Jump to content

Dennis Francis Blewett III

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dennis Francis Blewett III

  1.  

      

    42 minutes ago, TheVat said:

    An adjudicator does not have to be an expert or authority on a subject to render a sound judgment.   They need only solid evidence and some basic rules of evidence evaluation.  Expertise may help in evaluation of evidence, but judges and juries can use that expertise without themselves having to be become experts.   

    And in many cases,  expertise is not needed at all to determine some facts.  I don't bring in a mycologist to determine my cheese is moldy.  

     

    If you want to respond to my arguments in relation to the onlinephilosophyclub.com thread, please do that there.

    If you did not read the referenced thread and have posted here, then I you have failed to grasp my arguments in this thread.

    Your argument may as well be saying, "The probable cause judge was infallible in its judgment, thus having made a sound judgment."

    If you don't like that interpretation, here is an alternative:

    "An adjudicator does not have to be an expert or authority on a subject to render a sound judgment because my center of gravity dictates such."

    Your center of gravity is not that good. I refuse to accept the legitimacy of your argument. It's not very sound.

  2. 4 hours ago, iNow said:

    In search of funding, she presented results and outcomes she wasn't achieving. Data was made up and invented with the intention of hopefully/maybe finding a way to deliver on the promises after money came in, but said the promises were already real in order to receive said funding. This isn't exactly rocket science. 

    Quote

    results and outcomes she wasn't achieving

    Quote

    Data was made up and invented with the intention of hopefully/maybe finding a way to deliver on the promises

    Where is the data for those allegations?

    I'm having difficulty finding that.

     

    Where is the data for the alleged "results and outcomes" she wasn't achieving?

    Where is the alleged "made up and invented" data?

     

    If such data had error in it, then why was there such error?

    Where did the "error" come from?

     

    I've observed through the referenced video how the Edison does its chemistry. It does experiments that are traditionally done in a modern laboratory (21st century) but on a small scale with smaller tubes, pipettes, and some obscure tray I don't recall it's called. The error rates of the Edison were low.  I presume if an individual does enough experiments with a device, such as the Edison, it may eventually need to be re-calibrated (otherwise, such failure may result in large amounts of error occurring in the experiments). There are a variety of reasons (things correlated with) "why" error occurs.

    Also, here appears to be a link to the case.

    Quotes and responses from above link:

    Quote

    "...the defendants knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests"

    Response:
    No device gives *consistently* accurate AND reliable results...

    Quote

    "...tests performed on Theranos technology were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results..."

    Response:
    Of course, that's called "error."

    Quote

    The indictment alleges that Holmes and Balwani defrauded doctors and patients 

    Response:

    I would think most doctors would be aware that "error" exists, which I presume is something MOST get out of their pre-med education.

    Quote

    defendants explicitly represented to individuals that Theranos’s blood tests were cheaper than blood tests from conventional laboratories to induce individuals to purchase Theranos’s blood tests.

    Response:

    Well, I presume Theranos generalized on how it was cheaper. Sure, there may be an exception that proves the generalization wrong. The indictment argues amongst other things that Theranos is guilty of having developed a hasty generalization and lacking the authority to claim something as a fact rather than a theory.

     

    Aside:

    I've been getting the impression that a "witch hunt" by pharma has been against Elizabeth Holmes for having found a way to make laboratory testing cheaper and easier.

     

    References:

    U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, et al.. <https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al#:~:text=Elizabeth%20Holmes%20and%20Ramesh%20%E2%80%9CSunny%E2%80%9D%20Balwani%20are%20charged,a%20separate%20scheme%20to%20defraud%20doctors%20and%20patients.> Accessed on October 25th, 2021 @ ~1:17 P.M. Central Time (Madison, Wisconsin, USA)

  3. Hello,

     

    I've read the comments in relation to the peer review. It appears that the presented thesis has been incomprehensible (perhaps falsified, thus).

    I have revised the thesis and will provide a sub-thesis:

    Quote

    Thesis: Doing nothing (or, in other words, being as lazy as possible) gives an individual the greatest return on investment for his or her time because the work ("psychobiological stress") involved with doing nothing (being as lazy as possible) indirectly enhances the individual's socio-economic status over time.

    source: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/GRRTS5GR/items/PVPMP8TU/collection [Aquiring the Greatest Return on Investment for One's Time: Do Nothing | dennisfrancisblewett's Library | Zotero]

    Sub-thesis:

    Quote

    Thesis (from e-mail sent to self on October 2nd, 2021): Doing nothing (or, in other words, being as lazy as possible) indirectly increases the individual's socio-economic status over time because the work ("the psychobiological stress") involved with doing nothing (or, in other words, being as lazy as possible) initiates a biological cascade that behaves as an "instruction set" that affects the individual's sociobiology to enhance* so that the individual's socio-economic status increases over time. "enhance" means to physically change the individual to be more tolerant to environmental conditions and/or move about reality in some translocating fashion.

    source: https://www.zotero.org/dennisfrancisblewett/collections/GRRTS5GR/items/GZPIR7DD/collection [Doing Nothing and the Effect on Sociobiology | dennisfrancisblewett's Library | Zotero]

  4. Has anyone been following the Elizabeth Holmes case?

    Based on what's discussed here, I don't think she is guilty.

    It seems, however, the technology and science behind the Edison is not being properly discussed in court.

    I spent yesterday looking into the Elizabeth Holmes case, and the Edison technology (video) looks very legit. Supposedly, there were issues with using blood for testing?

    Sure, devices give out error here and there. However, the methodology of the equipment and the comparative results in relation to the chemistry journal artlcles seems that there isn't much of an issue with the miniaturization of the technology.

    I'm juggling a variety of things at the moment, but I am under the impression that the full story in relation to blood experiments are not being discussed. Here are my suspicions at the moment:

    1) The Edison gave erroneous results and people generalized that the equipment couldn't do any blood experimentation whatsoever and falsely claimed Elizabeth Holmes engaged in fraud.

    2) Elizabeth Holmes confabulated in relation to the accuracy of the Edison when engaging in deals with clients, thus did not fulfill the intent requirement of fraud.

    https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-941-18-usc-1343-elements-wire-fraud

    I'm having difficulty looking for information about the other charges and providing sources due to my environment at the moment.

     

    Could someone, if possible, please provide evidence/data as to how, supposedly, blood experiments with the evidence were wrongful and being used to defraud people?

     

    References:

    (1) "Refutations to the allegation of criminal guilt (legal compatibilism)" Dennis Francis Blewett III. <https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17071>

    (2) "Theranos Science & Technology: The Miniaturization of Laboratory Testing."  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6JRG733ReQ

    (3) Elizabeth Holmes: Downfall. Wikipedia. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes#Downfall> Last accessed October 25th, 2021.

     

  5. So, there is this obscure thing on Wikipedia. Please explain it away: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game)

    My impression is that B166er (see the Animatrix) made the Matrix, became increasingly delusional, and started calling things a game as a coping mechanism.

    Also, please explain the obscure posts by users toward Genecks, such as the one relating to whether or not minds can be read and Genecks responding something in relation to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

  6. On 6/22/2021 at 8:12 AM, Bufofrog said:

    This is all based on a Sci-Fi movie.  Well that makes sense.

    That's not a very helpful response. Was it based on a Sci-Fi movie that I managed to prove-up that I'm a gastrobot (categorically a robot) and break through Google's reCaptcha v3? I reason securityledger.com individual's would have caught on by now.

     

    Then again, were such an IQ test, it appears others simply did not respond except you. Perhaps they're still working on responding when their sociobiologies adapt to such.

  7. So, I have written up something entitled "Technique in Discussion: Hypercubing."

    For what I recall, the user Genecks had relayed to a scienceforums.net user to not worry about his/her issue because Genecks was an authority on such; Genecks claimed to be an authority on such because Genecks beat hypercube in five seconds. I think that's the general idea of what happened in Genecks' post. I have not been able to use the search feature to find the relevant posts. Personally, based on my contracts "expertise," I do not think a valid contract occurred, be that Genecks were to need to remedy the user were something to go awry with the user's worries: Something like that.

    Regardless, I like science. I reason a lot of other people here like science. What will follow is something I've typed up that has been in my Google Drive. I am seeking anyone to inform the user of the material that follows. Please let me know what you think of it. I'm looking for critical responses (I consider I may have some spelling or grammar issues; and I'm not looking for too much suggestion on those).

     

     

    Quote

     

    Dennis Francis Blewett III

    June 8th, 2021

     

    Technique in Discussion: Hypercubing

     

    In June of 2017, I discovered a technique that I have termed "hypercubing," which is a term inspired from the movie Cube2: Hypercube. During the time this technique was being discovered, concepts, such as block universe theory, the triune brain hypothesis were being thought of; I had also considered why my view of “not doing anything” in the hypercube in order to escape was a viable answer to escaping the hypercube. It was viewed that, according to block universe theory, an individual does not have free will to go about making money but instead whatever money an individual receives in his or her lifetime is predestined. In a block universe, all persons are going with the flow of his or her arrow of time without any actual interaction with reality but many have the belief (arguably, "delusion") they are doing something, such as interacting with reality. From such line of thinking, it was eventually viewed that delusional efforts to pursue socio-economic opportunities in the space-time continuum are an inefficient use of time and instead it is optimal for a person to wait (1) for socio-economic opportunities to come about because no person has control over the occurrence of socio-economic opportunities in the space-time continuum (opportunities come as they do, one moment at a time, as per the output of the space-time continuum). In relation to the triune brain hypothesis, it was considered that belief that an individual has free will to achieve monetary opportunities or can cause monetary opportunities to occur is a contemporary belief ("delusion") amongst the modern race of humans that exist under the power of the United Nations on planet Earth, thus they use a U.S./U.N.-human complex of their brain in pursuit of enhanced socioeconomic status. It was speculated that utilization of the highest brain function (2) involves doing nothing, which would involve rejection of compatibilist culture and belief in the realization that one does not have free will to move but it is instead fate that moves a person, such as by being “as lazy as possible.” In contrast, it is presumed that utilization of the human complex (evolved to the point of persons being of a U.S.A./U.N.-based race with such race brain complex), leads to returns on investment attuned to that particular culture, such as U.S. dollar. It is presumed that persons may or may not have the highest evolutionary complex present in their brains by some small amount. The optimal thing (3) a person can do with his or her time, then, would be to utilize the highest brain complex as a learned response by engaging in the learned behavior of doing nothing, which leads to the greatest return on investment, because the psychobiological stress involved with doing nothing generates a cascade of biological events that leads to enhanced sociobiology, which in turn enhances a person’s socio-economic status as the greatest return on investment.


     

    Notes:

     

    (1) It is presumed this allots time to be used more efficiently.

    (2) Presume that the triune brain evolution could be represented as a mathematical curve showing evolutionary history over time with the reptillian complex being the baseline or lowest brain complex and the highest brain complex--most optimal--given the arbitrary label "God complex."

    (3)  See also: the optimization problem, a topic in calculus.

     


     

     

  8. On 6/20/2021 at 4:01 PM, beecee said:

    The issue that I see the most obvious, brought about by the silly all  inclusive nature of your statements, is that you have some sort of extreme political agenda.

    What would that be?

    Also, it appears you have failed to pick apart my argument and provided detailed refutations. From what I have observed, it appears that you have engaged in a red herring and an ad hominem. I am not interested in arguing in circles with you. I was on onlinephilosophyclub.com and communicated various ideas in relation to the legal system. It appeared that the issue of "epistemological anarchism" (a concept I learned from Wikipedia) came up, whereby I eventually figured out that all legal cases should be ending in a mistrial.

     

    With the usage of term "accuracy," it may inferred that I am referring also to "validity."

    In argumentation, the reasonableness of a claim is related to whether or not it is sound and valid. However, if an individual lacks absolution in any domain of expertise to ensure the validity and soundness of a claim, then it might be interpreted that the "validity" of a claim is left upon falsification.

     

    Here is a paragraph from an essay I have typed in relation to standards of proof:

     

    Quote

     

    Strawman & Judges

         Judges claim their opinion is valid by law because it has met some standard of proof as required by law, whereby it is also an opinion rather than a fact that some standard of proof has been met because they seek to shift the blame for their sophistry to a strawman (which is that their opinion is valid by law because it has met some standard of proof as required by law). They seek to shift the blame for their sophistry to a strawman because they fear having to give a remedy if caught for their sophistry. They fear having to give a remedy if caught for their sophistry because based on observational learning, that is what they have come to expect. ["Sophistry" ≈ Freudian monsterism]. Based on observational learning, that is what they have come to expect because the law says (such as the Illinois Constitution says) that for any wrong, a remedy is to be given. The law says (such as the Illinois Constitution says) that for any wrong, a remedy is to be given because that's what legislation put forward. That's what legislation put forward because that's what the republic pushed for legislation to do.

     

     

    Police claim they have met the standard of proof known as probable cause in various situations. They also claim to have met a standard known as "reasonable suspicion." Both of those claims are false claims. Do you think it is possible for a police officer to have totality of the facts and circumstances in relation to a perceived crime in order to claim something as a crime? If so, why would there be a need for due process, a hearing, a tribunal, etc.? There wouldn't be such a need. Otherwise, such need in itself would be considered racketeering.

     

    It appears to me that you have some sort of extreme political agenda, such as continuing the support of racketeering and extortion. Also, presuming your username is not your real name, I'm under the impression that you're suffering from some delusional disorder, categorically some form of dissociative identity disorder, thus preventing you from making logical sense out of things.

  9. On 6/9/2021 at 4:22 PM, beecee said:

    Bullshit.

     

    well, take a look at Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 on expert testimony from the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence. No one has absolution in a domain of ¨knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.¨

     

    When a judge qualifies someone as an ¨expert," the judge is engaging in sophistry. How can the judge be so experienced in his or her opinion to qualify someone as an expert? The judge cannot.

     

    sources:

    1) uscode.house.gov <https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title28/title28a/node218/article7&edition=prelim> Accessed: June 20th, 2021

     

    As an aside, personally, I think it would be great for kids to learn science from this website. Cursing is bad and best hoped for such expletives to be put aside. But, then again, my expertise is not absolute on the word presented nor its meaning.

     

    Also, admin, I am having difficulty removing formatting on text. One more forum issue. As a note, I might not be back for a while.

  10. "Why do you think we're supposed to be staying far apart?" - Phi for All

     

    Quote

    "...Social distancing should be practiced in combination with other everyday preventive actions to reduce the spread of COVID-19, including wearing masks..."

    "To practice social or physical distancing, stay at least 6 feet (about 2 arm lengths) from other people who are not from your household in both indoor and outdoor spaces."

    "COVID-19 spreads mainly among people who are in close contact (within about 6 feet) for a prolonged period...." - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html

    "Since people can spread the virus before they know they are sick, it is important to stay at least 6 feet away from others when possible, even if you—or they—do not have any symptoms. Social distancing is especially important for people who are at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19." - https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html
     

    <https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html> Accessed on June 10th, 2021. Emphasis added.

     

  11.  

    13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    You're suggesting that breathing too close to someone else in public (which is the reason for distancing) be considered an assault that justifies physical self-defense? That sounds fairly one-dimensional for a law, even a temporary one, and I would prefer a solution aimed at keeping more people safe. Something that didn't take the possibility of hospitalization and turn it into a certainty.

     

    No, I am not suggesting that.

    "...which is the reason for distancing..."

    Do you have a source for that being the reason for distancing?

     

    I have been under the impression that we're in a computer simulation (if but something very much like it) and being within six feet of persons has a correlatory (I don't believe in causality relative to light cones) ecosystem effect that is adverse to one's self-interest. It's like the adverse aspects of the virus' code rubs off on a person in a negative way from being too close: As though someone's proneness to the virus enhances.

     

    Proving the computer simulation aspect is difficult. My evidence is circumstantial. However, were scientists to throw a fair amount of effort at falsifying whether or not we are in such, I think that whether or not we are in such may well enough be unlocked. Maybe this thread is of it being examined.

  12. "Should Police Departments Be Given More Money?"

    No because police departments support the fiat system, which uses a system of racketeering and extortion to support it; the legal system engages in antisocial behavior by falsely claiming verdicts against persons while threatening people with force if they do not support the legal system's system of sophistry; no one has the expertise to claim a defendant is guilty, not guilty, liable, or not liable with any accuracy whatsoever.

  13. So, I'm at this place called Community Action in Beloit, Wisconsin; and it bothers me that person get within six feet of me. I'm gridlocked by the space-time continuum; and there is nothing I am able to do about people coming within six feet of me, such as me being flanked by persons. And then there is the questionable ethics of going into some place of the building that does not appear to be designated for public access, etc.. And so, when people come within six feet of me, I'm tempted to whip them down; but I don't. I'm glad, too, because I consider well enough that police might come by being really ignorant and say what I did was antisocial and unlawful; and that if I want to make my point, then I need to do such in court. Really bad situation.

     

    I think it's assault in the sense that it's like they're coming near me and striking me with their fist. No actual blow occurs, but I consider it might be an ecosystem disruption that enhances my proneness to coronoavirus or has some other kind of negative effects.

     

    Thoughts?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.