the system, various ineffective treatments that people think are effective, etc. But on balance I doubt these would be huge mistakes, and the big ones would eventually get caught, with careful record-keeping even without statistical inference and adjustments.
http://web.archive.org/web/20200517144840/https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/23/world-without-statistics/
Although we use many laws and formulae in statistics but still the results achieved are not final and conclusive. As they are unable to give complete solution to a problem
http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321
Law of statistical regularity, are not as good as their science laws.
They are based on probability. So these results will not always be as good as of scientific laws.
http://web.archive.org/web/20211214014433/economicsdiscussion.net/statistics/8-main-limitations-of-statistics-explained/2321
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+science&ia=web
Statistics is a dark art. It’s not a true math in the sense that math is discovered and inherently right or wrong.
quora.com/Is-statistics-a-science
Statistics is not math
http://web.archive.org/web/20220812110649/https://simplystatistics.org/posts/2012-04-11-statistics-is-not-math/
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+math&ia=web
Statistics Is Not Math
http://web.archive.org/web/20150221225715/https://www.wmbriggs.com/post/3169/
Statistics uses math, but it is not math
http://web.archive.org/web/20210502115501/https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/78579/stats-is-not-maths
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=statistics+is+not+logic&ia=web
No comments:
Post a Comment