Pathological Science #13 Emotions and Contradictions Within Climate Change

Pathological Science #13 Emotions and Contradictions Within Climate Change

Pathological Science #13 Emotions and Contradictions Within Climate Change

(CC0) Pathological Science #13 Emotions and Contradictions Within Climate Change

Larry Neal Gowdy

Copyright ©2017-2021 - updated February 09, 2021

The Humanity Behind the Pathological Science of Climate Change

What causes hurricanes? What caused the hurricane named Irma? Many people sincerely do believe that they know the answer. (A portion of the following is also included in the Mermaid Effect article.)

Six facts that healthy humans can observe themselves: [1] oceans exist, [2] fish and other living beings exist in the oceans, [3] hurricanes come to land from oceans, [4] something in Nature causes hurricanes to occur, [5] hurricanes cause damage to man-made structures, and [6] all hurricanes known to humans have always occurred after an event that humans did (humans must first exist before humans can know that hurricanes exist).

Now, it is normal for humans to mentally assemble observable facts, and to then form a judgment of what causes a thing to happen. Humans could not make clothing nor dwellings without the ability to mentally assemble different groups of observed things and to then judge how the things behave together, even if humans do not understand the things themselves. Different humans assemble different quantities and qualities of observed facts because all humans are different, and therefore all humans have different abilities and limitations within each person's own ability to observe and to think.

Now, what has occurred prior to each hurricane? If an event occurred prior to each known hurricane, and the event was not observed to occur at any other time, then it is very common for humans to compare the two groups of facts and to then form a conclusion that the two groups of facts are connected. Today, the act of comparing and relating two or more simultaneously occurring groups of events is given the name of science.

Scientific method: [i] form an opinion of a thing, [ii] form a method of measuring the thing in chronological and mathematical order, [iii] observe the thing to determine if indeed the two or more events always occur simultaneously, and then [iv] conclude a hypothesis that predicts a mathematically valid sequence of cause and effect. Most all of today's science is performed similarly.

A very strong hurricane hit an Asian coast in the 1700s (as illustrated within a recently made video of how man recorded the event), and the hurricane occurred after a very specific event that humans did. The fishermen knew that hurricanes always occurred after humans committed the act. Humans had recently committed the act, which was quickly followed by a strong hurricane causing much damage to the village. The villagers and fishermen were scientifically right in their judgment that a mermaid had caused the hurricane to get her revenge on humans because some humans had harmed the mermaid.

Was the logic wrong? Why? It was scientifically proven that [a] hurricanes happen, [b] hurricanes come from the ocean, [c] mermaids live in the ocean, [d] hurricanes always occurred when a human harmed a mermaid, [e] someone harmed a mermaid, [f] the hurricane occurred shortly after the mermaid was harmed, and so, therefore, [g] mermaids cause hurricanes. The sequencing of evidence is how scientists today form scientific theories, and so if the scientific theory about mermaids was incorrect (pathological science), then why was it incorrect?

Some people who live on land, and who know nothing of fishing, they say that mermaids do not exist, but all of the fishermen said that mermaids are real. Who is to be believed? Either? Neither? Whose science is true? Both? Neither?

Is it possible to prove that mermaids do not exist? Is it possible to prove that mermaids do not cause hurricanes? The 'argument from silence' fallacy is when an individual argues that a thing cannot exist if the thing is not recorded by a human; just because humans have not taken a photograph of a UFO mermaid, it does not prove that UFOs mermaids do not exist. The continuum and nirvana fallacies point to the incorrectness of rejecting a theory because of a theory not being flawlessly perfect, and so, since it is scientifically and academically unacceptable to reject a theory just because the theory has flaws, then the mermaid theory must be accepted as valid science. Right? No? Why? If a person believes in science and academia, then the person cannot reject the mermaid theory because rejecting the mermaid theory would also be rejecting science and academia's teachings against fallacies. Oh the dilemma of reasoning! What will the believers of science and academia choose? Or will they choose both, like Orwell's 1984 'doublethink'?

In recent months many humans have said that it was scientifically proven that [a] hurricanes happen, [b] hurricanes come from the ocean, [c] someone harmed a mermaid the climate, [d] the hurricanes occurred shortly after the mermaid climate was harmed, and so therefore, [e] mermaids climate changes cause hurricanes.

Really, seriously, many science and academia 'experts' are in fact claiming that.

The sequencing of evidence about mermaids in the 1700s was how scientists today form scientific theories of climate change, and so, if the scientific theory was incorrect for mermaids, then why was it incorrect, and why is the same reasoning allegedly correct for climate change? Humans have not magically gotten smarter, humans are still basically the same mammals that have been around for many tens of thousands of years, and so if an ignorant and superstitious group of villagers in the 1700s were not correct in their belief of mermaids, then upon what logic can it be said that today's humans are not making similar mistakes of reasoning?

Again, humans mentally assemble groups of things that the humans have observed, and humans then judge how the different groups of things relate to the other. Whensoever there are gaps of connections between the mental groups, it is within the human ability and nature to fill-in the gaps with plausible assumptions (make stuff up). As an example, most people believe that the human body functions with electrical currents (science and academia teach the belief to be true fact). But, does not electrical current always have an electromagnetic field? Do not all body functions emit different electromagnetic field patterns? Would not a mass quantity of people expressing similar body functions cause a large electromagnetic field that must influence the Earth's own magnetic fields and weather? According to science, animals migrate by feeling the very weak magnetic fields of the Earth, and so, according to science, field strength is irrelevant. Hurricanes are affected by the Earth's magnetic fields, and, thus, must be affected by humans' electromagnetic fields also. Right? No? Why? Most humans are unaware of the electromagnetic fields that they emit, and so the observation is not included when the people make stuff up about what causes hurricanes. Maybe if a lot of humans behaved badly, causing a mass emission of negative electromagnetic fields, would that not be like the old beliefs of the gods and heavens punishing humans for their bad behaviors? Yes? No? Why? Regardless of the answer, the example illustrates one of the things that most humans ignore when connecting the dots — when they make stuff up — between what they themselves are able to observe and what they are able to think about. There are countless things occurring in-between all other things that humans simply cannot observe nor measure, which sums to the obviousness that all theories, all assumptions, and all science always includes gaps of reasoning where the people and scientists have filled-in the gaps with made-up stuff; always. All claims of scientists not having made-up stuff are claims of the scientists having god-like omniscience.

