A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

The fact that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations is of course of CONCLUSIVE significance, as it disproves Lessans' claim that we see in real time, a claim YOU say is absolutely essential to supporting all his "conclusions."

Thus we know that Lessans is wrong about everything.

The fact that you won't address this disproof shows that you are a dishonest little And everyone knows it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are really turning into a nasty smartass bitch, you know that?

Turning into?

[LadyShea]

Yeah, she's called me nasty several times now. An I'll admit to being a smartass. :Shrug: namecalling doesn't phase me in the least.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I guess you missed my post. Mathematics is PARTLY self-provable. Have you ever heard of a non-crackpot named Godel? Or didn't Daddy homeschool you about him?

Lessans' claims are manifestly NOT deductive. Claims about turning on the sun at noon, et al, are inductive and empirical, and NOT mathematical. Therefore such claims cannot be self-proving or in any sense a priori true. They must be tested against reality. When we test them against reality, we find Lessans to be wrong.

The more you blabber on, the more your posts will be on display when this knowledge proves you wrong. What he said holds.

In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.

[davidm]

"Really turning into a nasty smartass bitch" could be a good user title.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

We've been through this already and I'm not going to defend it again. His claims remain valid. I have explained why he wrote the introduction the way he did, and if you can't get past it, then you really should move on.

There you go again taking these dialogues (which were only meant to clarify) and twisting them into something sinister. BTW, you cannot clump together "lies", "fallacies", and "poor reasoning" and then very surreptitiously conclude that he's a crackpot. Where is the poor reasoning? Where are the fallacies? Where is the circular reasoning, other than in your head? And as far as lies, he did not lie (he was a truthful man). You are trying to get people to jump on this hateful bandwagon, and for what? So you can prevent people from getting taken? If you don't believe that this book is valid, that's fine with me, but let others come to their own conclusions. Unfortunately, your suspicions are ruining it for you because, as paradoxical as it sounds, they will prevent you from grasping the very concepts you are suspicious of. You will be too busy searching for non-existent flaws.

That's your opinion, and opinions don't mean shit. You know the saying: Opinions are like assholes; we all have one.

That's not enough for you to be slandering him the way you are.

She doesn't know the difference between libel and slander.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The more you blabber on, the more your posts will be on display when this knowledge proves you wrong. What he said holds.

In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.

LOL, ignorant little fool that you are. Of course, trivial tautological truths are true, derp! Except that the buffoon was making testable, inductive, empirical claims, all of which turned out to be false.

What makes that paragraph you quote really interesting is its unintended self-revlatation. It is pure inferiority complex mixed with delusions of grandeur. It shows his hatred and resentment of those who finished school and knew more than he did and were much smarter than he was. He couldn't stand that idea. His whole book is a monument to puffing up his own ego and trying to prove he was smarter than his betters. He failed epically, and in fact just proved the very point he was trying to refute: that he was an uneducated, self-aggrandizing buffoon.

[LadyShea]

It's not defamation of either type. Critiques of written work are understood and assumed to be opinion, and therefore not false claims and not criminal, but well within free speech rights.

[LadyShea]

davidm, the world needs to know that half equals half. Right away!

[davidm]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 contains proof of its veracity. Obviously, you have to understand what these symbols mean, but this equation does contain its own proof and you don't need an expert to verify it if you understand the equation. And I am asking people not to tell me that 3 is to 6 is not what 4 is to 8. It will fall on deaf ears.

This is incorrect because the proof of the statement is verified through knowledge outside of the statement itself. Defining and verifying terms is exactly what Lessans did not do, in not providing data from which he drew his conclusions he failed to provide the basis for his claims. I could just write "@ is to * what % is to #" and without providing specific definitions for the terms the statement is meaningless. So "3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8" is meaningless unless we have agreed what the elements stand for, and that knowledge is outside the statement itself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah, she's called me nasty several times now. An I'll admit to being a smartass. :Shrug: namecalling doesn't phase me in the least.

Thats a good thing, a kind of strength that Peacegirl seems to lack.
(quote Henry)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She doesn't know the difference between libel and slander.

Right on scheduel, she has forgotten my explination from several pages-days ago.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm, the world needs to know that half equals half. Right away!

You laugh.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well you are both wrong, it doesn't matter if it is true or false what appears on the computer screen is not legally 'slander', I don't hear anything. However it may legally be 'libel' (your Liability insurance doesn't cover it) but then, as Spacemonkey says, it would need to be false, and it must not be expressed as his opinion. Spacemonkey can express any opinion he wants and it is not 'Libel'.

bump.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not defamation of either type. Critiques of written work are understood and assumed to be opinion, and therefore not false claims and not criminal, but well within free speech rights.

Not to mention that if for some reason the case were to be heard there is not a court in the land that would not throw it out because 1) they would be forced to read the book (and just reading a few passages would be enough to dissuade them from it) 2) after being forced to read Lessans book they would say that the book itself does more damage to its own credibility than anything anyone could say about it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it's a big fat lie that someone can't claim they have an undeniable truth. You're the liar now. How does it feel?

I doubt that anybody is saying that Lessans can't claim to have "undeniable truth". He is free to claim anything he likes and so can you. What they are saying is that such claims are usually a tip-off that crackpottery is involved.

When you hear a sales person you've never met before and do not know of start off with "everything I'm am telling you is undeniable truth", you do not walk away from them, you run.

