Empirical appropriation?

Read it and weep, intellectually dishonest history re-writers.

From link in this.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316823911_Managing_Science

They’ll claim Newton was Asian next.

You didn’t write these formulae or the many treatise on empiricism that makes science formally a method. It’s like when they try to call ancient philosophers ‘psychologists’ when Galton is probably spinning in his grave, clutching all the mathematics he brought to invent the field of psychometrics. He invented correlations and developed fingerprint technology when most people were still starting fires to cook dinner. Sure, give dick-measuring Freud credit, sounds fair.

Psychology is a “behavioural science” aka it needs maths!

https://apa.org/pubs/info/reports/stem-discipline.aspx

The National Science Foundation (NSF) definition of STEM fields includes mathematics, natural sciences, engineering, computer and information sciences, and the social and behavioral sciences – psychology, economics, sociology, and political science (National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics, 2009).”

https://www.simplypsychology.org/wundt.html
Wilhelm Wundt opened the Institute for Experimental Psychology at the University of Leipzig in Germany in 1879. This was the first laboratory dedicated to psychology, and its opening is usually thought of as the beginning of modern psychology. Indeed, Wundt is often regarded as the father of psychology.”

Freud opened his office in Vienna in 1886, for comparison.

Get over yourself. Even the Gutenberg press making the wide publication of scientific materials possible was European.

[inb4: Engineers aren’t scientists either.]

Nowadays the Method could actually be patented so ownership claims are valid and vital parts of legally-protected cultural heritage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_(patent)

http://www.cultureindevelopment.nl/Cultural_Heritage/What_is_Cultural_Heritage

“Cultural Heritage is an expression of the ways of living developed by a community and passed on from generation to generation, including customs, practices, places, objects, artistic expressions and values. Cultural Heritage is often expressed as either Intangible or Tangible Cultural Heritage (ICOMOS, 2002).”

Ideologies too, including the invented philosophy of secular empiricism (not religious-based).

“Driving force behind all definitions of Cultural Heritage is:
it is a human creation intended to inform (John Feather, 2006).”

Methods of information in a race.

The more formalized, the better!

“Having at one time referred exclusively to the monumental remains of cultures, cultural heritage as a concept has gradually come to include new categories. Today, we find that heritage is not only manifested through tangible forms such as artefacts, buildings or landscapes but also through intangible forms. Intangible heritage includes voices, values, traditions, oral history. Popularly this is perceived through cuisine, clothing, forms of shelter, traditional skills and technologies, religious ceremonies, performing arts, storytelling. Today, we consider the tangible heritage inextricably bound up with the intangible heritage. In conservation projects we aim to preserve both the tangible as well as the intangible heritage.”

culture (includes precise philosophy and its movements) and technologies as a result of culture, what could that refer to?

On another note, white people have a legal right as a race to the exclusive use of our own symbols, including art, stories, architecture, fashions and food!

Give it back, you racist bigots.

They didn’t tell you that, did they?

Brief detour before the big reveal.

You have exclusive rights to your People’s

“traditional skills and technologies”
“objects, artistic expressions”

Picture Trump in a rice hat. Imagine their reaction. ….But this is fine.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2018/10/30/what-about-the-white-minstrels/

WHITE CULTURE

DOESN’T BELONG

TO THE WORLD.

pinterest.com/sylviacrose/ancient-world-jewelry/

It’s embarrassing when you have no culture of your own to wear.

I’m big on earring archaeology.

https://www.harpersbazaar.com/fashion/trends/g21930727/layered-necklace-looks-ideas/

“The ubiquitous coin necklace makes for the perfect starting point when layering—let it be your focal point and build from there.” “Pair a wider chain link necklace with your dainty pendants for the perfect contrast to your layers.” “Play with texture by mixing and matching different style chains with one another so each individual piece stands out.”

You mean like this?

Plagiarizing the style of dead Athenians from their very tombs. Shame on you.

On food, for fun.

It reminds me of the food lies (Dutch baby is an American name in the 1900s) like Americans stealing Yorkshire puddings and abusing them by covering them in sugary bullshit.
“Manca’s Cafe claimed that it owned the trademark for Dutch babies in 1942.” – wikipedia
https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Yorkshire-Pudding/
“The prefix “Yorkshire” was first used within a publication by Hannah Glasse in 1747
or how pizzas date back to 1570, long before America.
http://www.oldcook.com/en/cooking-recipes_medieval#piz
Mac & cheese to the 15th century
http://greneboke.com/recipes/macaroni.html

Back to SCIENCE

Further reading: an important philosophical figure on par with Newton

https://www.famousscientists.org/francis-bacon/

was English.

