A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you really think I care what you have to say Maturin? I could [sic] care less.

And yet ...

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;1239319]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

World leaders are sure to listen to what Waveman, who has had high school physics, says on that forum rather than what actual working physicists have to say on the matter. You should ask him if he has a brevat of truth stamp

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a brevet of truth stamp I want.
LOL

So what do you want?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any translation from one language to another can cause problems, but these can be corrected easily enough, especially when English speaking scientists begin to stamp this knowledge with the brevet of truth.

Why are you making fun of this phrase?

I just want people to explore the claim and test it against the truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you won't accept the results that show the tests of Lessans ideas fail. So it seems you don't care about the actual facts

There have been no tests that prove that Lessans' claim is false. Not even the ones you gave involving dogs.

No one is doing that because they've already made up their minds that Lessans is a quack. It's very sad because these philosophy forums are searching for the truth. If they can't even contemplate the possibility that the major scientific theories could be false, how can anyone come forward to refute those "truths" without being cast out?

If refutations come with testable hypothoses that explain observed reality well and evidence that stands up to early scrutiny, then someone might move forward with it. Lessans ideas have neither.

His ideas can be tested. This is not an unfalsifiable claim. But the test has to be accurate which means that it cannot contain confirmation bias before the test is even run.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of this is magic IF it turns out that the eyes are, in fact, efferent.

No, your explanation would remain magic even then. Presumably some coherent explanation would actually be the case, but not your word salad of magical thinking.

But we don't live in fantasy land, and vision is not 'efferent'!

Have you figured out how mirrors work yet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want people to explore the claim and test it against the truth. No one is doing that because they've already made up their minds that Lessans is a quack. It's very sad because these philosophy forums are searching for the truth. If they can't even contemplate the possibility that the major scientific theories could be false, how can anyone come forward to refute those "truths" without being cast out?

Lessans claims have been tested, major scientific theories are being tested with the aim of disproving them. Neither you nor Lessans had any real understanding of how science works, and you both have the audacity to criticize it. There is no-one who will be "cast out" for questioning an accepted theory, and no-one with the authority to cast them out. Others simply try the experiments that are claimed to prove a new idea, and report the results, even you and Lessans should have been able to understand that. Lessans fantasy world has no resemblance to the real world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You don't understand, Dragar. If the object is within our field of view, then the photons are large. Enormous, in fact. The diameter of each photon is exactly the distance between the object and the eyes of the observer. Thus, the light is simultaneously in contact with the object and at the eye.

Geez.

Now that makes perfect sense, and should even to Peacegirl.

(How does the photon know how big to get? and which retina to contact?
What if there are several people looking at once in different distances?

Araaaaagh!)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you really think I care what you have to say Maturin? I could care less.

Can you put that in terms Lessans could have understood, quantify it mathematically. (Just make sure you use really big type, and type slowly. If you write it, please do so with a crayon.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

None of this is magic IF it turns out that the eyes are, in fact, efferent. That would mean the function of light is completely different than what was originally thought, but given that the belief in afferent vision is so ingrained in the psyche of the average scientist that it's almost impossible to think any differently.

And you have demonstrated that you are so invested in your father's ideas about efferent vision that it is impossible for you to even consider that he might have been wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want people to explore the claim and test it against the truth.

No you don't. You have freely admitted on more than one occasion that you won't read information which contradicts Lessans' claims. You deliberately keep yourself ignorant of the relevant science.

The very last thing you want is an honest exploration of Lessans' claims.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Did you even read the rest of the thread? Waveman28 was the only one questioning the existence of Neutrinos, everyone else, (who seemed to be better versed on the subject) were disagreeing with him. Of course it is typical of you to accept one crackpot opinion over several opinions from people who know something about the science involved. Apparently he was echoing what his teacher believed, and having been a teacher myself, I can tell you that HS teachers don't know as much as they think they do, and they don't understand what they do know very well.

I had a math teacher in high school who insisted that fighting fire with water was the completely wrong thing to do. See water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fires need oxygen to burn and hydrogen is flamable. So spraying water on fire just feeds the fire.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you really think I care what you have to say Maturin? I could care less.

If you could care less that means that you care enough that it is possible to care less. What you meant to say (even though it really isn't true for you) was that you couldn't care less.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I had a math teacher in high school who insisted that fighting fire with water was the completely wrong thing to do. See water is made up of oxygen and hydrogen. Fires need oxygen to burn and hydrogen is flamable. So spraying water on fire just feeds the fire.

That does make sense, for someone who is completely ignorant of science and the chemical composition of materials. If you were spraying oxygen and hydrogen on the fire separately, your teacher would be correct, but it seems that the teacher has failed to understand that in compound the properties change, a lot. Just as the teachers ignorance increased when learning that water was made up of oxygen and hydrogen.

Many years ago after I had left teaching and started working in the fields I was trained to teach, I came up with a theory about the subjects being taught. Usually the teaching of a subject and the practice of that discipline in the field will diverge, and the longer they have diverged the less the teaching will resemble the practice in the professional world. I found this out the hard way when I left teaching Industrial arts (shop) and worked in a machine shop and as a draftsman. I can only guess that teaching math is long removed from doing math in the real world, hence the math teacher was far removed from reality. FYI I almost went to college to become a math teacher, I shudder to think what I might have believed on graduation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision is different than afferent vision Spacemonkey. Because of this, distance and time are not factors. Size and brightness ARE FACTORS. Stop beating a dead horse already.

Sure, distance and time are not factors. Now where does the pattern of light at the eye come from and how does it get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No you don't. You have freely admitted on more than one occasion that you won't read information which contradicts Lessans' claims. You deliberately keep yourself ignorant of the relevant science.

The very last thing you want is an honest exploration of Lessans' claims.

