A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the not so distant future his discovery will be the most tested book ever, and it will be proven to be 100% valid.

So, where is that one scientist who agrees with Lessans that the eye has no afferent nerve endings? I suspect that will be the first step in the not-so-distant future where Lessans is vindicated.

You better hurry up, because I hear from others that Jesus is coming soon. You don't want Him to steal Lessans' thunder.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Humans trying to interpret sheep noises is idiotic methodology. No scientists would ever be so stupid.

They use operative choice tasks in animal research to eliminate human bias and make experiments easily replicated. As has been explained to you.

Additionally, you've moved the goalpost to forcing them to recognize siblings, rather than just individual sheep. You are such a weasel.

Sheep don't forget a face : Abstract : Nature
ScienceDirect.com - Behavioural Processes - Are faces special for sheep? Evidence from facial and object discrimination learning tests showing effects of inversion and social familiarity

This abstract in no way disproves his claim. It actually supports it. If there were no environmental cues, a sheep would not be able to recognize her own baby from sight alone. I never changed the goalposts. It was always about the ability to recognize someone familiar by their individual facial features.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think that? Have you studied sheep behavior? Would a human mother react to a photograph as if it was really her child?

What if sheep evolved to not make a lot of noise about their babies because bleating and stuff is a surefire way to alert predators of their existence? What if they don't form strong maternal bonds but instead act for the good of the whole flock?

So don't use sheep. I wasn't the one that brought sheep into this conversation. Use a bear. Bears are very nurturing, and very protective. They would recognize their young from a picture if they had this ability, and they would show some kind of response.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.

Well, that was predictable. Every time someone posts a disproof of Lessans' claims that even she can't ignore, she becomes openly hostile.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes you have to see something in total perspective, which is difficult for the majority of people. How, or why, certain people get a glimpse of 'true reality' doesn't have to be explained. It just needs to be heeded. This was not the same situation with Lessans. To your dismay, he was a scientist.

Interesting. By definition, a "scientist" is someone who tests ideas and submits the results for public review.

So I've asked this many times before without getting a reply -- maybe this time will be different:

What tests did Lessans perform?
How many test subjects did he use?
What was his experimental methodology?
How did he control for bias? (Did he perform double-blinded experiments, for example?)
Did he set up control groups and experimental groups? If so, how?
What statistical methods did he use for data evaluation?
Where did he publish his methodology and results for peer review?


If you can't answer these questions, they you're lying when you claim he was a scientist.


And yes, just to reiterate what others have been pointing out to you. The retina of the eye is virtually nothing but afferent nerve endings that receive and respond to light. This is not supposition, it is direct observation and experimental results.

If only someone could write up a comprehensive outline of the anatomy and physiology of vision that you could read for yourself, you could learn such crucial information for yourself. Maybe if you ask, someone will do that for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why is recognizing a face when you get a reward for picking the right one not recognizing a face?

Because there are other cues that could be involved. An animal should not need to get a reward if he really recognized his owner's face. Some dogs don't show as much affection in general. I'm talking dogs who normally show a lot of affection to their owner. This type of dog would recognize his owner's picture immediately and start wagging his tail, especially if his owner was on a trip and the dog hadn't seen him in a week.

[Vivisectus]

]

This abstract in no way disproves his claim. It actually supports it. If there were no environmental cues, a sheep would not be able to recognize her own baby from sight alone. I never changed the goalposts. It was always about the ability to recognize someone familiar by their individual facial features.

... and which cues are these, pray tell?

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1091067]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why is recognizing a face when you get a reward for picking the right one not recognizing a face?

Because there are other cues that could be involved. An animal should not need to get a reward if he really recognized his owner's face.

No, that is something you just made up because it is convenient. You seem yo expect animals to act as if they were in bad 1960's television shows for children.

Some dogs don't show as much affection in general. I'm talking dogs who normally show a lot of affection to their owner. This type of dog would recognize his owner's picture immediately and start wagging his tail, especially if his owner was on a trip and the dog hadn't seen him in a week.

No, that is inappropriate social behaviour towards an image: it would mean the dog actually confuses an image with the real thing. When I see a picture of my wife, I do not jump up to kiss it.

We have been over this. Do try to keep up.

[Vivisectus]

So here is the new standard of evidence according to peacegirl:

Any test where it is not completely impossible for any other factor to be involved to alter the results, even if we cannot actually imagine what this factor might be, or if we cannot imagine how this factor might influence the results is not admissible, on the grounds that the chance of the test being wrong is not equal to or less than zero.