The normal human mind is formed within the inherent ability to cope within a simplistic life that needs little more than food, shelter, and a mate, but the normal mind is limited to what can be observed and reasoned, which is one of the reasons why humans make up wild beliefs and insist that their beliefs are true science.

For over twenty years some people have claimed that HARP causes hurricanes and earthquakes. Other people have claimed that militaries have weather weapons that cause hurricanes and earthquakes. Some people sincerely believe that an evil deed can cause hurricanes and earthquakes. Maybe it was North Korea that caused Irma? Maybe it was those evil, evil, Russians that the media has cried about for over a hundred years? Humans have always behaved badly before each hurricane, and humans did some naughty things right before Irma hit, and so is that not scientific proof that the gods, the heavens, space aliens, demons, or mermaids caused the hurricanes so as to punish the humans? Most everyone — including science — has their 'mermaid theory', and since none of the theories agree with the other, then it is very likely that they are all incorrect.

I have my own 'mermaid' theories too. My primary research project is extraordinarily captivating to me, but there are many things that cannot be known. I use the word wuji while pointing at a thing that is known to exist but cannot be explained, and I use the word brother to point at another thing that is related to wuji and always occurs simultaneously — it is as if tying the string of time into numerous knots and then observing how the paths influence the other from a Flat-Land-like point of reference within the restrictions of three dimensions without restrictions of directional flux — but I have no clue nor potential to know what exists in-between. The research shows that there is always a 'mermaid event' that connects wuji and brother to the present Flat-Land chronological order, but regardless of the accuracy and fascination of the events, my only choice is to simply observe the events, and to permit myself to enjoy the experience of observing while toying with predicted results. Each time that I believe that I have made good progress, another discovery is made that makes the previous discoveries appear flat and stunted, so now I know that there is no boundary, and no means of knowing the thing well. To me, the firsthand experience is what matters most, and the other stuff is for other people to imaginatively fill-in the gaps with their Flat-Land-like scientific interpretations.

I looked in the mirror and saw that I was the prettiest man in the mirror. I looked in the mirror and saw that I was the ugliest man in the mirror. I looked in the mirror and saw that I was different than the previous time. I looked in the mirror and saw that I was the smartest man in the mirror. I looked in the mirror and saw that I was the dumbest man in the mirror. Believe it or not, all people always interpret all things by what they themselves want to believe at the moment. Each time a person looks at science and facts, each person always sees something different than what someone else sees. Sometimes it is okay to just let-go of interpretations, and to instead merely enjoy the moment's experience.

Believe it or not, humans are not capable of knowing everything, and humans cannot know all causes of all things. It is okay to not know an answer, but it is not okay to make stuff up and then claim that the invented belief is true fact.

The current social hysteria over climate change is not a new phenomenon; it is the way that normal humans have always behaved and always will behave, and their 'facts' are what are commonly referred to today as pathological science. The March for Science protests are as crowds of eighteenth-century villagers who merely use a different term for their superstitions.

Why Pathological Science Matters

Societies usually ignore fringe groups until the fringe groups begin committing violence or the groups grow to be very popular. In the 1980s there was a relatively large group of individuals who taught that their leader was the one and only 'god-ordained' apostle on earth. The leader made many theological and 'end of the world' claims that were obviously not correct, but the fringe group did not interfere much in other people's lives, and thus, the group's claims were socially irrelevant and ignored.

There have always been fringe groups within all systems of belief, and one of the only reasons why the world is aware of some religious fringe groups today is because the groups have become very violent in their demands that everyone else bow to the fringe groups' beliefs. Similarly, one of the only reasons why the fringe group of Sciencism is well-known today is because Sciencians are growing increasingly vocal and violent, and, of course too, because the news media has found a topic that causes strife which causes people to take sides, which increases news media incomes. The mass news media is a disgustingly vile little creature that feeds upon creating hate.

For myself, for most all of my life I ignored science because it is not much different than any other irrelevant group's system of beliefs. For most of my life I could have a polite and meaningful conversation with most people about most any topic, and it was relatively rare to hear an individual emotionally thump their science book (it was common for people to claim that 'science knows everything', but uncommon for the people to have actually read specific books that the claims allegedly came from (the people simply made stuff up and claimed that their inventions must believed because their beliefs were true science)). Since around the turn of the century, however, Sciencians have invaded the Internet and news media en masse, and the Sciencians have been increasingly violent in their bipolar demands that everyone on earth bow to the Sciencians' self-appointed authority.

If I had not been repeatedly personally attacked by several Oxford biology and psychology Sciencians in 2003, then I likely never would have had an interest in learning more about the fringe group's beliefs. The Oxford 'experts' had hatefully spouted many wildly irrational claims while the individuals sincerely believed that I ought to jump to my knees and worship the individuals merely because they had memorized some book words and had given themselves Ph.D.s (the only competition within the clique of academia is academia, the judging of knowledge and skill is restricted to only those within the clique of academia, not permitting competition from outside of the clique, and thus, all academic titles are as other cult groups who give themselves titles, which is okay for the followers of each clique, but the titles are irrelevant and meaningless outside of the cliques). I never have and never will bend a knee to any 'authority', and so, rather than my attempting the impossible of reasoning with the Oxford Sciencians who cannot reason, I chose to merely distance myself from the nuts, and to then leisurely learn more about the reasons of why the fringe group believes its beliefs.