You want me to concede, and I'm not going to do that. I want to explore whether his findings were correct which means using his examples. One of those examples was dogs. I want to see if dogs can actually identify their master from sight alone (none of the studies have proven this) either from a picture, computer screen, or in person. If they can't, then the question arises: Why? A sense organ is the ability to receive and transmit external stimuli. If the external stimuli is familiar, the brain should be able to recognize it. What would be the point of incoming light without the ability to identify familiar faces, just like dogs are able to do identify familiar sounds, tastes and smells. Why do you keep ignoring my efforts? If you think he was wrong, then so be it. Let's just end the conversation. I don't like the position I have found myself in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure, distance and time are not factors. Now where does the pattern of light at the eye come from and how does it get there?

I give up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you could care less that means that you care enough that it is possible to care less. What you meant to say (even though it really isn't true for you) was that you couldn't care less.

We discussed this before. Thanks for the correction but I'll probably forget it again because it's so trivial and only a person who is a stickler for correct grammar would even notice.

[Spacemonkey]

Wow. Only one minute between these posts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You want me to concede, and I'm not going to do that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up.

What a colossal dingbat.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up.

Spacemonkey is willing to concede your point that distance and time are not factors in efferent vision, yet you fail to explain how the photons can be at the eye instantly in efferent vision. I'm ready to believe that you really have no idea of the mechanism that allows instant vision to occur, yet you claim that it happens, but have no idea as to how it happens.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We discussed this before. Thanks for the correction but I'll probably forget it again because it's so trivial and only a person who is a stickler for correct grammar would even notice.

If a person is a stickler for correct grammar, you would expect that they are sticklers for correctness in their science as well. You have demonstrated that you and your father are guilty of very sloppy science as well as sloppy grammar. In fact your's and your father's scientific knowledge is practically nonexistent.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You want me to concede, and I'm not going to do that. I want to explore whether his findings were correct which means using his examples. One of those examples was dogs. I want to see if dogs can actually identify their master from sight alone (none of the studies have proven this) either from a picture, computer screen, or in person. If they can't, then the question arises: Why? A sense organ is the ability to receive and transmit external stimuli. If the external stimuli is familiar, the brain should be able to recognize it. What would be the point of incoming light without the ability to identify familiar faces, just like dogs are able to do identify familiar sounds, tastes and smells. Why do you keep ignoring my efforts? If you think he was wrong, then so be it. Let's just end the conversation. I don't like the position I have found myself in.

Lessans claimed that all dogs were incapable of recognizing their masters in a photograph, yet it has been demonstrated that some dogs can do just that, and that is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to show that all dogs can recognize their master in a photograph, just a few. Granted not all dogs are capable of, or interested in doing so, but it only needs a few to disprove Lessans claim.

BTW, your current position is self inflicted, of your own making, so don't complain to us about it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to explore whether his findings were correct which means using his examples. One of those examples was dogs. I want to see if dogs can actually identify their master from sight alone (none of the studies have proven this) either from a picture, computer screen, or in person.

How on Earth would you know what the studies do and do not "prove"? [Incidentally, you're betraying 1.) your complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it's done and 2.) your fundamental dishonesty by using the word "proven" there. You've been corrected on that point many, many times before, so you can't claim ignorance.]

By your own admission, you won't read those studies, so it's fundamentally dishonest of you to pontificate about what they do or do not "prove." At best, you glance at a summary, insist that the studies are "flawed" somehow (but since you won't actually read them, you can never specify what those supposed flaws are, other than that they fail to conform to your prejudices), and blithely dismiss them as you revel in your self-imposed ignorance.

That is precisely the sort of dishonest behavior that earns you so much scorn.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1239341]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what do you want?

you wrote that, not me. I laughed because you have stated you want the brevet of truth stamp many times, and I listed them. Then you suddenly say you don't want it. And now you think I said it! You are funny.

Why are you making fun of this phrase?

Do you know what brevet means? If so, why do you keep using the phrase?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, your explanation would remain magic even then. Presumably some coherent explanation would actually be the case, but not your word salad of magical thinking.

But we don't live in fantasy land, and vision is not 'efferent'!

Have you figured out how mirrors work yet?

I answered you so why are you you asking me the same thing again? It is not magic just because you can't envision what I'm talking about. There is a pattern of light that allows us to see the outside world. This pattern has to be at the eye, or we wouldn't see the object. All you think about is traveling light which relates to time without understanding that if we are not interpreting the light (due to the way we see), time is not a factor. There is no gap between light and our eyes. We are already within the field of view of the object IF the object can be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Lessans claimed that all dogs were incapable of recognizing their masters in a photograph, yet it has been demonstrated that some dogs can do just that, and that is all that is necessary. It is not necessary to show that all dogs can recognize their master in a photograph, just a few. Granted not all dogs are capable of, or interested in doing so, but it only needs a few to disprove Lessans claim.

BTW, your current position is self inflicted, of your own making, so don't complain to us about it.

No dog can recognize their master from a picture.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you wrote that, not me. I laughed because you have stated you want the brevet of truth stamp many times, and I listed them. Then you suddenly say you don't want it. And now you think I said it! You are funny.

Do you know what brevet means? If so, why do you keep using the phrase?

It means promoting the truth to a place of honor. My father used the phrase and I'm not changing it.

I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our
world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the
mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all
the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the
Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this
law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is
unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without reservation,
that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD prophesied in
the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute necessity when this
natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with the brevet of truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If a person is a stickler for correct grammar, you would expect that they are sticklers for correctness in their science as well. You have demonstrated that you and your father are guilty of very sloppy science as well as sloppy grammar. In fact your's and your father's scientific knowledge is practically nonexistent.

By your own reasoning, your grammar is atrocious, therefore your scientific knowledge is just as atrocious.