There is no need to investigate if another factor could be involved: the very fact that absolute evidence that it could not is not there is enough to dismiss the results utterly.

That is some interesting methodology there

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This abstract in no way disproves his claim. It actually supports it. If there were no environmental cues, a sheep would not be able to recognize her own baby from sight alone. I never changed the goalposts. It was always about the ability to recognize someone familiar by their individual facial features.

The study used photographs of sheep and had the subject sheep indicate a choice. They chose photographs of familiar sheep over unknown sheep at rates well above what would be expected by chance.

You are the one who introduced the familial requirement out of the blue, as a way to move the goalposts. That was never a part of the experiment

The Lone Ranger, do you have access to Nature? Perhaps you can get us the full text of this study? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...4165a0.html#B1

[LadyShea]

Peacegirl, his statements were totally and completely wrong here. So which is it...did you write that passage for illustrative purposes as you wrote the phony dialog and the line about the decline of homosexuals, and/or are you going to remove it now as you did the stuff about the decline of homosexuals, trillions of babies, and molecules of light?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said nothing about nerves making contact with receptors...WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You are weaseling by making inferences having nothing to do with what Lessans wrote. You are now claiming, in the sentence above, that he meant that no similar afferent nerve endings in the eye makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending in the eye.

Photoreceptors are afferent nerves. Light (external stimuli) makes direct contact with photoreceptors.

How could he possibly be right?

Let's break his statement down

Anything=light
Afferent nerve ending=photoreceptors on the retina

Yes, there is. Photoreceptors are afferent neurons

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The training only provides a consistent method by which researchers can ascertain the animals choice between pictures during the actual experiment. The training is not the actual experiment. It's called operative choice tasks.

As a human, if you were in a study in which you needed to choose between two pictures, in what ways might you indicate your choice? Pointing? Clicking a button? Saying A or B or saying 1 or 2? Writing down "right" or "left" on a piece of paper?

Would you expect a scientific study to involve researchers trying to ascertain your choice from your facial expressions?

Interpreting an animal's sounds and body posture is not consistent from one researcher to another, nor is it measurable or duplicatable. Touching a picture with its nose, pressing a button, etc. is consistent and measurable.

What are you not getting?

Bump

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have never claimed that we have both free will and no free will. This is not what compatibilists believe. As I have repeatedly corrected you on this point, your continuing to make this claim is another lie. Stop lying, Peacegirl.

You prove my point yet again. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs.

What put downs? Everything I just said is entirely true. You went for months at a time deliberately and quite openly ignoring and evading my questions. I also just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. Did you answer them? No! You weaseled and evaded them. As you always do. Stop lying.

I have not admitted that I am wrong about my reasoning ability. I simply never made or held the ludicrous claims/views you attributed to me. Everyone but you has the reasoning ability to see the gaping flaws in your father's work.

There's another blatant lie. I gave you two sincere and intelligent questions relating to the book, and you purposefully evaded them instead of answering them. You still have not even tried to answer them.

Another fallacious appeal to consequences. And you haven't given me any reason for thinking that compatibilism is wrong. Saying that free will and determinism are not compatible is not to give a reason for rejecting compatibilism - it just is a rejection of compatibilism. At no point have you shown any mistaken conclusion on my part.

You constantly lie in your replies because you don't like my style? What kind of ridiculous excuse is that? And if you want respect then you need to earn it. Not lying would be a good start.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Lie #1:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded, weaseled, or ignored anything.

Lie #2:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignored your questions.

Question #1:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

Weaseling Evasion #1:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

Question #2:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How could it be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles?

Weaseling Evasion #2:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

You also owe me an apology for falsely accusing me of having "definitely 100%" contradicted myself, when the alleged contradiction (that we can have free will and no free will) is something that I have never once stated or implied.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Fuck off LadyShea, you are so wrong it's a disgrace to the scientific community if there is anyone left who truly depends on the absolute truth of scientific inquiry.

The closer the truth someone gets, the more hostile Peacegirl gets.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO IT DOES NOT SHOW THAT THERE IS A DIRECT CONNECTION BETWEEN AFFERENT FIBERS AND INSTANT RECOGNITION. YOU ARE LOST VIVISECUS. I REFUSE TO TALK TO YOU ANYMORE UNLESS YOU GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO ME.

Did you notice that the closer someone gets to the truth, the more hostile, and loud, Peacegirl gets?

[naturalist.atheist]

In peacegirl's universe afferent vision only works for right side up faces.

Face Blindness, part 1 - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Man, just look at those goalposts fly!