What I have found in my research is what I had originally assumed: science is merely a system of belief that makes stuff up and then philosophicalizes its interpretations of little things. What I did not expect to find was the huge quantity of fallacies within science. But still I would continue to ignore Sciencism as irrelevant if it were not for the sciencians growing increasingly violent and attempting to force the public into worshipping the Sciencian's religion. The March for Science protests are but a small taste of what is expected to increase. Already there are reports of some Sciencians demanding that all people who do not bow to the Sciencians' 'science of climate change' ought to be arrested, fined, and/or executed. There are also now reports of sciencians attacking businesses and media that permit humans to voice an opinion that does not support the sciencians' belief in climate change.

Pathological science matters now because it is relevant to social peace and the public's health. It is no longer a mere difference of opinions — of the hate-filled academicians narcissistically demanding to be worshipped as authorities while the public ignores the academicians as being irrelevant — it has now become a growing concern for the public's safety.

For over eight years I have kept a close eye on a major Internet company (you know their name) that aggressively attacks and attempts to harm websites that do not bow to and promote sciencism. The company is so big and so powerful that it can do anything it wants to do, and it is doing so. The company now sways online public opinion as well as the news media which in turn influences public and political opinions. Sciencism might not yet be Orwell's 1984, but it is close enough within its behavior of forcing its false beliefs upon humanity.

(FYI, I have never read 1984 and likely never will, but during the first days of October of 2017 I read a few paragraphs to glean a couple references for another project that I am working on. From what I saw in the book about 'doublethink', my previous comment about sciencism appears to have possibly been much too kind.)

Each generation goes through at least one fad of believing that the world is coming to an end, but usually the fad quickly fades within a few years because the world did not end as predicted. Global warming was a popular topic back in 1995-2000, but the topic faded when (alleged) scientists said that the rapid warming was merely a temporary effect of an increased solar radiation that was heating all planets (the conspiracy theories of space aliens causing global warming did not gain many followers). The current generation's fad of claiming a doom and gloom of climate change will not as quickly go away because of several reasons including [1] the news media continuing to invent fake news, as well as [2] the sciencians being more emboldened with a false sense of power. The news media does not want to give-up its money, and the sciencians do not want to give-up their sense of power, and so the current fad will be slow to fade, and may not fade away completely for several generations to come.

At present, perhaps the best that the general public can do is to learn more about the reasons of why the sciencians are spouting their hate, and for the public to be aware of the usefulness of being prepared to defend themselves from psychopath sciencians.

Pathological Science Within Cliques

To me, I use the word clique as a pointing to a group of individuals who [1] segregate themselves into special interest groups, [2] who invent a shared system of belief about a topic, [3] who exclude other people who do not share the same system of belief, and [4] who tend to make a lot of noise of claiming of themselves to be the sole 'experts' who possess the one and only true truth of the topic (clique is said to be a metaphor of the French word cliquer, a clicker, which infers a 'noise maker').

To me, perhaps the most notable difference between a clique and a cult is that cults tend to more often focus their beliefs on afterlives, but to me, the two words clique and cult are pretty much synonymous because the two classifications are of people who make stuff up and then begin believing that their inventions are really true truth.

All cliques all have their own systems of right and wrong. A belief that is 'right' to one clique might not be 'right' to any other clique. The clique's belief might not be correct relative to what is real in Nature, but always is a clique's system of right and wrong believed to be true truth by the clique's followers.

The clique of Confucianism has many good thoughts that are very useful and creative — the world might be a far better place to live in if all individuals chose similar behaviors as Confucianism — but Confucianism has some interpretations that are not correct. In recent days I discovered Doctrine of the Mean, which is an excellent book and far different than what I had been told to believe of Confucianism in schools (I would like to thoroughly study the book in full when I have time). I want to use an example within Confucianism that points to three very common and incompatible variables that exist within all cliques:


fā ér jiē zhōng jié, wèi zhī hé. EMIT BUT ALL CENTER RESTRAIN, CALL THIS HARMONY. When they ARISE, BUT are ALL expressed with BALANCE and RESTRAINT, THIS is CALLED HARMONY.

zhōng yě zhě, tiān xià zhī dà běn yě. CENTER [PART][PART], HEAVEN UNDER OF GREAT ROOT [PART]. BALANCE is the GREAT ROOT OF all things UNDER HEAVEN.

hé yě zhě, tiān xià zhī dá dào yě. HARMONY [PART][PART], HEAVEN UNDER OF EXTEND WAY [PART]. HARMONY is the UNIVERSAL WAY OF all things UNDER HEAVEN.


wàn wù yù yān. TEN-THOUSAND THING FLOURISH [PART]. and ALL THINGS will FLOURISH." (The Doctrine of the Mean, The Great Learning, transcription, gloss, translation by Gregory C. Richter, Truman State University, Copyright© 2005)

A different translation from that does not have the original source credited online:

"While there are no stirrings of pleasure, anger, sorrow, or joy, the mind may be said to be in the state of Equilibrium. When those feelings have been stirred, and they act in their due degree, there ensues what may be called the state of Harmony. This Equilibrium is the great root from which grow all the human actings in the world, and this Harmony is the universal path which they all should pursue.

Let the states of equilibrium and harmony exist in perfection, and a happy order will prevail throughout heaven and earth, and all things will be nourished and flourish." (Translation offered by without credits.)

The translations illustrate three incompatible variables: [1] Unless an individual is over 2,500 years old, was born in China, spoke Chinese natively, and was the author of the Doctrine of the Mean, then all translations must have flaws because the definitions of words change, and because the thought patterns are different in different cultures and for different individuals. [2] All interpretations of all writings are always judged by one's own clique's system of belief. [3] All interpretations of all writings are always judged relative to one's own personal firsthand experience with the topic itself (one's own level of expertise).

