A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Since when has Patrick been a "real race driver?"

--J.D.

Oh, I don't know, maybe driving a real race car, in a real race, or doesn't USAC count?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yea, right over there next to the table with the food, Peacegirl is holding them on her lap, if you're still interested. We had to find something useful for her to do.

Or you could take one for the team, and keep her from talking?

[Stephen Maturin]

Yep, and I could also scrub my own nuts with lye and cheese grater. Ain't doin' that neither. (Please, no comments about how the two options aren't mutually exclusive and might even be compatible if done in the correct order. )

Town Without Pity

And what would a 200-page party be without a touch o' the Jeff Beck?

YouTube - ‪Jeff Beck with Tal...

&feature=related

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Since when has Patrick been a "real race driver?"

--J.D.

OK, why do you think she isn't a 'real race car driver'?

[thedoc]

While we are on the subject of lye,

YouTube - ‪"It's in the...

[Vivisectus]

It is a definite fact that conscience needs a justification to hurt others. The hurt that someone experiences often leads to a lifetime of violence that can take many forms. To the average observer, it may look as if someone is just plain evil, but if you look deep enough, there is always a reason. If you can't even accept that, we have no basis for communication because all you keep saying is that if one of his pillars crumbles, his whole system falls down. Obviously.

Facts are measurable, tested, and proven. This is not a fact - it is an unsupported assertion. I have brought the same amount of support for this opinion as I brought for my opinion about fires and firemen. Just repeating it is just so doesn't make it so, and neither does the fact that your father thought it was correct. It requires support in order for someone to believe it.

I am far from invested in the subject, but I do need convincing. Convincing me will take a bit more than "because my father said so." I am perfectly willing to re-examine my ideas on this subject, but your father and you must give me a reason to do so. So far I see none. And thanks for once again accusing me of closed-mindedness without any good cause, by the way!

That's why this thread is doomed. You are now telling me I'm in denial with his first discovery, which hasn't even been discussed.

Once again - progress must mean getting people to agree, which is a dishonest goal. The goal should be to examine and assess these ideas.

I was referring to your inability to admit that your father was wrong about sight despite the fact it was clearly demonstrated to you time and time again. The first "discovery" is not something we can categorically prove or disprove, as all of the promised benefits and changes are in the future after the new system is in place.

What we can say is that it is not very well supported, and that some parts of it are to be believed purely on the authors say-so. This means that we are not given a very compelling reason to believe your father is right. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence - if I were to say to you that all disease is caused by twinkies, you would require me to bring some pretty solid evidence for that. Unless I did, you would not be willing to vote in legislature to ban all twinkies.

Without a compelling reason to believe these ideas, I don't think many people will accept this. No-one, for instance, will be willing to try out my firemen-free environment. No wonder: I have supplied no reason to believe it will work!

I wonder, as an aside, how your father, being the awesome student of the human psyche that you think he was, never noticed how grandiose and condescending the language in his book is? Would he not have spotted that this would put people off?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a definite fact that conscience needs a justification to hurt others. The hurt that someone experiences often leads to a lifetime of violence that can take many forms. To the average observer, it may look as if someone is just plain evil, but if you look deep enough, there is always a reason. If you can't even accept that, we have no basis for communication because all you keep saying is that if one of his pillars crumbles, his whole system falls down. Obviously.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Facts are measurable, tested, and proven. This is not a fact - it is an unsupported assertion. I have brought the same amount of support for this opinion as I brought for my opinion about fires and firemen. Just repeating it is just so doesn't make it so, and neither does the fact that your father thought it was correct. It requires support in order for someone to believe it.

What you used as an anology has no relationship to blame and justification. It's unfortunate that you are falsely accusing him of offering unsupported assertions. Do you think you are being objective? Isn't that supposed to be the main prerequisite for being a gatekeeper of truth?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am far from invested in the subject, but I do need convincing. Convincing me will take a bit more than "because my father said so." I am perfectly willing to re-examine my ideas on this subject, but your father and you must give me a reason to do so. So far I see none. And thanks for once again accusing me of closed-mindedness without any good cause, by the way!

The stuffy attitude in here is so upsetting because my father was as equal a critical thinker as any great philosopher or mathematician; and the fact that you, as an overseer of all things science could so easily throw this book aside, is disheartening. Something is wrong! It's not that you are closed-minded as much as being quick to judge a work that took him three quarters of his adult life to put into words. Even if you think he doesn't have what he claims to have, you need to read the book all the way through, before making the kind of statements that you have made. You have not done that. It makes a huge difference to at least see how these principles would work if they did what he claims they do.