I guess when Lessans wrote his book he went into his siding sales pitch mode.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The more you blabber on, the more your posts will be on display when this knowledge proves you wrong. What he said holds.

In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8.

You got us peacegirl, I will no longer insist a person's religion, talents or accomplishments changes the equality of two similar ratios.

I'm sure this bugged Lessans to no end.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The fact that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations is of course of CONCLUSIVE significance, as it disproves Lessans' claim that we see in real time, a claim YOU say is absolutely essential to supporting all his "conclusions."

Thus we know that Lessans is wrong about everything.

The fact that you won't address this disproof shows that you are a dishonest little And everyone knows it.

You can't even acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not defamation of either type. Critiques of written work are understood and assumed to be opinion, and therefore not false claims and not criminal, but well within free speech rights.

Critiquing is one thing, but falsely accusing him of being a liar is a form of defamation. You are free to speak whatever you want. We're not talking about criminality here. We're talking about what is morally right.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

I know peacegirl, it is shocking. That after nearly 30,000 posts at FF alone not to mention your many years of posting elsewhere that people do not acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

But I'm sure peacegirl that if you give it a try for another ten years that will change everything. And you and Lessans will be vindicated. And if not many will be amused and amazed and you will be another ten years closer to death have accomplished nothing when you could have been spending your time on just about anything else to greater effect. Like being treated for your mental problems.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Critiquing is one thing, but falsely accusing him of being a liar is a form of defamation. You are free to speak whatever you want. We're not talking about criminality here. We're talking about what is morally right.

Good point. In this case what is morally right is to skip all this talk of Lessans and try to get you to get help for your mental problems.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even acknowledge that Lessans had very good reasons for why he came to his conclusions.

Dodging the question about NASA again, are we, you little ?

And, no, as a matter of fact, you have yet given us a single reason why anything he said is correct, and you have yet to name a single one of his "astute observations." Assertions that he made, are not obervations. Observations are empirical, what is observed.

Now, then, peacegirl, why does NASA said spacecraft to Mars and other bodies based on deleayed-time seeing? If they used Lessans' way, they would miss their targets every time. How do you explain that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL, ignorant little fool that you are. Of course, trivial tautological truths are true, derp! Except that the buffoon was making testable, inductive, empirical claims, all of which turned out to be false.

This is not a trivial tautological truth David. Yes, he was making testable, inductive, empirical claims, which you can't just ignore no matter how much you want him to be wrong. I don't believe those calculations prove anything. We're definitely at odds, and somebody is going to lose. I don't think it's going to be me.

Originally Posted by davidm

What makes that paragraph you quote really interesting is its unintended self-revlatation. It is pure inferiority complex mixed with delusions of grandeur. It shows his hatred and resentment of those who finished school and knew more than he did and were much smarter than he was. He couldn't stand that idea. His whole book is a monument to puffing up his own ego and trying to prove he was smarter than his betters. He failed epically, and in fact just proved the very point he was trying to refute: that he was an uneducated, self-aggrandizing buffoon.

You are totally off your rocker David. Your little monologue about who he was doesn't even come close to the great man he was. Just like you did when taking the excerpts in his book completely out of context and trying to ruin his book, so too are you trying now to ruin his reputation, but you can't do it because he was not the character you are trying to portray. I knew him personally. The reason he had to write what he did is because of people like YOU!

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 10-11

Skepticism alone is not the primary problem that is preventing
this knowledge from coming to light, as everyone who hears of my
discovery would be skeptical. The main problem is the pride of those
people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very
top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in
who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even
consent to listen you must qualify not by what you are prepared to
prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank. Do
you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give
me the time even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all
mankind. This pride is the first half of the primary problem; that the
very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the
knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if
proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it
any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do,
could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and
knowledge is at stake? Just as long as these ‘experts’ are permitted to
use fallacious standards with which to judge what is true and false, that
is how long it will take to launch our Golden Age.

Have you noticed
the parallels between the Catholic Church in the middle ages with its
dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be — the clergymen even
refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see for
themselves, because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held
the absolute truth in hands, and thus needed no verification), and
today’s self-righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas;
therefore before I begin I would like to ask a question of every reader
but especially of philosophers, professors and theologians. Is there the
slightest possibility that your head full of knowledge does not contain
as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you gamble your
life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or is there just
the remotest chance that you only think you know? What is the
standard by which you judge the veracity of your knowledge and
wisdom; the fact that it was taught in college? Is your determination
of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author,
composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed
through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so
positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three
forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion
and education — the most dangerous thinking of all; the kind that
really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed but because of some
fallacious standard presumes it does, I have found it necessary to
resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope that
I can break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and reach
those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations
involved before another century passes by or an atomic explosion
destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest with yourselves; do you
really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there is just
the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the
wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite
the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I
know this is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest
possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to
yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard, otherwise,
you had better not read this book for my words are not meant for your
ears. But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage I would
like to remind you, once again, that this book is not a religious or
philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination;
it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the word God seem
incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will understand
immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical
reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and
crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe those calculations prove anything. [/I]

The Mars calculations don't prove anything? Laugh Out Loud. They prove that he was WRONG. Just like everything else we've explained to you in this thread proves he was wrong.

Dishonest little fool. Presented with proof that he was wrong, you simply lie.

Your father was a buffoon, and you are nuts. Case closed.