The word dao is one of the most debated words on earth, and has been for thousands of years. With a harsh sigh, all that I can permit myself to say is that academic interpretations of dao are academic interpretations of dao, and that all academic interpretations of all things are academic. Academia is a clique, a system of invented beliefs, and academia's interpretations of life do not relate to what is real within reality nor real within one's own life.

The Chinese word dao (pronounced 'dow' and accented relative to one's own depth of inner qualities) loosely translates into the English phrase "the way", or just "way". The Tao (often pronounced 'tay-oh') is generally just a different pronunciation of Dao. The Korean word doboks (usually pronounced 'doe-bocks' in English) loosely translates into English as 'way clothing'. The 'way' is pointing to an inward personal action, a thing that exists within one's own unique life, and the interpretation of the word is as wide and vibrant as one's own self-awareness of one's own standards and way of life. The core importance for the moment is that dao means different things to different people, and the differences become unsurpassable (insurpassable fr.) when contrasted to [a] a common way as compared to [b] a way that is performed by an individual who has mastered a great path of life. It is profusely incorrect for academia to claim that its clique's beliefs of translations can be valid.

And there is the problem: the clique of academia has made stuff up, academia has convinced itself that its inventions are true truth, and academia is busily making a lot of noise of claiming that academia possesses true truth. Academia cannot so much as offer a knowing of what one word means — dao — but the absence of knowledge and understanding has not appeared to have softened academia's noisy voices.

Referencing back to the third incompatible variable — "all interpretations of all writings are always judged relative to one's own personal firsthand experience with the topic itself (one's own level of expertise)" — it is easy to observe why academia's translations cannot be correct. An individual who has firsthand experience with an act, that person will surely mentally relate a word to his his/her own life experiences, but individuals without the firsthand experiences, those individuals must invent an abstract imagination (make stuff up) of what the experience might be like. Academia teaches concepts (makes stuff up) of what electronic technicians do, but the concepts are imaginary, and not real. Individuals who are themselves electronic technicians, they know from firsthand experience what it means to be an electronic technician, and the individuals know that academia's inventions are not correct. Similarly, individuals who are personally experienced with the firsthand act of dao, they interpret the word by how the word relates to their own firsthand experiences, but individuals without the firsthand experience must invent dream-like imaginations of what the word implies.

Academia cannot transfer firsthand experience from one person to another; it is not possible to understand a thing that a person has not experienced firsthand. Academia's teachings are mere words, a philosophy of pretending to understand things without first experiencing the things.

If academia were a clique like most others, then academia's philosophical opinions would be irrelevant to life, and not be important enough to waste one's time with, but the cliques of academia and science have become blurred, their often claiming to be one and the same clique. Today, an error within academia is now considered to be an error within science as well, and where academia makes errors about science, it becomes pathological science.

Expanding the previous thought further, in the past there were individuals who taught the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the individuals were classified as teachers. There were also individuals who researched the nature of Nature, and they were sometimes classified as scientists. Today, however, many teachers sincerely do believe that their words are 'scientifically valid' — the cliques of academia and science have joined ranks — and the teachers have become cultish Pulpiteers who preach the faith in Sciencism.

Today, many academicians claim of themselves to be 'expert scientists' because the academicians have counted fingers and toes, or counted emotions, or counted any number of different things, and then claimed that their 'reading, writing, and arithmetic' are science. The academic claims are almost always profusely absurd and childish, but the claims are useful as an illustration of the clique's level of skill. One example is of academicians claiming to have performed 'science' by inventing means of discerning facial expressions in humans and of discerning whether a dog's bark is playful or aggressive. Emotions have always been a universal language amongst all known mammals, and I myself had never before known of it being possible that any healthy human would not naturally recognize emotions in faces and barks, but the academicians' claims of their 'scientific discoveries' point to a very serious problem: the academicians are not mentally capable of recognizing emotions if the academicians had to invent 'scientific devices' for discerning emotions. The very 'science' that the academicians claimed for themselves, also proved that the academicians were themselves unqualified to perform the 'science'.

Parallel is that of scientists claiming themselves to be experts because they were given a social title from academia. Today, it is almost universally believed that an individual cannot be a qualified scientist unless the person first has an academic title. The general public sincerely does believe that academia teaches true science, and that true science comes from academia. Academia and science have become their own circular reasoning, and they now exist wholly upon the worshipping of the other. The error of one becomes the error of the other: pathological science.

In a related topic, a few days ago I happened to walk past a television while there was a History Channel® program being shown about 'star children'. The program claimed that there are now children being born who are super-geniuses — allegedly the result of space aliens having altered man's DNA — and the programs' 'proof' was in it having invented fake scenarios of the children reciting academic words and knowledge. 'Dropped jaw' was among my first reactions that were preludes to my walking on out of the room. The very ignorant belief of academia possessing genius has been very common in the news media for over a hundred years, but the program helped to further illustrate how deeply the public has been led to believe that even the universe's smartest space aliens cannot know nor think beyond what man's academia teaches in books. The belief is so outrageously ignorant that it exists outside of a possible polite response.

Back to the translations, Richter's translation of Doctrine of the Mean is, of course, the superior one because it offers an idea of the original words alongside of a direct interlinear-like translation of each word that permits each reader to form their own self-referencing interpretation, plus the translation offering a rephrasing of the words within a common phrasing of modern English (which is useful for individuals who have no firsthand experience with the topic). The MIT translation is a philosophicalized academic interpretation that simply made stuff up, destroyed the author's intentions, created new patterns of thought-processing, and twisted the author's words to become as a religious-like authority within a novel. The MIT version is 'right' within the clique of academia, but incorrect relative to what is real.

The first incompatible variable: all teachings of all systems of belief are all formed upon an incorrect belief that all authors' thoughts can be understood by what the authors wrote. The belief is 'right' academically (as well as religiously), but incorrect relative to what is real.

