Contents:
- The Scientific Method: Reproducibility
- The Reproducibility Crisis in Science
- Confirming My Experiment Results
The Scientific Method: Reproducibility
The Scientific Method: Reproducibility. Establishing the scientific reproducibility of the Egodeath (Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism) decoding of mythemes.
Reproducibility in Loose Cognitive Science
Independently confirm lab test results of these sets of experiments — these images. Are my scientific experiment results Reproducible in your alchemy lab’s Cryptography & Decryption Dept.?
Need these 2 images tested for Reproducibility, which consists of Replicability and Repeatability.
Images for independent analysis in your alchemy lab, re: decoding the salamander bestiary image and the “hanging from right leg above sword” Canterbury image in terms of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, especially in terms of branching analysis and the Mythemeland mindset (mentality, perspective, frame of mind).
The Reproducibility Crisis in Science
But there’s no reproducibility crisis in Loose Cognitive Science.
https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
I’m not seeing anything in this schoolboys’ version of How Science Works, re: confirmation by other independent scientists. I thought that was part of the deal eg per Ken Wilber “Eye to Eye” article.
Neither does this schoolboy-science article have a “test for Reproducibility” step. Is this why Science has a Reproducibility Crisis?
https://www.thoughtco.com/steps-of-the-scientific-method-p2-606045
Why doesn’t the main “Scientific Method” article at wiki have a robust “Test for Repoducibility step? Is this near-total omission why Science has a Reproducibility Crisis?
wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Communication_and_community
But whoa, almost nothing in this main article about duplication in other labs!? What gives?
“Frequently the scientific method is employed not only by a single person but also by several people cooperating directly or indirectly. Such cooperation can be regarded as an important element of a scientific community. Various standards of scientific methodology are used within such an environment.
Peer review evaluation
Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists’ manuscripts are submitted by editors [weak! no running experiments?] of scientific journals to (usually one to three, and usually anonymous) fellow scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. [weak! expected “re-run experiment”] ……
Documentation and replication [this section starts w/ following statement & link:]
… Main article: Reproducibility [<– what I’m looking for is in this other article. Why so little about Reproducibility in the main article? The main article continues:]
Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, veer from standard methods and practices (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately report false results. [Wasson censoring Brinckmann’s book about musrhoom trees?] Occasionally [what?? but there’s a whole other article on this, saying it’s important! wtf] because of this then, other scientists might attempt to repeat the experiments in order to duplicate the results.”
Forget that main article. This article dedicated to Reproducibility contradicts that main article: it says this is a very important step. Isn’t this step, or process, or check, a main normal part of the schoolboy “The Scientific Method”? Confused.
Ah well, the whole thing is b.s. anyways. As they say themselves, “the replication crisis”. I expect us to have better replication than them! 🙂 After all, Loose Cognitive Science (loosecog switching from Possibilism to Eternalism) is the original Science Confirmation Test Corroboration of Truth. Hard Science just tries to dumbly ape that true Science of the Gods which we do in alchemy labs.
Here’s the real article about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
“Reproducibility is a major principle of the scientific method. [not according to the weak main article!] It means that a result obtained by an experiment or observational study should be achieved again with a high degree of agreement when the study is replicated with the same methodology by different researchers. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge. [my emph]
…
The terms replicability and repeatability are used in the context of reproducibility, see below.
In recent decades, there has been a rising concern that many published scientific results fail the test of reproducibility, evoking a reproducibility or replicability crisis.
lol – crisis? have you tried prayer, sacrifice, and putting trust in higher controller?
Confirming My Experiment Results
2 images, which I saw years before, but didn’t take an aggressive and persistent decoding mentality, just fell open to me. It is striking, how this works. I feel as if I was relatively blind and dull-eyed, before now, when looking half-dumbly at these images before.
This is big, bigger than mytheme-illiterate who cannot Read these images.
This is a new, full, coherent reading of the Salamander bestiary image, in terms of Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism, mytheme decoding (a clearer, stronger “Mythemeland” frame of mind than before), and especially branching-assessment of images.
I’m writing up my leading-edge discoveries in realtime on the World-Wide Web (within the ‘Criteria’ article) — a new technology, which is cool.
