Dennis Francis Blewett III

It looks like the community-driven spirit of scienceforums.net has gone downhill. I'm sure scienceforums.com will enjoy my business interest.

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.

My most recent post in politics prevented me from adding a link to the start of the post to a .gov reference of the Elizabeth Holmes case. I looked for an edit HTML option, but there was none.

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: Response: No device gives *consistently* accurate AND reliable results... Response: Of course, that's called "error." 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. 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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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: 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.

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.

"Why do you think we're supposed to be staying far apart?" - Phi for All <https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html> Accessed on June 10th, 2021. Emphasis added.

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.

Engage in self-defense by physically attacking them. However, upon some thought, it appears to me that such would be anti-thetical because one would hope to remain at least six feet from the individual as much as possible.

"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.