Patterns are not intended to do anything.
From Page 1: "These patterns solve specific design problems" "...can apply them [patterns] immediately to design problems" Yes, the very first page.
From Page 3: "a pattern has four essential elements [...] The problem describes when to apply the pattern"
Have you read the book?
A pattern does nothing. It is not intended for anything. It is an observation of how people solve the same problem.
Some obvious facts: They didn't examine a large sample of programs (how were they selected?), identify common problems (using what methodology?) and how those problems were solved. They didn't compare their "patterns" to alternative solutions they would have found in their research to those common problems. (We don't even know if their nonsense "patterns" are the most common or even if they're comparatively good solutions!)
Why is this so damn difficult for you to accept? According to the book, even the authors don't disagree with me here! "Patterns" are not based on any actual research. (They're pretty up-front about that. This shouldn't be a contentious point!) This is what you don't like --> It's just wishes and good feelings from a few snake-oil salesman who seem to think that personal experience is superior to rigor.
Why don't you like that last bit? Because you're convinced that programming is (or can be) just like engineering. It's not, obviously, but a lot of people think it should be. Nonsense like "design patterns" appeals to you because it's a simple idea (people love simple ideas) that looks like it could turn software development in to a real engineering discipline. It's the exact same scam we've seen with countless other programming fads. It's doomed to failure, of course, as unlike data structures and algorithms, "patterns" are not language agnostic, nor are they subject to the same level of examination.
Well, they are common within the set of examples
Yes, you actually wrote that. I didn't make that up.
You seem to be confusing "evidence" with "conclusions you agree with"
What? I essentially said that a few anecdotes do not constitute evidence. (In context, they certainly aren't evidence that the authors based their "patterns" on actual research!) Again, If you'd like, I'll happily offer you numerous examples of where use of GoF "patterns" has been harmful. Would that convince you that GoF patterns are harmful? After all, they show a clear "pattern" of harm "common within the set of examples" I'll supply.
What would you do with that? For the sake of argument, let's say I provided you with a long, boring, post showing ten solid examples of where use each GoF pattern has been harmful (230 examples!) Would you say that I did research and was forced to conclude that use of design patterns is harmful? Or would you say that I went out and found a few examples to fit my pre-determined conclusion? (See, this isn't complicated.)
To my point, that the authors did not base their snake-oil on actual research, that's clearly an insufficient argument. For that, I'll direct you to the GoF book, which explicitly supports my claim that the authors based their nonsense on personal experience and not actual research.