Remember how peacegirl said that if somebody invented an artificial eye that allowed a person to see, she'd admit that Lessans was wrong about how we see? When we pointed out that this has already been done, she claimed that this doesn't count because the image-quality is (currently) low, and therefore this isn't really seeing. Then, of course, she promptly changed the subject.

Good times, good times!

You say it's been done, so show me how a person can see by just receiving impulses. I remember someone who was blind saying that it's like picturing a shape of some sort, similar to someone drawing on a person's back. I don't call that true vision.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You say it's been done, so show me how a person can see by just receiving impulses. I remember someone who was blind saying that it's like picturing a shape of some sort, similar to someone drawing on a person's back. I don't call that true vision.

What if you could recognize a face by using it?

[Vivisectus]

And yet, the whole thing is so wonderfully fool-proof... as long as you have a reason to fool yourself.

Is there evidence to the contrary? Simply demand it to be proof, that is to say, demand that it is impossible to even imagine it to be wrong.

Is it something in the book? Then simply demand it to be accepted as true even if the evidence is to be supplied by tests that have not been done yet! Anything less than that is a clear sign of bias / malice / stupidity.

Let us not forget: in order to progress in the "divine knowledge" we need to accept the basic principles. In other words, we need to agree that Lessans is right - faillure to do so means we cannot progress to the next stage, where we get to agree that Lessans is even more right!

Any objections are merely the result of not reading properly. Or Bias. Or just plain meanness. There is no way, no way at all, that the book was witten by a self-satisfied but rather ignorant buffoon. A well-meaning one no doubt, but still someone who was much more interested in playing the great philosopher slash oracle than he was interested in actual truth. If he was, he would have bothered to actually check his facts - or maybe even test his ideas!

And to top it all off - he forgot to include any reason to believe conscience works the way he claimed it did... and carried on as if this was not even required. When I read over his book, I am inclined to think he did not even notice this was the case. The most crucial part of his whole system he left as a completely unsupported assertion, a mere claim... and then carried on as if he had established it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Wonderful. You simply decide that other people have to supply proof, but that you yourself can merely claim things and expect people to believe you without even making a case for your point, and you can make yourself believe you have the best thing since sliced bread. It is a way of thinking that is absolutely reality-proof.

[naturalist.atheist]

This works by taking information from the outside and sending it towards the brain, or what would be called efferently. The brain is not looking out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ght-blind.html

Bionic eye implant switched on | Science Wire | EarthSky

BrainPort Helps Blinded Soldier See With Tongue

This article goes into the plasticity of the brain.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...ee-your-tongue

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't have free will and no free will Spacemonkey, and that's what the compatibilists believe. Since you're a compatibilist I say you are contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have never claimed that we have both free will and no free will. This is not what compatibilists believe. As I have repeatedly corrected you on this point, your continuing to make this claim is another lie. Stop lying, Peacegirl.

So tell me what they believe and how they are able to combine free will and determinism into a neat little package with a bow on top?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just pissed because you're wrong and you can't accept it. Don't play this game that you're genuinely concerned about me. It's such a bunch of crap, I could throw up. I just hope people see through you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You prove my point yet again. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs.

Again, you're lying Spacemonkey. You just can't stand that Lessans could be right, and that this not faith based on my part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't talk to you about the book if you don't stop the put downs.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What put downs? Everything I just said is entirely true. You went for months at a time deliberately and quite openly ignoring and evading my questions. I also just presented you with two sincere questions related to the book. Did you answer them? No! You weaseled and evaded them. As you always do. Stop lying.

I will continue to skip over your posts unless the questions are pertinent and don't relate to my mental health.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's good that you can admit you may be wrong about your reasoning ability when it comes to this topic. I just hope you continue to remain humble.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I have not admitted that I am wrong about my reasoning ability. I simply never made or held the ludicrous claims/views you attributed to me. Everyone but you has the reasoning ability to see the gaping flaws in your father's work.

What ludicrous views; that you're no Socrates?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignored your questions. I will ignore you if you accuse me of being insane, or you ask me one more time why am I still here?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There's another blatant lie. I gave you two sincere and intelligent questions relating to the book, and you purposefully evaded them instead of answering them. You still have not even tried to answer them.

Until you treat me with respect, I will not answer anymore of your questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's right, you have drawn mistaken conclusions regarding the truth of compatibilism. I have identified the mistakes. Man does not have any free will, even though nothing can make him do anything against his will. He can choose, but his choices are not free. Compatibilism is wrong because free will and determinism are not compatible. It's either one or the other, and determinism wins. What are you so afraid of if man's will is not free? This knowledge is the answer to world peace, so why are you so up in arms?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Another fallacious appeal to consequences. And you haven't given me any reason for thinking that compatibilism is wrong. Saying that free will and determinism are not compatible is not to give a reason for rejecting compatibilism - it just is a rejection of compatibilism. At no point have you shown any mistaken conclusion on my part.