That's why this thread is doomed. You are now telling me I'm in denial with his first discovery, which hasn't even been discussed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Once again - progress must mean getting people to agree, which is a dishonest goal. The goal should be to examine and assess these ideas.

But your assessment is false. It's based on a quick overview and it doesn't matter how many times you said you read it. You are convinced that the legs upon which his knowledge rests are just assertions. The thing that upsets me the most is that instead of people reading the book for themselves, they take what you say at face value. That's not your fault, but it damages the book's reputation nevertheless.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was referring to your inability to admit that your father was wrong about sight despite the fact it was clearly demonstrated to you time and time again. The first "discovery" is not something we can categorically prove or disprove, as all of the promised benefits and changes are in the future after the new system is in place.

No, you can't at this point because you don't have the knowledge to adequately assess the accuracy of this book. Why can't you, at the very least, carefully read the book in its entirely, at least twice? It's too many pages? It's a waste of time? I guarantee you your opinion will change. If it doesn't, or you still don't believe it's possible to create an environment where war and crime are completely eliminated, then at least you gave it a good try. But you have not given this book half a chance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What we can say is that it is not very well supported, and that some parts of it are to be believed purely on the authors say-so. This means that we are not given a very compelling reason to believe your father is right.

And what part is that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence - if I were to say to you that all disease is caused by twinkies, you would require me to bring some pretty solid evidence for that. Unless I did, you would not be willing to vote in legislature to ban all twinkies.

Correct, but there is evidence if you look more deeply into his proof. You have not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Without a compelling reason to believe these ideas, I don't think many people will accept this. No-one, for instance, will be willing to try out my firemen-free environment. No wonder: I have supplied no reason to believe it will work!

Please Vivisectus, stop using that analogy. It's absurd. We need firemen just in case there is a fire. You are assuming that when all the causes of hurt in our environment are eliminated, people will still choose to hurt others. Therefore, we need blame and punishment just like we need firemen. You have not understood this book, and won't until you give it more careful analysis.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I wonder, as an aside, how your father, being the awesome student of the human psyche that you think he was, never noticed how grandiose and condescending the language in his book is? Would he not have spotted that this would put people off?

My sister told me that people might be turned off, but I chose to put it in anyway because I wanted people to know his background. But because you didn't know him, you are seeing him in a different light than what I saw. I saw a frustrated man; you saw an arrogant man. It's all about perception. I would hope that you would desire to study the book, but this time the whole book. Look how many phrases were taken out of context. Do you see why it's necessary to read it with a fine tooth comb, and not listen to those who purposely violated his work by butchering it and making it look unrecognizable? As you read it, imagine that he actually has something of value, like Edison or Einstein, and imagine how they would have felt not being able to get their knowledge recognized. Picture them in his place, and maybe the words he used won't feel so grandiose or condescending because that was not who he was.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

OK, why do you think she isn't a 'real race car driver'?

She has won what?

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

She is the peacegirl of NASCAR. . . .

But, you know, NASCAR is a sport as much as this discussion is a scientific inquiry.







Did I mention country western sucks?

--J.D.

[LadyShea]

Peacegirl, I am willing to move on to Lessans methods in making his discoveries regarding human nature. Were they scientific? If so, then how did he collect his data? I asked you before who he observed and you wouldn't answer...who were the test subjects? How many were there? What were the confounding factors and how did he control for them or address them? Did he have a list of questions he was working from? What were they? How did he adjust for observation bias?

If he only observed within his own life and those around him, and didn't set up any controls for his observations, and didn't collect data, he wasn't doing science, he was doing philosophy.

And nobody cares how frustrated a scientist got during his research, that doesn't matter to readers...that matters to you as a family member, but it never should have made it into the book. Read any serious scientific work, even in the so called soft sciences like psychology, the researcher doesn't write letters to the President demanding an audience, or if he/she does it isn't included in their work.

Hell recently someone published an article claiming black women are objectively less attractive than white women...he caused a ruckus! However, he presented data from clinical observations.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Observation plays a role in the second and fifth steps. However the need for reproducibility requires that observations by different observers be comparable. Human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative making them difficult to record or compare. The idea of measurement evolved to allow recording and comparison of observations made at different times and places by different people. Measurement consists of using observation to compare the thing being measured to a standard; an artifact, process or definition which can be duplicated or shared by all observers, and counting how many of the standard units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces an observation to a number which can be recorded, and two observations which result in the same number are equal within the resolution of the process.

