Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science
|
That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.
This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.  |
So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory? |
You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect.  |
It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off. |
And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line. |
Ya thedoc!
We'll all be in the line up against the wall when the revolution comes! |
You better get your rocks off now because you're going to be thrown out of here shortly, if I have anything to do with it.