The second incompatible variable: always do humans twist and interpret an unknown topic's words to conform to one's existing knowledge. An unknown Confucius teaching must be interpreted by what an individual already knows, which simply sums to the obviousness that no interpretation of any written teaching can be correct. The teaching and interpretation might be 'right' relative to academia's beliefs, but still always be incorrect.

The third incompatible variable is as the previous first two: until the day that an individual has personally lived a life that is precisely what an author's words pointed to, then the individual can never know what the author's words implied. Within the clique of academia, its system of belief believes that 'truth' is the memorizing of words, and the believers do believe of themselves to be knowledgeable when memorizing many words, but the clique's beliefs are not correct.

Most people do not care about Confucianism, and so it is normal for the people to not care whether Confucianism is right or wrong because Confucianism is not deemed to be a threat to the people's own systems of belief. Christians write many books that are 'right' relative to Christianity, but incorrect relative to the 'God-given' laws of Nature, and the only people who much care whether the books are right or wrong are the people who share the system of belief that Christianity is the one and only true truth. The same can be said for all systems of belief, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Western Philosophy, and Science. All systems of belief have value, but none are perfect.

Again, people may usually not much care if a claim is right or wrong, but if the claim appears to threaten the 'truth' of one's own system of belief, then the people do care. When a claim is made about Science, then most all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and Philosophers stand up and care if the claim is right or wrong. The behavior very clearly illustrates that Science is the primary 'master' system of belief that most people believe in, and the people believe in Science more than the people believe in their other cliques. Christians know of the Jesus teaching of 'you cannot serve two masters', but still most Christians ignore the Jesus teaching when bowing to both Science and Christianity. The contradictory behavior is often formed within the desire to be 'right' without caring to be 'correct'.

An example of an error within the clique of academia is found within the concepts of "When JOY, ANGER, SORROW, and HAPPINESS do NOT ARISE, THIS is CALLED BALANCE. When they ARISE, BUT are ALL expressed with BALANCE and RESTRAINT, THIS is CALLED HARMONY." Academia does not know of linear durations of thoughts, nor of spatial directions (illustrated within Harvard's failure to pass a 1964 5th grade literacy test), and since English-speaking individuals process thoughts differently than the Chinese, then the translations cannot possibly mean the same as what was written. Too, within the academic interpretation — which believes in Science — emotions arise unconsciously and cannot be consciously controlled, which sums to the academic behavior of [a] accepting the Confucian teachings as being possible while also [b] not accepting the Confucian teachings as being possible. The contradiction is obvious and begs to be exploited relative to Orwell's doublethink.

Too, academicians do not have the personal firsthand experience of actually controlling their own emotions, which means that the academicians have no idea of what the Chinese words implied, which again sums to the conclusion that academicians are frauds when they claim to be 'expert' interpreters of translations.

Without the personal firsthand experience of having lived a life as taught, no academician can comprehend what the words mean, which nullifies the academic point of view.

Also, academia believes in Science, and since Science often states that all emotions are selfish, then academia must accept many contradicting ('doublethink') beliefs of emotions to be valid.

Academia does not know what balance is, and so academia cannot possibly accurately translate the meaning of the word.

Academia does not know what harmony is, and so academia cannot possibly accurately translate the meaning of the word.

Academia accepts Lewis Terman's written words "The stupid person... does not cross-light", but academia does not cross-light Terman's words with academia's own beliefs, nor does academia find the humor within Terman's " always (and justly, it would seem) characterized by a huge tolerance for absurd contradictions..."

All systems of right and wrong possess some things that are correct, and some things that are not correct.

Now, if a student were to follow the Doctrine of the Mean's teachings literally — as taught in academia — then the student would live a miserable life without happiness, without joy, without love, and without any value of life, all while trying to do the impossible thing of numbing one's self to emotions: the student would become a mere automaton, a robot slave for the state and for academia.

However, from a different point of view, there are individuals who consciously monitor their emotions, and the individuals naturally purposefully control which emotions are permitted to be expressed, but among the important variables here are that the individuals are [a] always conscious (Sciencians claim that they themselves are unconscious 90-95% of the time, which means that no Sciencian can be an adept Confucian, nor can any academician comprehend Confucian teachings because academicians believe that Science is true), and [b] the individuals possess a stable emotion and a stable purpose in life that are as the foundations and judges of all thoughts and all emotions. To those individuals, the book's words have meaning and value, not as words of authority to be followed, but as words that speak of other things that are not written. The man who has control of his mind and his heart, he knows what balance is, and what harmony is, because he is already of an inner harmony of balance.

Now back to another core word: zhōng. If the Doctrine of the Mean were interpreted by an individual who has firsthand skill with the topic, then the book's words come alive with meaning and correctness. According to the references that I have available (I am not personally skilled with the Chinese language), zhōng by itself is roughly translated to imply 'center, middle, inside, between'. To an individual who is consciously self-aware, 'center' might imply their 'center' of the self, the 'I', the presence of awareness that guides, controls, and judges all emotions before the emotions are permitted to be physically felt and/or physically expressed.

From the experienced firsthand point of view, the book's words make perfect sense: the words point to one's center, one's awareness that has control of all thoughts and all emotions. From the academic point of view the book's words are interpreted as how academia interprets its own mind, that of having no 'I', no self-control, no consciousness, and no self-awareness. The academic interpretations are bizarre, contradictory, make no sense, and suggest that academia possesses some very serious thinking problems.

Individuals with the firsthand experience of having a center may interpret balance to imply a mental evaluation of comparing and judging different things relative to the center's point of reference. To the academic point of view that has no center, the words center and balance can mean the same things (doublethink), which is a grossly absurd claim by academia.