Mytheme decoding is of more ultimate importance than the Rosetta stone because it gets to understanding gnosis.
This mytheme decoding type of work rests on the basis of the Rosetta Stone type of work, sitting at a higher level, achieving full decoding to directly identify the referent: mythemes describe Analogical Psychedelic Eternalism.
It’s weird to me and very significant that I before, failed to (fully) Read these images.
During the first decoding pass a few years ago, I was busy making initial progress: affirming it’s a mushroom (I never hestitated on this), and speculating (with a lesser degree of confidence) that the man who someone else thought was “dancing”, was rather, standing on one leg, lifting the other leg in the air, meaning “Eternalism mental model”.
In the first decoding pass, around 2015, I had a weaker degree of confidence about that “leg” decoding.
I failed yet to map to salamander (still seen as if plural) next to — what I didn’t attempt to think about in the first pass of decoding — the branching stem of the mushroom.
I was still largely visually dumb, clueless, now I’m not but am embarrassed I looked w/ such dulled eyes b4. Had to aggressively use “the diamond hammer of interpretation “– do an assertive, dedicated, branching analysis, together with the “Mythemeland” frame of mind.
One big change was that this time, I cross-decoded two 1-leg images in tandem.
I feel same way about failing before, to reason-through to Positively Identify Amanita as tiger-watering bowl.
I had to get in the right “Reading Mindset” to read mythemeland and crop and put the 2 pics together (same Amanita photo I think on Strange Fruit cover, next to the wonderful Dionysus Triumph, bottom middle, the dog-watering bowl.
Of course it’s Amanita! The only 1 odd misfit is, the dog-watering bowl has a lip (ring), not sure if some upturned Amanitas have that, maybe if it hyper-curls up so the fins are almost pulled on top of the cap?? Ignore that ring, and it’s an *exact* match.
Of course the stem/bowl-diameter is not *exactly* the same proportion, but no 2 specimens are *identical*. I seen lots of them firsthand.
The proportions are “within range” of, like electronic parts, 10% variance.
My point about dog-watering bowl identi’n is, I had a sorry, unsure, wrong mindset, until a couple days ago, now it is reached Certainty. What changed? Why am I more fluent, more literate at reading books in mythemeland, than I was before?
I couldn’t read the images before (except, I was correct, ~2015 or whenever I read Roasting Salamander article, about 1 foot. I had some doubts, but less and less, and less and less doubts b/c Coherence — I’m literally making predictions of what I’ll see when I re-look at pics.
I could barely read them, now a simple Coherent Interp the 2 images (like others the past days) are falling open to me, a series of Observation -> Hypoth -> Predict -> Confirmation (however, I’m very skeptical about that schoolboy theory of “The Scientific Method”).
Too hot jackpot to fix typos. Onward!
I feel embarrassed that I was lame about these 2 images before, I looked at them with dull eyes, I didn’t know “how to think” about them, “how to perform an assessment” — WHY NOT? what lacking? I failed to do a BRANCHING ANALYSIS. I couldn’t even come up w/ hypotheses before! when lacking BRANCHING ANALYSIS.
A weird thing is, implausible coincidences, (a “sign”?) – I’m picking pics that are supposedly very different, but then, very improbably, discovering major, key, important things so similar — “structurally” in terms of Egodeath interpretation – that I am forced to crop portions and the two images.
Decoding 2 images in tandem, like November 2013, the 2 images (Campbell’s Power of Myth Eden tree & Douris Jason Athena serpent kylix on front cover of myth book) — are essential to shine light on each other.
I have to use — of random pair I happened to have — I have to use key elements in both these pics.
Other labs can run same decoding experiment to check the same analytical perspective, perform the same analysis. Like grade-school “how scientists corroborate ‘The Sci Method’ results.”
Independent Scientists, am I full of it?
Are my Experiment Results Reproducible in your labs?
Are my lab glasses contaminated and blurry?
Need branching analysis.
The funniest finding earlier: the very factors that make dimwit rejects these as Psilocybe, are precisely the Message that proves that they ARE entheogenic.
IT’S ALL ABOUT THE BRANCHING and the fact that the artist “bends” away from natural shape, to do oddball things w/ branching, PROVES that these are entheogenic. They have it backwards!
The Egodeath theory 