My knowing that determinism is true has nothing to do with appeal to consequences. You haven't understood a word of this thread. Compatibilism might be better than the belief in free will, but it's still wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't like your style, that's why...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You constantly lie in your replies because you don't like my style? What kind of ridiculous excuse is that? And if you want respect then you need to earn it. Not lying would be a good start.

Again, you are talking nonsense. You don't ask any direct questions without a dig somewhere in your post about my mental state or my lying. As long as you keep doing this, you'll get the same non-response.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet, the whole thing is so wonderfully fool-proof... as long as you have a reason to fool yourself.

Is there evidence to the contrary? Simply demand it to be proof, that is to say, demand that it is impossible to even imagine it to be wrong.

Is it something in the book? Then simply demand it to be accepted as true even if the evidence is to be supplied by tests that have not been done yet! Anything less than that is a clear sign of bias / malice / stupidity.

Let us not forget: in order to progress in the "divine knowledge" we need to accept the basic principles. In other words, we need to agree that Lessans is right - faillure to do so means we cannot progress to the next stage, where we get to agree that Lessans is even more right!

Any objections are merely the result of not reading properly. Or Bias. Or just plain meanness. There is no way, no way at all, that the book was witten by a self-satisfied but rather ignorant buffoon. A well-meaning one no doubt, but still someone who was much more interested in playing the great philosopher slash oracle than he was interested in actual truth. If he was, he would have bothered to actually check his facts - or maybe even test his ideas!

And to top it all off - he forgot to include any reason to believe conscience works the way he claimed it did... and carried on as if this was not even required. When I read over his book, I am inclined to think he did not even notice this was the case. The most crucial part of his whole system he left as a completely unsupported assertion, a mere claim... and then carried on as if he had established it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Wonderful. You simply decide that other people have to supply proof, but that you yourself can merely claim things and expect people to believe you without even making a case for your point, and you can make yourself believe you have the best thing since sliced bread. It is a way of thinking that is absolutely reality-proof.

I don't care if you believe that this knowledge is true or not Vivisectus. You have given your best shot to intimidate me, but you can't. You have given your best shot to make him look foolish, but you have failed. You have tried to portray him as an arrogant individual, but it won't work. These were not unsupported assertions as you keep saying. You don't even know what the two-sided equation is, yet you said you read the book. That is a bunch of baloney. You don't even understand his explanation of how conscience works, yet you tell me he's wrong. These were astute perceptions by an unusually talented man. That's why you can't stand it. You don't want to give him any credit because you don't want to be wrong about him. I don't know how you will feel when you find out that this discovery is valid. He was so not arrogant or out to play someone he was not, that you again are completely and utterly off base. I am not surprised by anything that comes out of your mouth.

[naturalist.atheist]

Poor peacegirl. Her mental illness will not allow her to understand what everyone else has been trying to tell her for many years now. And until she gets treatment she will probably never see it. Her paranoia will keep her going on this silly quest of her's till the day she dies.

Get help peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So tell me what they believe and how they are able to combine free will and determinism into a neat little package with a bow on top?

I did. I can repeat it for you, but first I need to to retract your false accusation that I "definitely 100%" contradicted myself. That was not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you're lying Spacemonkey. You just can't stand that Lessans could be right, and that this not faith based on my part.

And now you're projecting again. Others are pointing out your blatant lies, so you figure the best way to defend yourself is to make the same accusation against others. Yet while we quote and document your lies, your accusations remain wholly unsupported and baseless. Many of us are genuinely concerned about your mental health, but you can't face up to the fact that your own behavior consistently and without exception convinces other people you are unwell, so you convince yourself that our concerns are not genuine. It is an obvious self defense mechanism, designed - like everything else you do - to allow you to cling on to your faith at all costs. I have not lied to you. You now owe me two apologies - one for wrongly saying I had contradicted myself, and one for calling me a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will continue to skip over your posts unless the questions are pertinent and don't relate to my mental health.

My two questions were pertinent and did not relate to your mental health. Yet you skipped them anyway. You skipped them because you have no interest in answering the intelligent questions you keep asking for. You evaded the questions, then lied about never having done so, and now you are making post hoc excuses for your evasion and dishonesty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What ludicrous views; that you're no Socrates?