Senses are limited, and are subject to errors in perception such as optical illusions. Scientific instruments were developed to magnify human powers of observation, such as weighing scales, clocks, telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, cameras, and tape recorders, and also translate into perceptible form events that are unobservable by human senses, such as indicator dyes, voltmeters, spectrometers, infrared cameras, oscilloscopes, interferometers, geiger counters, x-ray machines, and radio receivers.

One problem encountered throughout scientific fields is that the observation may affect the process being observed, resulting in a different outcome than if the process was unobserved. This is called the observer effect. For example, it is not normally possible to check the air pressure in an automobile tire without letting out some of the air, thereby changing the pressure. However, in most fields of science it is possible to reduce the effects of observation to insignificance by using better instruments.

Considered as a physical process itself, all forms of observation (human or instrumental) involve amplification and are thus thermodynamically irreversible processes, increasing entropy.

Originally Posted by Wiki

In statistics, a confounding variable (also confounding factor, lurking variable, a confound, or confounder) is an extraneous variable in a statistical model that correlates (positively or negatively) with both the dependent variable and the independent variable. The methodologies of scientific studies therefore need to control for these factors to avoid a false positive (Type I) error; an erroneous conclusion that the dependent variables are in a causal relationship with the independent variable. Such a relation between two observed variables is termed a spurious relationship. Thus, confounding is a major threat to the validity of inferences made about cause and effect, i.e. internal validity, as the observed effects should be attributed to the independent variable rather than the confounder.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, I am willing to move on to Lessans methods in making his discoveries regarding human nature. Were they scientific? If so, then how did he collect his data? I asked you before who he observed and you wouldn't answer...who were the test subjects? How many were there? What were the confounding factors and how did he control for them or address them? Did he have a list of questions he was working from? What were they? How did he adjust for observation bias?

LadyShea, I am kindly asking you to put aside the collection of data as the only way to determine whether someone has something of scientific value. I maintain that he arrived at his conclusions not from the collection of data, but from astute observations that took him years to clarify.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he only observed within his own life and those around him, and didn't set up any controls for his observations, and didn't collect data, he wasn't doing science, he was doing philosophy.

Please stop right here. This is the real crux of the problem. You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. You've got to give him a chance, or you are the the objective gatekeeper you claim to be.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And nobody cares how frustrated a scientist got during his research, that doesn't matter to readers...that matters to you as a family member, but it never should have made it into the book. Read any serious scientific work, even in the so called soft sciences like psychology, the researcher doesn't write letters to the President demanding an audience, or if he/she does it isn't included in their work. Hell recently someone published an article claiming black women are objectively less attractive than white women...he caused a ruckus!

Maybe I was wrong in putting that in, but that doesn't change the truth of who this man was. Please...just consider the possibility that he is right and read the book with this perspective. That's all I ask.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Observation plays a role in the second and fifth steps. However the need for reproducibility requires that observations by different observers be comparable. Human sense impressions are subjective and qualitative making them difficult to record or compare. The idea of measurement evolved to allow recording and comparison of observations made at different times and places by different people. Measurement consists of using observation to compare the thing being measured to a standard; an artifact, process or definition which can be duplicated or shared by all observers, and counting how many of the standard units are comparable to the object. Measurement reduces an observation to a number which can be recorded, and two observations which result in the same number are equal within the resolution of the process.

Senses are limited, and are subject to errors in perception such as optical illusions. Scientific instruments were developed to magnify human powers of observation, such as weighing scales, clocks, telescopes, microscopes, thermometers, cameras, and tape recorders, and also translate into perceptible form events that are unobservable by human senses, such as indicator dyes, voltmeters, spectrometers, infrared cameras, oscilloscopes, interferometers, geiger counters, x-ray machines, and radio receivers.

One problem encountered throughout scientific fields is that the observation may affect the process being observed, resulting in a different outcome than if the process was unobserved. This is called the observer effect. For example, it is not normally possible to check the air pressure in an automobile tire without letting out some of the air, thereby changing the pressure. However, in most fields of science it is possible to reduce the effects of observation to insignificance by using better instruments.

Considered as a physical process itself, all forms of observation (human or instrumental) involve amplification and are thus thermodynamically irreversible processes, increasing entropy.