Technically, Science (Method) was invented by the English.

BOOM.

That’s why everyone hates us, we invented pretty much everything.

“Francis Bacon discovered and popularized the scientific method, whereby the laws of science are discovered by gathering and analyzing data from experiments and observations, rather than by using logic-based arguments.”

Discovered = invented.

It isn’t a natural phenomena so ‘discovered’ is an inaccurate legal term.

Older books say invented.

It also has a true, academic name.

The Baconian method marked the beginning of the end for the 2,000-year-old natural philosophy of Aristotle, unleashing a wave of new scientific discoveries, particularly in the hands of devotees such as Robert Boyle.

Philosophy is not science, no math, no method. Bacon really invented falsifiability.

OT but

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5832789/Young-people-really-getting-stupid-IQs-falling-seven-points-generation.html

The above points were important because if you were taught these core fundamentals, you’d know 7 points in IQ is gigantic, especially in one generation. You could lose less than that with blunt force head trauma.

Since it’s rooted to a norm value of 100, that’s 7% of mind power. Compounding, heritable mental degeneration.

“Natural” products

I don’t want people to misunderstand when I post about things like aluminium.

I am well aware of this “everything’s a chemical” spiel.

BUT

Everything is nature.

People hate me for pointing this out but even the urban environment, is still AN environment. It’s an ecosystem. Pigeons and rats have been evolving into and for this environment, as have humans.

We don’t take to it as well because our brains are more complex (and the genes that produce features such as our brains) so “cocktail effects” must be observed too (post-Industrial Revolution we have a high level of pollution which includes chemicals in the soil – in the food). When a rat’s brain goes wrong, it starves or dies randomly. It doesn’t really matter. When our brains go wrong, we have birth defects, people going postal or nukes destroy the planet. Human behaviour is important to study when it comes to chemicals and obviously this relates to health.

I am not being paranoid or anti-chemical in the scientific sense.

Did Einstein steal the Theory of Relativity?

Celebrity scientists are trash, repeat after me.

https://teslaresearch.jimdo.com/dynamic-theory-of-gravity/ru%C4%91er-josip-bo%C5%A1kovi%C4%87-1711-1787/

Especially theoretical physicists.

The discovery of the DNA structure would’ve been impossible without the imaging provided (and borrowed without asking) by a woman. Who got the Nobel Prize? The two dudes. Including the one who did the borrowing and showed it to the other guy.

That is established fact, FYI.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin

She died of cancer.

Prior to the Nobel nomination.

https://www.sciencehistory.org/historical-profile/james-watson-francis-crick-maurice-wilkins-and-rosalind-franklin

But of course, where’s the proof of sexism in STEM, internet bros?

These people are so dispassionate and pure, they’d never lie or steal.

“Of the four DNA researchers, only Rosalind Franklin had any degrees in chemistry.”

As for Einstein, he ripped a lot of a lot off.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427621/did-einsteins-first-wife-secretly-coauthor-his-1905-relativity-paper/

However, Weinstein has analysed the letters in detail and says that two lines of evidence suggest that this was unlikely.

No motive there.

He used his first wife to do his mathematics, a thing he admitted in his letters.

There is one fly in the ointment. Maric and Einstein divorced in 1919, but as part of the divorce settlement, Einstein agreed to pay his ex-wife every krona of any future Nobel Prize he might be awarded.

Then he dumped her and married a cousin or something?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/

But where’s the evidence of sexism, guys?

https://www.inverse.com/article/31669-genius-einstein-mileva-maric-nobel-prize

Where would you even look for that?

I just don’t see it anywhere, there is nothing suspicious.

The guy has zippo, works in a place as the lowliest type of clerk where ideas are submitted (including scientific ones, at the time) and BOOM, full of ideas. Sheer, amazing, epic coincidence.

Einstein’s brain

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/21/the-tragic-story-of-how-einsteins-brain-was-stolen-and-wasnt-even-special/

Einstein didn’t want his brain or body to be studied; he didn’t want to be worshipped. “He had left behind specific instructions regarding his remains: cremate them, and scatter the ashes secretly in order to discourage idolaters,” writes Brian Burrell

Technically corpse rape

But Harvey took the brain anyway, without permission from Einstein or his family. 

