0
Colonel Frank Grimes vs Jamesbond007 :
So, ColonolFrankGrimes claimed in my railing against Davidski thread, of late, that :
So, Frank says he has a high IQ or at least that he is smarter than me and that I'm crazy. Let us examine this in more detail. So, basically I posted these abstracts from studies in refutation :Originally Posted by ColonolFrankGrimes
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124
^ so Frank being the lovable dimwit with a strong will that we know of course autistically focused on the word 'current' missing the forest from the trees. His claims to IQ and me being crazy encompass both psychology and psychiatry conflated together :
Modern medicine and social science are largely haruspicy. A loud drum circle of dissident scientists has been pounding out an uncomfortable message in recent years: there’s probably a lot more false haruspicy entrail reading in the sciences than people would like to admit The loudest dissident drummer is John Ioannidis, a Greek high school math star turned biomedical researcher whose 2005 paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” touched off a fierce bout of self-criticism (and a second wave of self-defense) in the clinical sciences. Some papers plead for attention with a title more dramatic than the claims made in the body, but not this one. Ioannidis takes seriously the idea that entire specialties of medical research are “null fields,” like haruspicy, in which there are simply no actual effects to be found. “It can be proven,” he writes, “that most claimed research findings are false.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124
So Frank did not understan that at all rather he is like man "you know it says current studies' completely missing the point saying that a century worth of IQ studies proves that IQ is correct but anyway so I posted this so think he would have understood the bigger picture but nope he completely ignored it :
Abstract
Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiolog...l.pbio.3001133
^ that supports the contention that psychiatry is a null field and so recursively one could reason that of course that consigns psychology and IQ to the dustbin as well of course if the almighty psychiatry the ultimate arbitrer on the mind is a null field.
The British Royal society motto is right : Nullius in verba. So, basically almost everything humans believe in is a myth, superstition or delusion. So, instead of throwing each believe out one by one instead one throws out all human believes systematically in the dustbin and only fishes them out when one can prove the hypothesis with facts :
Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1921
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
"The world is the totality of facts, not of things"
1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
2.04 The totality of existing states of affairs is the world.
2.12 A picture is a model of reality.
2.141 A picture is a fact.
2.172 A picture cannot depict its pictorial form: it displays it.
2.19 Logical pictures can depict the world.
2.223 In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality.
2.224 It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or false.
3 A logical picture of facts is a thought.
3.01 The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.
3.1 In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.3 Only propositions have sense; only in the nexus of a proposition does a name have meaning.
3.332 No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in itself.
4 A thought is a proposition with a sense.
4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
4.003 Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical.
4.0031 All philosophy is a 'critique of language'. The apparent logical form of a proposition need not be its real one.
4.11 The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science
4.461 Propositions show what they say; tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing.
4.464 A tautology's truth is certain, a proposition's possible, a contradiction's impossible.
5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
5.61 We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.
5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)
6.13 Logic is not a body of doctrine, but a mirror-image of the world. Logic is transcendental.
6.2 Mathematics is a logical method.
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world.
6.431 At death the world does not alter, but comes to an end.
6.4311 Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death.
6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.
6.54 He who understands my propositions recognizes them as senseless. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up it.)