A very rough initial draft translation of the first sentence might be phrased as 'joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, alone do not nascent, call single center'. Placed within groups of mental patterns and phrased for English, [1] joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, [2] alone do not nascent, and [3] call single center. English-flowered within one point of view: 'joy, anger, sorrow, happiness, emotions do not nascent from the single 'I'; this single 'I' can be termed center'. The draft translation agrees with the second sentence: 'nascent but all center restrain, call this peace'. English-flowering the second sentence's words: 'when emotions nascent, but are restrained by the center, this can be termed inner peace. (Give note that I am purposefully not providing more of an interpretation because of several reasons, including the reason that people need to learn from firsthand experience and to stop believing that they can know something by having read someone's words.)

Yes, the firsthand experiences of [1] observing one's own real emotions, [2] observing and being aware of one's own real 'I', and knowing that the real emotions do not nascent from the real 'I', and [3] where the real emotions do not nascent, that 'place' can be termed to be the real center. Then add the next sentence: [1] when the real emotions nascent, but [2] the real emotions are restrained by the real center, then [3] this real state of presence of the real self can be termed inner peace.

The book's words come alive and are as a beautiful song when interpreted from the point of view of firsthand experience, but from the academic point of view and translation, the book's words are vulgar, hateful, destructive, negative, and lies. Academia is as a dirty little child that dirties and destroys everything it touches.

For individuals who are self-aware and are able to think their own thoughts, each word-concept is a known state of presence, of things that exist, of things that are real, of things that are in motion of being, of things that the individual is aware of existing, of things that are felt and mentally processed: the words are interpreted as self-referencing concepts of real things that really exist. To academia, however, the words are mere noises of things that academia has no potential of grasping; to academia, memorized words are unknowns to all except the memorized definitions of words that are also unknowns (trained autism).

My crude little draft translations above are not intended to imply a perfection — unlike academia, I make no claim of knowing every thought that the author(s) thought while writing the book — but rather my translations are merely intended to illustrate that the sentences mean very different things to different individuals, and especially different to individuals who [1] can sum mental concepts and [2] have firsthand skills with the topic at hand.

The Doctrine of the Mean is a very good book for many good purposes, one of which lends an additional pointing of the finger towards the phrase "they who can, do; they who cannot, teach". The book's nature of wording also helps me to open a topic about how academia has presented claims that might be 'right' within the clique of academia, but are not correct in real life, nor correct from the point of view of those who have experienced the topics firsthand.

The Pathological Science of Climate Change

I am very uncomfortable writing about the opinions of living individuals' — nor do I give links to websites that I interpret to be of low quality — but the following topic is important, and I will try to present the information as politely as possible without harming the primary individual's feelings. I will not quote names and titles, nor will I make direct quotes, but I will give close paraphrasings.

There is an online article on a popular website that was recently written by a professional academician (a psychology professor, the title suggesting that the individual ought to have an in-depth background on the topic of emotions) who has also written a book about emotions. The article's topic focuses on the academician's opinion (mermaid theory) of why politicians and the public are not 'terrified' by the dangers of climate change which will allegedly 'cause 120 degree heat'.

The topic of climate change is, of course, outside of the book author's area of expertise — which is okay and fully acceptable as far as opinions go — but the style of how the author presented 'facts' is useful as an illustration of how 'being right' within one field of interest might not be 'correct' in other fields of interest.

I have not read the author's book, nor do I wish to read the book because the book is presented within an academic slant, which is fine and perhaps useful for individuals who want to learn of how a topic is presented within an academically authoritative voice, but for me, I hold value in the acts of firsthand experiences and firsthand research, and I do not hold much value in the act of memorizing book words. My choice is to learn of a thing through my own efforts first, and then when I feel that I have an adequate grasp of the topic, then I might read books to see how other people interpreted their own findings, but I try to not let anyone else's opinions sway my own, and especially not let anyone's method of investigation be a guide for my own.

I did, however, glance at a few of the book's pages online just to get an idea of the author's perspective. The author is correct that emotions are not universal, and the author made a few good external observations — such as a vague reference of emotions being influenced by one's own personal history of life, which is old and obvious news to researchers, but new to academia and science — but still the book is approached as an individual accepting old academic beliefs while authoring new theories of topics that the author has little or no experience with.

An analogy is of an individual at a car lot looking at cars and claiming to know everything about all cars by how cars look from the outside; the individual is so inexperienced with the topic that they do not so much as know that they do not know of things like electrical physics, points, distributors, synchronizers, and camshafts. The 'car looker' might claim that the thing that makes the car go is 'in the engine'.

Academia and popular science claim that emotions are 'in the brain'.

Science does not know how consciousness works, nor memories, nor thoughts, nor anything else about the mind. There is no rational physics-based theory of how the brain allegedly works. The popular brain theories are all based upon an unproven and illogical assumption that the brain is electrical, but the theories defy academia's own electrical physics (doublethink). It is physically impossible for an electrical current to behave as the academicians claim. All competent physicists know it, all competent electronic technicians know it, and even bright toddlers know it, but academicians do not know it (perhaps because the information is not available within biology and psychology school books).

Again, the article author's book states that emotions are 'in the brain', which is a common academic expression used by biologists and psychologists who are inexperienced with the topic. The brain claim illustrates that the speakers have no solid knowledge of what they are talking about — they merely connect the gaps of knowledge by making stuff up — and the claim tightens the book's field to be restricted to academia only.

To academicians, the emotions book might be quite good and 'right', but to individuals outside of academia, some of the book's claims might be 'incorrect' and pathological science.

Now, back to the core topics of emotions and contradictions, the article's author spoke of themselves and most other people as having little or no ability to sense their own inner selves (note that they do not cross-light that claim with their claims of accurately translating the Doctrine of the Mean). The author's opinion is reasonably correct, as the SQ data also showed most people as being unable to consciously be aware of any sensory perception beyond a rudimentary level. However, the inability to self-observe one's own feelings also disqualifies a researcher from performing firsthand observations of their own emotions.

