Harristotelian Logic

Considering yet another area where a simple explanation appears to have escaped supposedly brilliant academics, but other supposedly intelligent people can argue about whether or not equals means equal, I have figured out the benefit to society of having lots of professors and other academics who are wrong.

It may seem odd that there is a social pressure to have professors who teach wrong information to students, but not if you consider just how volatile creativity is, and how stressful it can be to a society to potentially have uncontrolled growth in knowledge.

For instance, assume for the sake of argument that I DID find a short proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, but mathematicians don't like me. I even talk revolution and dislike things like tenure. If it were known that I did find a short proof of FLT then it'd be rather difficult to control my ability to push social changes forward that the social group of mathematicians do not like.

My discovery would give me social power.

So societies evolved classes that are buffers against genius. And throughout history they have shown their strength in preventing rapid change and preventing individuals from gaining to much power by simply buffering against them.

At times they have even burned people at the stake.

And it makes sense. There is a human need to get explanations but not a human need to be right, so in the past people believed the gods hurled lightning bolts out of anger, or that the earth rested on elephants.

People worried about sailing over the edge of the ocean as they thought you might fall off.

But that didn't keep all from sailing.

You can be wrong on any number of things but feel good because your need for explanation does not have with it a need to actually have a correct explanation, a subtle reality of how human beings work which is crucial to society.

You can be happily wrong with fake knowledge, and keep working which is what society needs you to do. Like if you have a gardener, do you really care what he or she knows about gardening? Yes, of course! But do you care if that person gets information about the origin of the Universe wrong?

Religion offered explanation but more importantly offered control. Change could be buffered against by religious decree. But with its diminished status in many powerful countries academics have taken over the social role of buffering against new information, while of course, the lie is that they do not.

But consider when I was pursuing a solution to the factoring problem, in a situation where I face continual ridicule and bullying from the mathematical community, and if I succeeded in that one thing, and in that one moment with a solution that broke RSA overnight I would have been more powerful than any other human being on the planet.

In just one situation I would have roared up to being the most powerful man, possibly ever born, just on one thing, so it makes sense that a crucial role of professors is to be wrong, and get away with it, so that society can try to protect itself from this genius thing that can bring entire civilizations to their knees.

In number theory most of what is currently being taught is wrong, and number theorists are a buffer class.

Now you know logicians are a buffer class as well, and they are worse off than mathematicians—which is how I've used them as a demonstration in a way you can all understand but it won't matter—as they can't even get the equals right.

Consider the set of all sets that exclude themselves, except itself.

That will not be taught by logicians as they buffer against rapid change and society lets them as that's what it needs them for—not to be right, but deliberately to be wrong.