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OBSERVER EFFECT. YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO THIS KNOWLEDGE WHAT DOES NOT BELONG, AND IS AN INACCURATE MEASUREMENT. The unexpected result of this thread, which you have contributed to unwittingly, is that the observer effect has something to do with Lessans' observations. Are you kidding me? I really am at a loss if this is what you think.

I am not arguing the fact that empirical evidence gives us information about reality, but, once again, empirical evidence is not the only avenue to truth. LESSANS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, WHICH YOU ARE IMPLYING, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED THIS EXCERPT. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OBSERVATIONS NEED EMPIRICAL PROOF; BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS LESSANS MADE; IN FACT, EMPIRICAL TESTING COULD DISCREDITED HIM IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF THE TESTING, NOT BECAUSE OF THE INACCURACY OF LESSANS' OBSERVATION. CAN'T YOU GET THIS AT ALL, OR ARE YOU SO STAR STRUCK WITH THE ABSOLUTE ACCURACY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES. It was through astute observation (which you give no credence to), for many many years, that gave Lesasns the ability to come to these astute and accurate conclusions. These conclusions do not belong in the waste basket.

Originally Posted by Wiki

In statistics, a confounding variable (also confounding factor, lurking variable, a confound, or confounder) is an extraneous variable in a statistical model that correlates (positively or negatively) with both the dependent variable and the independent variable. The methodologies of scientific studies therefore need to control for these factors to avoid a false positive (Type I) error; an erroneous conclusion that the dependent variables are in a causal relationship with the independent variable. Such a relation between two observed variables is termed a spurious relationship. Thus, confounding is a major threat to the validity of inferences made about cause and effect, i.e. internal validity, as the observed effects should be attributed to the independent variable rather than the confounder.

Okay, so you are using this definition of empirical evidence as the only thing that could prove him right. I agree with one thing and that is empirical evidence will be the final touch THAT WILL PROVE HIM RIGHT. But you must carefully read the text in order to be in the position to use empirical evidence to determine whether he has anything to offer mankind.

[davidm]

"Observation" is empircal -- empiricism is defined by observation and experimentation. Lessans did neither. Instead he got drunk one night and pulled a lot of ideas out of his ass, then scribbled them down on a roll of toilet paper with a Crayola crayon. That's the impression I got reading his "book."

Hey, peacegirl, I have a question for you. How is it possible for the reflected light of the moon to be seen instantaneously when the sun is turned on, along with the sun itself, but not the reflected light of one's neighbor, for which one would have to wait eight and a half minutes? How is that possible, peacegirl?

Everyone sees you never answer this simple question.

I'd like to thank those who have tried to make it the party it was intended to be. We had booked Pages 200 through 209 for nothing but partying. But it hasn't worked out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"Observation" is empircal -- empiricism is defined by observation and experimentation. Lessans did neither. Instead he got drunk one night and pulled a lot of ideas out of his ass, then scribbled them down on a roll of toilet paper with a Crayola crayon. That's the impression I got reading his "book."

You did not read his book. You searched for flaws, and you found them, but the flaws were in your head because of your approach. You ruined it for yourself, let alone everyone else in here.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, I have a question for you. How is it possible for the reflected light of the moon to be seen instantaneously when the sun is turned on, along with the sun itself, but not the reflected light of one's neighbor, for which one would have to wait eight and a half minutes? How is that possible, peacegirl?

Everyone sees you never answer this simple question.

I'd like to thank those who have tried to make it the party it was intended to be. We had booked Pages 200 through 209 for nothing but partying. But it hasn't worked out.

You are a broken record. I will not answer the same question 100 times just because you think you are right. You were wrong when you said Lessans' discovery involves a modal fallacy, and you are wrong here as well. But you don't see it because you are coming from a false premise that you believe proves you right. But if the premise is wrong, it proves nothing more than your stubbornness to hear anything other than your inaccurate conclusions which are very misleading. You have become the kind of person you can't stand; a dogmatic know-it-all. I refuse to talk about this any more. Understood? P.S. The party will work out when this knowledge is accepted as being undeniably true, and we are on our way to true peace and brotherhood.

[Vivisectus]

What you used as an anology has no relationship to blame and justification. It's unfortunate that you are falsely accusing him of offering unsupported assertions. Do you think you are being objective? Isn't that supposed to be the main prerequisite for being a gatekeeper of truth?

And yet the support I asked for 3 times remains conspicuous by its absence. What would that tell you, objectively?