Dao cannot be known without the firsthand experience as well as the skill of observing one's own thoughts.

Center cannot be known without the firsthand experience as well as the skill of observing one's own thoughts.

Emotions cannot be known without the firsthand experience as well as the skill of observing one's own senses.

The book's conclusions, therefore, might be academically right, but be incorrect relative to firsthand observations and the physics of life.

It is illogical for an academician to claim to be an expert about a topic that the academician has no ability to observe nor to understand. The author's self-given title of Ph.D. is meaningless and irrelevant to real life.

Similar to the Confucian book words of balance, center, and harmony, no scientist and no academician can know what the word emotions means until the individual has experienced the emotions for themselves, and no one can write a meaningful dialog about a thing that they have no personal firsthand experience with. Tossing-out a word, regardless of how common the word might be, does not magically make the word's definition known.

The article's claim that the 'brain is wired' with 'complex neuron networks' is a well-accepted academic opinion, a learned answer that many academicians get away with because the public does not know enough about the topic to know that the claim is an invention and is false. Too, if academia possessed a valid knowledge of the alleged 'interconnected neurons', then the topic would have been phrased very differently. Individuals who are experienced with rebuilding high performance engines can usually rattle-on for an hour or more about bearings, seals, lobes, injectors — even describe how to balance twin Strombergs and 'maintain' (LOL) Lucas electricals — and so on, but the inexperienced individual might say 'it's in the engine' and truly believe that the academically-memorized statement was a full answer. Academic knowledge of electricity is generally limited to 'it's in the electron flow', but individuals who are experienced with the topic can easily rattle-on for over an hour about patterns, fluxes, transductances, and so on. More importantly, individuals who are experienced with emotions and the dimensional fields that are interpreted as electricity, they will use very specific words that point to very specific attributes that academicians never use; academicians only speak of what they memorized from book words: 'it's in the brain', 'it's in the neurons', 'it's a brain function'.

From the academic point of view, the book is likely pretty good because academia typically lags about fifty to a hundred years or more behind researchers' findings — and still lagging over 2,500 years behind Confucius — and so the book's information is relatively new and a step up from previous academic interpretations. The item of present attention is to recognize that the book's opinions might be fully acceptable to academia, but might be considered to be pathological science to researchers. The book is merely academic, irrelevant to real life, and it is best to leave it at that.

The article included a claim of 'climate change will be a cause of the next record-setting hurricane', which is part truth, part invention, part believing in the news media, and part sensationalizing. All hurricanes are 'record-setting' for the hour that they are overhead. Irma was claimed to have been the 'longest-lasting and most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the world'. Okay, but what about the hurricanes that were not recorded? The absence of fact does not necessitate that a thing did not occur. The climate change people are making the 'argument from silence' fallacy (arguing that a thing cannot exist if the thing is not recorded by a human).

While the article's statement might be technically correct relative to recent satellite recordings, there is no reason to believe that the claims could be correct relative to the Earth's history of hurricanes, not even of a hundred years ago. There is no evidence whatsoever that Irma was the 'longest-lasting and most powerful hurricane ever recorded in the world' of all time, nor even of the 20th century. The 'argument from silence' fallacy applies here as well; just because there might not be weather records written in English and recorded by weather satellites, it does not necessitate that Irma was the strongest hurricane of all time.

Yes people do sometimes make boo-boos and fail to phrase their words as intended, and one or a few boo-boos can be overlooked as expected misinterpretations, but when most every word that comes from a person's mouth is absurd, then the inaccuracies are not boo-boos, the words are what the people intended.

Believe it or not, weather satellites did not exist in orbit until about fifty-seven years ago, and it is absurd for anyone to claim that all hurricanes were perfectly tracked and measured from the ground throughout the world before there were satellites. The article's claim is a sensationalized expression of what individuals want to believe (psychologists ought to recognize the behavior). The 'climate change' claim itself is also fully imaginary and based upon an assumption of things that have no evidence of being true. Yes, climate always changes, and yes, global temperatures will always go up and down, but there is no rational evidence to support the belief that temperatures absolutely must rise as the article's author wants to believe.

It has been said that people in Japan as recently as the 1950s believed that their emperor was a real god. People have believed in mermaids causing hurricanes. Humans have always made stuff up about things that they know nothing about, and the self-claimed 'experts' truly do believe that their imagined causes for things are truly real, including their interpretations of Confucius writings.

Humans did not magically become smarter in the past sixty years. Humans are still humans, and humans still invent in their minds crazy beliefs that are not true. The emperor gods are gone, replaced by the science god. The mermaid superstition is gone, replaced by the climate change superstition.

Again, the continuum and nirvana fallacies point to rejecting a theory because of a theory not being perfect, which is fine in most scenarios because it is impossible for any human to do anything or know anything perfectly, but there is a large difference between imperfection and outright absurdities. Claiming that a small rise of temperature will result in huge rises of hurricanes — and without providing the very specific physics of how that miracle is supposed to happen — is absurd and can only be believed by individuals who think 'engines make cars go'.

If climate change will cause more hurricanes, then people who believe so ought to be able to explain exactly how climate change will cause more hurricanes. But none of the believers can explain without making stuff up and cherry-picking 'facts' that allegedly support their clique's system of faith, and then claiming that the absurd theories must be accepted so as to avoid the continuum and nirvana fallacies.

Engines make cars go, brains make emotions go, it's all in the brain, it's all in the neurons, it's a brain function, center means balance, a mermaid did it, climate change did it, and we the public are sincerely expected to believe academia's nonsense as being 'true science'.

I am old enough to have heard many, many wild scientific and popular beliefs that were later proven to have been fully false. Russia did not conquer the USA in the 1910s, nor in the 50s, nor in the 60s, nor has Russia conquered the USA today. An ice age did not occur in the 70s as the news and some scientists predicted. The world did not end on September 23rd (again). The world did not end in a nuclear war as claimed in the 50s and 60s. Science was not 'true truth' when it vehemently claimed that it was impossible for water to exist anywhere in the solar system except on Earth. Science was not 'true truth' when it claimed that the continents have always been located where they are today. Science was fully wrong when it denied as possible for an individual to know of green gaseous nebulas in 1953 (the first telescope photos of green nebulas are reported to have been in 2013). The scientifically-derived statistics of no republic being able to survive more than 200 years was false; the USA did not collapse in 1976 as predicted. Science was fully wrong when it claimed that no one could see more colors than what a scientist could see. Science was wrong when it claimed that it knew everything about everything of the human body before genes were discovered. Science-based conspiracy theories might be a fun form of entertainment to read about, but there is no reason to believe that conspiracy theories must be correct in their beliefs. (Some people read comic books for fun; sometimes I read articles or watch videos of conspiracy theories for fun: they are always worth a good chuckle and groan.)

People have been wringing their hands and crying doom and gloom throughout all of recorded history, but, obviously, 100% of all of the 'end of the world' claims were all false. All false. The present era's fad of crying about the doom and gloom of climate change is nothing more than a different name given to the same hysteria.

I personally have little opinion of the latest 'climate change' fad. Yes, the oceans must rise because humans are doing a very specific thing that causes oceans to rise, and yes temperatures will change because the oceans are now deeper, but beyond what I can observe firsthand, I do not give much weight to the popular hysteria that has been fueled by the news media. I was raised in a region that had an almost continual change of weather — four seasons within ten miles, snows in August, of temperature changes of over 80 degrees within several hours, and of normal temperature ranges of -20 to +125 degrees — and so, to me, any global variance of temperatures would not be much noticeable locally. Until the day that I personally record temperature changes, I will continue to hold a single opinion of climate change: I don't know. Maybe the world will get warmer, or get cooler, or remain about the same; I don't know and I will not know until it happens.

More interesting to me is that for thousands of years man has held beliefs of impending doom, but not yet has man changed his behavior to prevent the doom. To me, it really does not matter if there is global warming or an impending ice age, because what happens will happen, and almost no human on Earth will change their lifestyle to help prevent the doom. So, climate change is irrelevant anyway, because almost no one cares, and if almost no one cares, then why should anyone else care that no one cares?

I myself have not witnessed any scientist nor academician who really cares about climate change. Yes, many scientists and academicians cry and wring their hands about climate change, but give attention to their lifestyles: not a single one of the scientists and academicians have changed their lifestyles with an aim of slowing 'climate change'. Hypocrites, every single one of them are liars and hypocrites.

As the emotions book mentioned, science and academia claim to know all there is to know about emotions, and yet no scientist nor academician is doing anything to better man's emotions. Memorizing words does not make stuff happen, standing at a pulpit and preaching science does not make stuff happen, nor will memorizing words stop the pollution and other global problems, but, that is all that science and academia can do, to memorize stuff, and then, apparently, assume that knowing something 'in one's brain' is all that a person can do. Scientists do not care about climate change, nor do academicians, and if they do not care, then there is no reason for anyone to care what the scientists and academicians say anyway.

No one knows everything, and it is pretty much impossible to speak of a topic without committing an error of things unknown. Offering an interpretation of one's own firsthand experiences is acceptable because it is merely expressing one's own interpretation of one's own life, but when the interpretations claim to be the true truth of science, then the error of pathological science occurs; always.

Pathological Science of Climate Change

All 100% of known claims of climate change — as reported by science, academia, social media, and the news media — have all omitted one very specific detail that changes the whole of all interpretations of climate change. The omission of the detail renders 100% of all of the claims to possess pathological science, while also opening all claims — both pro-change and anti-change — to ridicule and a discrediting of everything the people had previously claimed to be 'true truth'.

No, I have not spoken of the detail to anyone except my wife, partly because no one asked, but mostly because to me the public's hysterics are as conspiracy theories, a circus, something fun to watch, and to groan and chuckle. I suspect that there are a lot of people like myself, who know of the thing, but they too are standing back and curiously watching the circus unfold. Some of us have been watching the thing for over thirty years, and not yet has the thing been mentioned on the news nor in science papers, which I find to be very odd.

And I wonder, if Confucius were alive today, would he too chuckle and groan, and what would be his choice, to write or not to write? 2,500 years have passed, and man still believes that his own clique is the only right one.

Why am I not 'terrified of climate change'? The oceans would have to rise (or the land drop) over 3,600 feet before I would become disgruntled and inconvenienced with the need to move to higher land, although, the idea of a hundred-million refugees heading to my region is far more of a reason to be disgruntled and want to move away (the idea of a house boat or an Arizona mountain top is looking better every day). And as for temperatures, I already know what it is like to spend summers sitting under a tree in 110-120 degree heat with 99% humidity, watching the soil's moisture evaporate and rise as mists into the atmosphere, and no breeze as the gnats and blue flies bite; it is very uncomfortable, but survivable, and nothing to be terrified about. I already know what it is like to live for over five years without city electricity, without a telephone, without air conditioning, and without running water, and so, to me, earth changes are just earth changes, and nothing to get bent over. Too, I do have conscious control over my emotions, and I can choose which emotions rule my life, and for me, emotionally unstable people who exhibit a hysteria over climate change, well, it is their problem, and one that I cannot solve for them, they will have to fix their problems themselves, maybe even read Doctrine of the Mean and try to live the teachings instead of memorizing the words.

The article's use of the word 'terrified' was an immediate warning signal that the author is emotionally unstable and mentally incoherent, which nullified 100% of everything the fake 'expert' claimed. Beware of people who have no conscious control over their emotions, who have no center where there exists peace.