No. That I am or ever thought I was.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you treat me with respect, I will not answer anymore of your questions.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. If you want to be respected, then you need to stop lying and evading, and start answering the questions you are presented with. I gave you two sincere and intelligent questions relating to the book, and you purposefully evaded them instead of answering them. You still have not even tried to answer them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My knowing that determinism is true has nothing to do with appeal to consequences. You haven't understood a word of this thread. Compatibilism might be better than the belief in free will, but it's still wrong.

You still haven't given me any reason to think that compatibilism is wrong. Your fallacious appeal to consequences was in your last post where you said: "This knowledge is the answer to world peace, so why are you so up in arms?". Stop projecting your lack of comprehension onto me, and try supporting your own claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, you are talking nonsense. You don't ask any direct questions without a dig somewhere in your post about my mental state or my lying. As long as you keep doing this, you'll get the same non-response.

All anyone gets from you is non-responses, no matter how they approach you. I'll stop accusing you of lying when you actually stop lying to me. Deliberately avoiding and evading questions, then claiming in the next post that you have never evaded anything is simply not honest. When you do this you are lying. I asked you why you do this, and you said it is because you don't like my style. That is a ridiculous excuse for lying to us. If you want people to think you are honest and sane, then a good start would be to directly and honestly answer the questions people ask of you. I gave you two sincere, relevant, and intelligent questions related to the book, yet you have still done nothing but evade them. You haven't even tried to answer these questions. All you can do is try to shift your responsibility by placing the blame on the attitude of those asking the questions.

[Vivisectus]

I don't care if you believe that this knowledge is true or not Vivisectus. You have given your best shot to intimidate me, but you can't.

Intimidate? Far from it! You are an ongoing source of slightly morbid fascination to me, and in return I get you the attention you crave. I thought we were on to a win-win here.

You have given your best shot to make him look foolish, but you have failed.

Perish the thought I should waste your time with my amateurish attempts at making you look foolish! I would blush to do so in front of such a master at the art. That would be like playing 3 blind mice to Bach.

You have tried to portray him as an arrogant individual, but it won't work.

In Dutch we have a saying that describes the task of making your dad look arrogant. We call such things "Carrying water to the sea".

These were not unsupported assertions as you keep saying.

Oh good! Then please let me know why I should assume that conscience works the way the book says.

You don't even know what the two-sided equation is, yet you said you read the book. That is a bunch of baloney. You don't even understand his explanation of how conscience works, yet you tell me he's wrong.

Oh but I do. According to the book, without the knowledge that blame would follow, a person can justify doing a bad deed that is not a retaliation in the new environment. This would mean it could never be the preferred option.

However, the author seems to have forgotten to include any reason for us to assume he was correct.

These were astute perceptions by an unusually talented man.

I fully realize that is how he wanted people to see him. In fact he spends a considerable amount of ink explaining what a very clever and learned fellow he is. Unfortunately for him, he seems not to have been the sharpest tool in the shed. I would expect a brighter person to notice he forgot to make a case for his own conclusions.

That's why you can't stand it. You don't want to give him any credit because you don't want to be wrong about him.

I just find it really funny. It would be rather sad if he wasn't so utterly convinced of his own genius, but fortunately he feels compelled to overcompensate for his own ignorance on every page. Because of this, I don't feel terribly sorry for him.

And why should I? He never, ever even notices the enormous blunders he makes but just happily, sanctimoniously and, when it comes to love and sexuality, rather creepily bumbles on, blissfully unaware of how stupid he makes himself look.

I can see a real future for this book as a sort of ironic take on woo, self-help books and the vanity of cult-leader wannabes. We would have to shorten it a bit and give it a bit more pace and zing, but I am sure it could be done. The material is pure comedy gold.

I don't know how you will feel when you find out that this discovery is valid.

Ah yes! All the unbelievers will be sorry when they don't get to go to heaven huh? Do you notice that your vindication does not take place in this life, but requires a different one? In this reality, that does not happen because the book is full of nonsense.

He was so not arrogant or out to play someone he was not, that you again are completely and utterly off base.

Some sentence you've got there!

All I can go in is what he wrote, and his writing is that of a man who wants to be a great sage and scholar, who is too ignorant to notice he is neither and that he does not understand what science or philosophy entail, and who then makes himself a laughing-stock by convincing himself he is an absolute genius at both, lauding himself in lofty terms and putting on the airs of one dispensing eternal wisdom. In short: a buffoon. A harmless one, and a well-meaning one, but a buffoon nevertheless. And most certainly an arrogant one.