Harvey would tell stories about the brain, about cutting off chunks to send to researchers around the world. Burroughs, in turn, would boast to visitors that he could have a piece of Einstein any time he wanted.

Pure, innocent nerds.

Because a human brain is like a steak and you can just slice a lil’ bit off to give out.

To fast forward a bit: Come 1985, Harvey and collaborators in California published the first study of Einstein’s brain, claiming that it had an abnormal proportion of two types of cells, neurons and glia. That study was followed by five others (the most recent published just this month), reporting additional differences in individual cells or in particular structures in Einstein’s brain. The researchers behind these studies say studying Einstein’s brain could help uncover the neurological underpinnings of intelligence.

No.

And the study couldn’t have been published with a “no, he was totally normal guys!” result.

But that premise is nonsense and the studies are bunk, at least according to Terence Hines, a professor of psychology at Pace University.

A couple of weeks ago, Hines presented a poster at the Cognitive Neuroscience Society annual meeting outlining all of the ways in which each of the six studies is flawed. Some highlights:

That is the academic equivalent of a plate-spinning roast to end all roasts.

Perhaps most problematic, counting cells is a subjective business, and the researchers performing the cell counts were not blind to which tissue was Einstein’s and which was not.

Innocent little angels who dindu nuffin.

 There were no differences in the number of neurons or the size of neurons, the study found, but Einstein’s tissue was thinner than controls.

It was stored in a basement.
Have you stored meat in a basement?

More densely packed neurons, the authors speculated, means that cell-to-cell messages travel shorter differences, which might mean faster processing speed overall. That’s quite a stretch. As Hines calls out in his poster, the finding was based on just one square millimeter of Einstein’s brain.

What’s more, the authors admit to not reporting any of the ways in which Einstein’s brain was similar to controls.

“Yes we lied but you’re an Anti-Semite or something???”

It’s like just missing the beach house off your tax returns.

They forgot guys.

Totally innocent mistake, could’ve happened to anyone who stole lumps out a celebrity’s corpse.

(This is almost as bad as the Monroe necrophiliacs story).

–In 1999, Harvey and Canadian collaborators got Einstein’s brain into one of the world’s most prestigious medical journalsThe Lancet.

Appeal to authority.

Based on old photographs

Do I have to mock this one?

I’m skipping this one.

that had been taken of Einstein’s brain before it was cut up, the researchers claimed that Einstein had an abnormal folding pattern in part of his parietal lobe, a region that has been linked to mathematical ability.

It doesn’t work like that.

They also reported that his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider, and more symmetrical, than those of control brains. Once again, though, the researchers were not blinded to which photographs showed Einstein’s brain. And though the authors were quick to make links between these supposed differences and Einstein’s mathematical prowess, Hines points out that Einstein wasn’t, in fact, a great mathematician.

Even if the statistics were sound, you’d still have the problem of attributing skills and behaviors to anatomy.

phrenology has a sound basis
especially compared to this

There’s no way to know

just the way uhuh uhuh 
they like it
uhuh uhuh

This is neurobiology, remember. Science is easy to fake out.

if X thing in Einstein’s brain made Einstein smart/dyslexic/good at math/you name it, or was just an X thing in his brain.

Dya wanna know the truth?

You’re on this site so I guess ya do.

Behaviours change the brain. This has been known forever. Read any good book and it’ll mention this. The Taxi Driver study is most famous: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024677

There are others of the same concept

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3541490/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22814662

You can literally grow parts of your brain by being a little bit weird.

Let’s see which brain part they claimed was different, most frequently?

his parietal lobes were 15 percent wider,”

https://eocinstitute.org/meditation/10-key-brain-regions-upgraded-with-meditation-2/#codeword7

http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research/

“When we scanned the brains of Tibetan Buddhist meditators, we found decreased activity in the parietal lobe during meditation”

It makes you toothless. It’s like an evolutionary roll back.

“MRI images showed more brain matter density in the compassion, learning and memory centers in the hippocampus compared to pre-meditation scans. Interestingly, gray matter in the amygdala, a stress and anxiety center, shrank.”

[obviously something like porn couldn’t change the brain ever…]

Meditation (and prayer) literally alters your brain (but meditation is a form of prayer whatever the hippies say and the neuroscience proves it).

https://draxe.com/increase-size-your-brain/

The musical ability might’ve easily caused any brain structure differences.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/04/closer-look-einsteins-brain

“The findings also suggest that Einstein’s famed love of music was reflected in the anatomy of his brain.”

“Witelson’s team found that Einstein’s parietal lobes–which are implicated in mathematical, visual, and spatial cognition–were 15% wider than normal parietal lobes. The team also found other unusual features in the parietal region, although some of these were questioned by other researchers at the time.”

And music.

“One parameter that did not explain Einstein’s mental prowess, however, was the size of his brain: At 1230 grams, it fell at the low end of average for modern humans.”

And the parietal lobe is linked with music.

e.g.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155291

Activation in the Right Inferior Parietal Lobule Reflects the Representation of Musical Structure beyond Simple Pitch Discrimination

But that doesn’t affect size, you say?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00636/full

Structural MRI-data revealed significant volumetric differences between the brains of keyboard players, who practiced intensively and controls in right sensorimotor areas and the corticospinal tract as well as in the entorhinal cortex and the left superior parietal lobule. Moreover, they showed also larger volumes in a comparable set of regions than the less intensively practicing musicians. The structural changes in the sensory and motor systems correspond well to the behavioral results, and can be interpreted in terms of plasticity as a result of intensive motor training.

Areas of the superior parietal lobule and the entorhinal cortex might be enlarged in musicians due to their special skills in sight-playing and memorizing of scores. In conclusion, intensive and specific musical training seems to have an impact on brain structure, not only during the sensitive period of childhood but throughout life.

I know my shit.

Neuroscience isn’t that hard. Well, apparently it’s hard for the people being paid to not notice this one thing that a non-neuroscientist can notice. You can see it too, right?

One more.

He imagined tons of stuff, right? See things, bit like a schizo?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3420742/

Parietal Lobes in Schizophrenia: Do They Matter?

TLDR: what the fuck do you think.

“We want to propose that in a proportion of individuals with emerging schizophrenia structural and functional alterations may start in the PL

Too tenuous? O.K.

https://www.livescience.com/49244-imagination-reality-brain-flow-direction.html

“In doing so, the parietal lobe assembles elementary building bricks from so-called “lower-order” brain regions to create concepts, said Daniela Dentico, a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and lead author on the report.”

Thinking a lot, daydreaming, would cause the parietal cells to thicken.

“A leading theory in image processing “posits that our visual mental images are not stored somewhere in the brain, but get actively reconstructed,”

“The researchers could not determine, however, whether imagination originates in the parietal lobe. It may instead flow through the parietal lobe

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942635/

Imagination study.

“Purposeful behavior with objects and tools can be assessed in a variety of ways, including actual use, pantomimed use, and pure imagery of manipulation.”

Perhaps most damning of all, sex difference.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680714/

“We found that women had proportionately greater gray matter volume in the parietal lobe compared to men, and this morphologic difference was disadvantageous ” (for task)

He had a brain like a chick.

Compare Einstein’s brain to another elderly Jewish fantasy-prone musician and you might have a study.

https://www.bmj.com/content/352/bmj.i969

A matched case study.

“In contrast, we found that men compared to women had proportionately greater parietal lobe surface area, and this morphologic difference was associated with a performance advantage for men on mental rotation.”

Does that mean flatter? But I’ve also seen reference to greater volume? Whatever.

Magical flip flop.

You can get that difference by playing a lot of Brain Training.

Back to the good article.

It makes me angry to think of all that was wasted in these investigations.

There was the monetary cost of the studies — money that could have been spent on work that was not doomed from the outset to fail. There was a personal cost, in that Einstein’s family was essentially strong-armed into agreeing to participate in research that Einstein explicitly did not want to participate in. And there was a public cost, too. In popular-press accounts of these studies over the years, the public was misled about the findings and their supposed scientific value.

Here’s how smart Einstein was — he understood all too well the public’s obsession with him, our obsession with celebrity and special-ness. He knew that if given the chance, scientists would pore over his brain’s neurons and glia, sulci and gyri, and make grand pronouncements about what makes a genius. And he knew it would be bullshit.

Maybe because he knew it would be average?

I do feel sorry for the guy, it’s a horror show to steal someone’s body parts and tamper with them post-mortem. He made it clear he didn’t want it, the family’s permission means nil.