Let's take a look at a random article.
This isn't to look in detail at the science, the quality of the methodology, the relevance or impact of the thesis... but just to see whether it's possible ever to slip some reality past
Paul's Demon.
https://elifesciences.org/articles/68192Unsupervised Bayesian Ising Approximation for decoding neural activity and other biological dictionaries
Abstract
The problem of deciphering how low-level patterns (action potentials in the brain, amino acids in a protein, etc.) drive high-level biological features (sensorimotor behavior, enzymatic function) represents the central challenge of quantitative biology. The lack of general methods for doing so from the size of datasets that can be collected experimentally severely limits our understanding of the biological world. For example, in neuroscience, some sensory and motor codes have been shown to consist of precisely timed multi-spike patterns. However, the combinatorial complexity of such pattern codes have precluded development of methods for their comprehensive analysis. Thus, just as it is hard to predict a protein’s function based on its sequence, we still do not understand how to accurately predict an organism’s behavior based on neural activity. Here, we introduce the unsupervised Bayesian Ising Approximation (uBIA) for solving this class of problems. We demonstrate its utility in an application to neural data, detecting precisely timed spike patterns that code for specific motor behaviors in a songbird vocal system. In data recorded during singing from neurons in a vocal control region, our method detects such codewords with an arbitrary number of spikes, does so from small data sets, and accounts for dependencies in occurrences of codewords. Detecting such comprehensive motor control dictionaries can improve our understanding of skilled motor control and the neural bases of sensorimotor learning in animals. To further illustrate the utility of uBIA, we used it to identify the distinct sets of activity patterns that encode vocal motor exploration versus typical song production. Crucially, our method can be used not only for analysis of neural systems, but also for understanding the structure of correlations in other biological and nonbiological datasets.
Again Paul - note how the author's idea involves more than 5 words, even when succinctly written. The title is longer than your entire 'argument'
Additionally, despite being succinctly written, it's also written in such a way that not much technical knowledge is necessary here - it is, after all, just the abstract. There is, of course, some vocabulary particular not just to science, not just to Biology, not just to evolutionary biology, not just to computational neurosciences, but to the very specific field of interest this person has specialized in - that's just the nature of expertise, Paul. I know how far away you are from knowing that.
And in addition even to that addition, the entire abstract above merely sets the scene as an introduction to the detailed system they go on to propose, explain in granular detail, showing both how the model works and how it can be tested, through the remainder of the paper.
But we are still not done with my additive habits as I also must point out that the load of empty guff you keep warbling about supposedly is meant to explain not just how we could go about decoding neural activity, but is meant to literally be the most compelling, complete and wondrous explanation of absolutely everything - but yet you can't seem to find more than 5 - 7 words which you repeat in a formulaic manner instead of providing any substantiation of those 5 - 7 words.
Labels on jars have more information than you've mustered in more than a decade!
This author could undoubtedly bore the teats off us with endless detail about the area of expert knowledge they've mastered - they don't just know their shit, they speak it as a second language. You don't speak that language. You don't even pass as an elementary speaker of that language. Analogously, you're more like an arrogant tourist who thinks they can just speak their own language, repeat themselves more loudly over and over and waiting for the 'ignorant' locals to finally catch on. Your language doesn't work here, Paul - you need more than 5 - 7 words to 'explain' how everything that is was produced by selection, for example, by addressing the numerous instances of rebuttals to your claims wherein every time you've just engaged in a little clown show rather than showing you should be taken seriously.
And for my final augmentative addendum, HONK HONK
by 
