portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article creative united states

arts and culture | education

The basis for truth on the “free” inter-net

Progressives ask the people to become a part of the conversation yet they validate truth by sources, not by the expression of ideas, but this criticism is in relation to the fundamental purpose of a communication, or an underlying intent expressed by a communication.
This article deals with three very interesting communications on the internet, two, on indymedia Portland (USA) [Lenny Bloom, 7-24-12, and Batman Massacre 8-2-12] deal with the violent massacre perpetrated by J Holmes and one, on globalresearch [ M Huff (of project censored)] , deals with the media {that people should be invited into the conversation, ie free-inquiry [of Socrates]}.
The underlying intent (or assumption, or message) of the two Portland articles is that the drivel that passes for "great statistical research" (which is based on the math methods of indefinable randomness) is truly remarkable research, while the message (conclusion) of M Huff deals with the discussion surrounding the Portland articles about questioning sources, but if this is the conclusion of M Huff then how does one get a true discussion, rather one is left with quibbling about the authority of sources, ie the discussion is still being led by the elites.
Though it is difficult to attribute motivation, unless a motivation is expressed, concerning individual acts of barbaric violence, it is only in a society where extreme violence is so prevalent that (one might expect) such individual actions to be so common.
This is a statement about statistics and correlations and its validity is related to not so much the statistics but rather the overwhelming existence of extremely violent acts in the society, or the overwhelming presence of a media which controls language and thought, [for example the statistics of republicans and democrats is not reliable since "a person" can always change their minds, ie the elementary events are not stable, yet the society has a certain amount of stability associated to itself, and these stabilities can be related to a use of language, by the media, which is designed to manipulate (people's) emotions associated to society's stable structures. That is the "statistics of republicans vs democrats works due to an overwhelming media presence which controls language and (stable) social structures]

but one needs to clarify what an extremely violent act is: it can be barbaric acts of physical violence, or it can be a constant coercive presence in regard to how society is organized. An unequal society requires a continual coercive presence, which forever narrows the range of what the "appropriate actions" (which are allowed) within a society can be.
The media is full of false opposites about which it (the media) is organized, republicans and democrats, science and religion, etc but there are true opposites, which cannot be discussed, and they are:
equality (which results in individual creativity over a wide range of contexts)
inequality (which is upheld by violence and narrows the range of what creative actions are allowed, ie creativity is controlled by investment)

on the other hand, in regard to statistical methods, correlations can be strong or weak, but statistical measures of "the strength of a correlation" are not reliable, since correlation implies cause and effect, but if cause and effect exist then "How are they truly organized?" is the correct question to ask. A correlation is asking, "Does a cause and effect exist?" Some correlations, ie if the presence of A is related to the presence of B?, are believed, ie they are strong correlations, eg the vitamin C and scurvy correlation, while many are very weak, eg vitamin-C's relation to other enzymes in a living system? (are difficult to ascertain)

According to articles which appeared in the Portland indymedia, VK Durham (a name associated to the Lenny Bloom article) is correlated to an institution which controls a large sum of money (Using the Durham trust to save America financially [?]). So, if this correlation is true then there is a large motivation to write an article, which praises the professional experts of statistics and the math methods of "indefinable randomness." That is, "big money" wants the creativity within society to be controlled by the institutions (within society) built through investment {and through the media, and through media's control of both politics and law [law professor from university of Chicago on CSPAN2 stated that the relation between politicians and big business is that, a lobbyist (big-business) can purchase from politicians: laws and loop-holes, and that this is the most lucrative business in the entire US]}.
The social institutions (determined by investment) define "what experts are" and these experts are used in a creative process (defined by investment), which excludes the public (the non-investors, the non-stake-holders).
But as for the drivel put-forth about the great technical advances made because of the experts of the math methods of "indefinable randomness," after trillions are invested so as to control knowledge (and how it is used) these cultural thieves should have something to show, but compared to the control which the existing systems can affect within themselves (ie within the systems, both living systems and molecular systems) the technical accomplishments are quite meager.
The simple (math) structure of these, so called, astounding accomplishments (which are only astounding in the context of the media and the dreadful, low, level at which our culture does develop knowledge) is that the experts try to develop the knowledge of chemistry, medicine, and neurology etc. by a process of making detections, eg identifying a molecule (in a system or at a position in a system), or finding a stable pattern and then correlating processes within the system to these identifications. Thus, distinguish-ability is turned into an "indefinably random" math method, with its associated function spaces and differential equations. The distinguishable features (within the system) and their associated correlations can (may) exist (some correlations can be quite strong) and they can be manipulated with quantitative techniques (but these quantitative techniques are not all-that reliable). The function space techniques have implicit non-linear properties associated to themselves (mostly due to the incompatible geometries associated to the different spectral functions which (can) generate the function space) and thus they can have limit cycles associated to the system represented by these differential equations. Thus if either of the properties which are being correlated can be detected then feedback can be used to get "some control" over the system as long as the parameters of the system stay within the required ranges so that the differential equation remains a valid model of the system, ie the context of the feedback remains valid.
Such feedback systems are rare and have the type of "system control" which is far from the type of control which physical systems (both living systems and physical systems, eg molecules and their shapes) where molecules are produced by organs at the correct time, taken to the correct place, so as to cause the system to run so "smoothly," apparently all without any (obvious signs of) feedback mechanisms and without random noise interfering in the process.
Furthermore, molecules change shape at the sites of membranes so as to control the system, but "how is this done?"
These mysteries are the basis for a deeper understanding, but the arrogance which a fixed control and the control of authority keeps these issues away from the process of free-inquiry, and "this is to make less" the risks of investment, ie other investors will have to use the same type of narrowly defined experts, so that the substantial investments in (particular types of) labs do not become irrelevant.
M Huff has some very interesting things to say about the media.
He mentions that if a person is expressing ideas different from what are expressed on the media, where alternate media is all about "only letting the (prize-winning) experts talk," then that person must express these ideas in great detail (though this is good for getting the public involved in the discussion); no one believes the marginalized (by the media) expert, and he appears as a lunatic, frantically trying to cover the new set of ideas for the public. Of coarse "peer review" excludes such discussions.
Huff uses the expression "institutional infantilization," where the public is the infant and "the experts" possess superior knowledge, which they do not have to divulge to the public, except in terms of their incoherent "expert language," a language designed to be useful to the creative processes in institutions built from investment (and for the investors). Note: MIT etc. are institutions, which work on the projects that are of interest to big business. This is because of the nature of politics, eg Oppenheimer and Teller made university physics departments into nuclear weapons engineering institutions, and this was a political process.
The language of experts is not a valid internalizing structure for language. The language of experts says one cannot join the discussion. Huff claims he wants to foster Socratic free-inquiry.
But Huff's conclusion is that one needs to be careful about sources, ie not about the type of ideas and the level of the discussion. Such questions are mostly about elitism and support for hierarchy.
Furthermore, the ideas opposing the math methods of indefinable randomness and non-linearity which define modern science (2012) have been in the media since 2000, where math methods are to be based on the very stable geometry of "cubical simplexes," in ordinary metric-spaces, but in a higher-dimensional context, but "Project Censored" has never covered these ideas, even though the book, "The End of Science" (a book which criticizes professional science, and it is by a "Scientific American" writer) was published in 1995, and a book, "A New Copernican Revolution" by B Bash, (which elucidates the new ideas), published in 2004,
[not to be confused with "The New Copernican Revolution" {which is a bunch of public-relations mumbo-jumbo, hyping science}]
Thus, the claim by Huff, to be in-favor a Socratic free-inquiry, seems to not be true.