7 What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
http://sqapo.com/wittgenstein.htm
4.11 The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science
So, psychology and psychiatry are not natural sciences. Physics is a natural science and the king of the sciences and all sciences must obey the laws of physics but to say psychology follows the laws of physics is nonsensical at best. Math is the Queen of the sciences and uses strict rigorous mathematics unlike psychology and psychiatry which use shoddy statistical methods. For instance, the DSM-III which 'saved psychiatry' through a revolution was based on lie or statistical sleight of hand by Spitzer and his task force :
however, [it was] a revolution based on a scientific lie. The DSM-III field trials were “[b]latently rigged” (Burstow 2015: 77) by Spitzer’s task force to produce higher rates of reliability. A summary of the research biases in the construction of the studies—including the non-representative nature of the samples—has been noted by Whitaker and Cosgrove (2015: 48–49), following extensive meta-analysis of the original field trial data by Kirk and Kutchins (1992). However, Kirk and Kutchins’ own evaluation of the DSM-III research revealed something even more surprising—namely, that there was no improvement in the previous poor levels of diagnostic reliability. In fact, in some categories of mental disorder, there were even greater levels of disagreement between psychiatrists than there had been with previous DSMs (Kirk and Kutchins 1994: 82–83). In large part, the claimed success of the DSM-III was due to a “linguistic sleight of hand” (Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 49) in which Spitzer and his task force re-phrased the same statistical levels of agreement between psychiatric professions (in this case, defined by kappa mean values between 0 and 1, where 1 is complete agreement and 0 complete disagreement) in different ways when comparing the DSM-I and the DSM-II with the DSM-III. For example, a mental disorder in the previous DSMs with a kappa score of .7 had been presented as “only satisfactory,” but was then redefined in the DSM-III as a “good” level of inter-rater agreement (Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 49). Thus, Kirk and Kutchins (1994: 83) concluded that “despite the scientific claims of great success, reliability appears to have improved very little in three decades.” The DSM-III can therefore be seen as the success of the rhetoric of psychiatry rather than the result of any actual scientific progress within the discipline (Kirk and Kutchins 1992).Predictably, subsequent research has shown no improvement in inter-rater reliability and, in many cases, has produced kappa scores below those reported in the original DSM-III field trials (Whitaker and Cosgrove 2015: 50). . The implications for the DSM on which psychiatry bases its claims to scientific rigour are clear—“the latest versions of DSM as a clinical tool,” state Kirk and Kutchins (1994: 84), “are unreliable and therefore of questionable validity as a classification system.” As the authors proceeded to document with the DSM-IV, rather than attempt to tighten mental illness classifications, the APA actually loosened them further, thereby increasing the potential number of people who could be labelled under each mental disorder (Kutchins and Kirk 1997). --Professor Bruce M. Z. Cohen "Psychiatric Hegemony A Marxist Theory of Mental Illness"
So, psychology suffers from statistical p-hacking and shoddy statistics as well obviously so IQ should go in the dustbin of superstition just like the concept of mental disorder or craziness or mental illness :
"There is three kinds of lies : lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain
...as every critical scholar on the topic is aware, very serious problems remain with the current science and practice within the mental health system. These concerns inevitably lead us to questioning the reality of the claims to a mental illness “epidemic” made by health organisations such as the APA and the WHO, and to ask who really benefits from the global expansion of the psychiatric discourse. An essential issue here is the continuing contested nature of “mental illness,” for there remains no proof that any “mental disorder” is a real, observable disease. Consequently, the “experts” still cannot distinguish the mentally ill from the mentally healthy. In fact, a recent attempt by the APA—the most powerful psychiatric body in the world—to define mental illness was bluntly described by one of their most senior figures as “bullshit” (see discussion below). Accordingly, it also follows that no “treatment” has been shown to work on any specific “mental illness” and that there is no known causation for any disorder. --Professor Bruce M. Z. Cohen "Psychiatric Hegemony a Marxist Theory of Mental Illness"
... Counterfeit art is forgery. Counterfeit testimony is perjury. But counterfeit illness is illness, “mental illness,” an illness officially decreed “an illness like any other.” The consequences of this policy—economic, legal, medical, moral, philosophical, political, and social—are momentous: counterfeit disability, counterfeit disease, counterfeit doctoring, and the bureaucracies and industries administering, adjudicating, and providing for them make up a substantial part of the national economies of modern Western societies.According to classic, pathological-scientific criteria, disease is a product manufactured by the body, in the same sense that urine is. Diagnosis, in contrast, is a product manufactured by persons, in the same sense that works of art are. Charcot and Freud discarded the somatic pathological criterion of disease, destroying the empirical-rational basis for distinguishing real medical disorders of the body (diseases) from fake psychiatric disorders of the “mind” (nondiseases). Modern psychiatry is a gigantic edifice built on the poisoned ruins of this destruction.Except for a few objectively identifiable brain diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, there are neither biological or chemical tests nor biopsy or necropsy findings for verifying or falsifying DSM diagnoses. ... -- Late psychiatrist Thomas Szasz "Psychiatry the Science of Lies"
So, what is Frank Grimes actually saying when he says he has a higher IQ than me and that I'm crazy or mentally ill ? According the philosophy of Wittgenstein he actually might as well have said this :
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poe...16/jabberwocky
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks