The case for Math and Science
I’ve been a believer in Benford’s Law about mathematical “improbabilities” since the magnitude of the “Biden win” in key states became apparent. That Biden-in-name-Only could ever receive millions more votes than either Obama or Hillary Clinton is inconceivable.
But math “improbabilities” math holds out that nothing is statistically or scientifically absolute. Geologists (a hard science) insist that land masses change slowly over millions of years, disproving the literal meaning of “7 days” in the Book of Genesis. That was a key element of 19tth Century Darwinists’ attack on Bishop Ussher and the Anglican Church’s 1654 publication of the history of the world as beginning “the night preceding the 23rd day of October… the year before Christ 4004”; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC! Fantastic, indeed. (Otherwise, Bishop Ussher’s history was a well-researched and detailed history.)
But attacking Ussher’s dating error of the first 7 days was a ruse, since the intended target was, and always has been the Creator. Early Darwinist-promoters, (HG Wells, GB Shaw, the Huxleys) embraced Darwin not because he defined a world more ancient than Ussher described, but because he debunked Ussher’s God, most of whom didn’t believe He really exists and was merely a myth.
That propaganda war has never ended, and is the other side, who I call the “separate reality”, or Reality-B, of the American Reality-A, which has always been God-based.
Darwin was a great observational scientist, but only so-so as a theorist. Most of Darwin’s theories are still just “theories”, and many true natural scientists will privately tell you this is so. Only just not out loud, and certainly not in the classroom, or they can kiss research grants and even their jobs goodbye. This is how Reality-B manages its minions in education.
But as I have mentioned, Science often offers some striking agreement with God, especially, natural law. So never forget that there is a second comsic dimension of warfare between men, for that is where our political warfare with the other reality (Reality-B) originated.
Even mythologists contributed to dampen the Left’s anti-God ammunition, saying that such fantastical stories as Genesis 1-9 are likely a representation of lore passed on orally for thousands of years (by people infinitely better at remembering things than moderns, being able to recite detailed events), the physical proof of that being that the first writings of the Old Testament were around 1600 B.C. yet described events from 1000 to several thousand years earlier (including the Flood which indeed did occur), meaning those stories had been passed on orally for a very long time…while we of the oh, so very much more smart set have to to write down our passwords on a note card so we can get into our computers of buy on Amazon.
And geologists have admitted that places have been found where geologic changes have occurred very rapidly, even cataclysmically, enough that the statistical probability of any given geologic formation being umpteen million years old is not (sic) set in stone.
Even medical examiners in a murder trial, at least once upon a time, were compelled by their professional oaths, when asked if the bullet found in the victim is what killed him, he will reply “Within a medical certainty”, allowing, that the victim could possibility have had a fatal heart attack a mere second before the shot was fired. This professional caveat is a hat tip of profession of humility to the proposition there are things science cannot know.
So no situational math is absolute and when mathematics takes these near-impossible calculations into account, it often describes them mathematically as odds; 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, one in a million. In layman’s language, this runs from various levels; from possible, to probable, to highly probable, or its reverse; improbable to implausible, to nearly impossible. Consider the coin toss of 100 or 500 or even 1000, and they call come up heads. Inconceivable. Even 5 in 100 is near impossible. Casinos have a built-in “House Factor” of 1.41% in their favor at the crap table pass line, those odds rising after each succeeding pass.
So Biden’s vote total in seven states (and probably more) is the equivalent of a gambler getting several hundred passes in a row.
Trump v Biden and Math
In Trump v Biden, the original burden of proof is on the plaintiffs (Trump Team) to “shift that burden of proof” to the defendant Biden and force his team to rebut to the Judge that, “No, this is entirely possible, your Honors!” But when the Trump team then adds the remarkable evidence that in those states Biden needed to win, and only in those states, all the election counting stopped at about the same time, over three time zones, each for stated different reasons, but at the time of stoppage Trump was leading by several points, then by 3 or 4 AM, Biden had won them all, with a few million votes added.
The possibility of mere coincidence is inconceivable…as is the possibility it was mere coincidence or simple error.
So, a crime had been committed which the Court would duly pass onto proper authorities for criminal action, then reach into its bag of options to stop or reverse the fraudulent results of the election from placing Joe Biden into office and insuring similar frauds cannot happen again.
So while the dragnet for the crooks proceeds, Joe Biden cannot be allowed to be sworn in as President.
Or so you would think, if a fair Court will hear it, for that is the only place the burden of proof can be met and have any legal effect.
But if two realities, A and B, are competing, all most extreme mathematical odds can be reduced to the more manageable math of the crap tables in Vegas if in a venue where we no longer can be sure if Reality-A or Reality-B is in charge.
Then Benford’s Law need only become inconceivable in the minds of 3 to 5 judges. For whatever reason, not necessarily law nor even logic.
This brings us back to that proposition I posited a couple of days ago, about our living in a world of two different realities, where cannot long co-exist. What happens to the provability of math or Science if courts refuse to consider evidence that challenges its own reality. We already know with Climate Science and today, Covid management, what happens when the sciences of two separate realities collide.
What value is there in having a mathematics that states that an event only has a one-in-a-million statistical chance of actually having happened, if a court living in Reality-B simply refuses to entertain the idea that it did happen…all because Reality-B has not yet been able to contrive a competitive mathematical probability consistent with its reality to refute Benford’s Law? (Note: Reality-B is always one step behind Reality-A, and thus always reactionary. Neither the USSR or the Chinese People’s Republic has ever invented anything. Everything they have built, their designs were stolen or borrowed.)
We already know that In the modern world trial judges, state and federal, can be very political, and every element of their law training may be for sale to either a higher political ambition or rank or money. So if you think these Biden election cases are about those three Trump-appointed GenX swing votes on the Supreme Court…well yes.
We already know there are three Reality-B justices who are political as to how society should be ordered, and frame their constitutional arguments as if the “Constitution as written” were an impediment. This has been a symptom of a condition common to our culture for as many as 50 years. We also have a Chief Justice who was appointed as having a genuine loyalty to the “Constitution as written” but has already departed from that in the Obamacare case of 2012. That he may have screamed at justices Thomas and Alito about Bush v Gore, and voiced an inordinate fear of riots, (which have been going on all over the country for nearly a year now?) is without proof, but possible.
But that the three new justices (Trump appointees) can be cowed by threats, or by seniority or or some unknown weakness from their upbringing or education is a serious consideration, for if Reality-B rules here, on this single issue, the Court will have lost all its meaning in the “Constitution as written” sense.
On paper, for now, the “Constitution as written” wing of the Court is still a majority of 5. Maybe 6. But it does cause us to wonder if there are other cultural or social pings in their systems that may or may not affect their willingness to take up these cases for fear of having to hear a word or phrase such as “True Love is Worth Living For”, especially since “True Love of Country” is one such precepts worth living for and a fundamental foundation of “America as founded.”
So I thought you might like to hear the deeper meaning of Miracle Max from 33 years ago, filmed when these Gen X justices were probably in college. They would all have seen it.
Humor aside, since I was in my 40s then, one son in high school, the other in middle school, this film had an impact on both.
Did any of you take “true love” to mean anything other than “romantic love” which was the standard with my generation? (Yes, I know this film came from Rob Reiner, who is 73.) “Making love” was a polite 50s way of saying carnal love, not necessarily in marriage, but at least “in love”. “Love” was one of the earliest cultural appropriations from Reality-A by Reality-B culture. To be in love, to making love, to bumping-and-grinding and voddie-o-do was an easy leap from the 60s to the 80s, (Hollywood and Madison Avenue helped). “Valley girls” were a prominent theme in the 80s; affluent teenage children with little or no parental supervision, and more often as not, with a single self-involved parent, underage drinking, sex and drugs. I had to do refresh myself after watching Christine Blasey-Ford, of that generation, and teen party-girl and drinker, and now a PhD professor at Stanford do a Pavlovian performance to destroy one of these Supreme Court nominees. We steered our kids away from those kinds of film, then, and that was before they could have their own movie theater on a laptop, or now, a phone.)
So consider how social fashion can pass from generation to generation, not by word of mouth but by technology to technology, and the seeming impossibility of parents to shield them these days compared to 1987.
All three of our justices had strong religious backgrounds, one Episcopal, two Roman Catholic. But so did Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, 30 years before them. And while we know all three have Alpha minds, we know little as to whether they were alphas in other parts of their activities. Kavanaugh was an athlete, a star in fact. I was on a state championship football team but our star athlete played college ball then a teacher. The team leader was a C-student who was also a protector of kids who bullies called “Four Eyes” and “Tubby” in the school hallways. After he graduated he joined the Marines and I next saw him in a Life Magazine photo-story at Khe Sanh in 1968, a sergeant. We won that battle, and the larger offensive called Tet. Then our alpha-political scientists (John Bolton comes to mind) gave it all away 5 years later.
My Jim Owens was an Alpha leader, but I wonder if Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch or Amy Coney ever ran into one. Or were they brow-beaten by professors in college, surrendering just for the grade.? (I always think about the Parkland shootings, and most of the alpha-smart kids who stood around while a small cadre of bullies taunted that Cruz kid into shooting up the school.)
These are the sorts of questions we need to ask not only how those justices will vote in an election fraud case, but whether they will refuse to be cowed and overrule their Chief Justice’s demands.
The final issue then, will be as a society, if a free republic will allow this clear erasing of natural law to stand? For this may be the Court’s last stand.