The analogy is there to point out that the level of support for both assertions is insufficient.

The stuffy attitude in here is so upsetting because my father was as equal a critical thinker as any great philosopher or mathematician; and the fact that you, as an overseer of all things science could so easily throw this book aside, is disheartening. Something is wrong! It's not that you are closed-minded as much as being quick to judge a work that took him three quarters of his adult life to put into words. Even if you think he doesn't have what he claims to have, you need to read the book all the way through, before making the kind of statements that you have made. You have not done that. It makes a huge difference to at least see how these principles would work if they did what he claims they do.

Here we go again. Your father was very clever, therefor the book must be right. And I am hasty, the atmosphere is too stuffy, I haven't read the book, I am this and I am that.

In fact there is something wrong with just about anyone and everything - except with your fathers book.

But your assessment is false. It's based on a quick overview and it doesn't matter how many times you said you read it. You are convinced that the legs upon which his knowledge rests are just assertions. The thing that upsets me the most is that instead of people reading the book for themselves, they take what you say at face value. That's not your fault, but it damages the book's reputation nevertheless.

If my assessment is false, then you should be able to deal with the very detailed objections I have. So far you just ignore them and repeat what a clever fellow your father was.

And tellingly, you STILL haven't admitted efferent, instant sight does not work and that your father was dead wrong about his 800-lightyear away telescope story, despite a lot of people going to some length to explain it to you.

I don't think anyone here is very influenced by what I say, nor do I see what it has to do with anything. For such a brilliant groundbreaking work it sure needs a lot of excuses.

No, you can't at this point because you don't have the knowledge to adequately assess the accuracy of this book. Why can't you, at the very least, carefully read the book in its entirely, at least twice? It's too many pages? It's a waste of time? I guarantee you your opinion will change. If it doesn't, or you still don't believe it's possible to create an environment where war and crime are completely eliminated, then at least you gave it a good try. But you have not given this book half a chance.

I have extensively studied chapter 1 and 2, and found nothing in the rest of the book major that changes what is explained in there. It remains the basis for the rest. But no matter how many times I read it, it will make no difference. If I disagree, you will just say I haven't read it enough.

And here you go again - I am too ignorant this time. There certainly seems to be a lot of things wrong with me. Aren't these kind of insults first blows by the way?

And what part is that?

As I have said many time, the part where we deal with evil. All bad deeds are a first blow or a retaliation. The removal of blame will deal with retaliation, and end those harmful deeds. The end of blame also makes justification impossible, and therefor means that we cannot strike a first blow.

Correct, but there is evidence if you look more deeply into his proof. You have not.

I have found none, and neither have you been able to point any out to me. If neither of us can find us, we might start entertaining the notion there isn't any?

Please Vivisectus, stop using that analogy. It's absurd. We need firemen just in case there is a fire. You are assuming that when all the causes of hurt in our environment are eliminated, people will still choose to hurt others. Therefore, we need blame and punishment just like we need firemen. You have not understood this book, and won't until you give it more careful analysis.

Of course it is absurd. That is the whole point. You have no reason to believe it is true. Nor do we have a reason to believe your fathers ideas about harm and retaliation.

There is a second reason why this idea is flawed, by the way. It assumes that harmful / not harmful is a binary state, not a relative concept.

My sister told me that people might be turned off, but I chose to put it in anyway because I wanted people to know his background. But because you didn't know him, you are seeing him in a different light than what I saw. I saw a frustrated man; you saw an arrogant man. It's all about perception. I would hope that you would desire to study the book, but this time the whole book. Look how many phrases were taken out of context. Do you see why it's necessary to read it with a fine tooth comb, and not listen to those who purposely violated his work by butchering it and making it look unrecognizable? As you read it, imagine that he actually has something of value, like Edison or Einstein, and imagine how they would have felt not being able to get their knowledge recognized. Picture them in his place, and maybe the words he used won't feel so grandiose or condescending because that was not who he was.

Here we go again. This book is being maliciously misunderstood. Also, I haven't studied it enough. Meanwhile I get no answers, nothing is dealt with. Just excuse after excuse after excuse. If this book is so brilliant, why does it even have 20 pages of excuses for it being universally rejected?

And I don't think perception is involved in pointing out that your father was the kind of man who comes to have his ideas evaluated by a professor that he has met for the first time, and is then outraged when the professor won't even let him explain how his own education is far superior. The proof of the superiority of his intellect? He had solved all problems with his ideas, which he is there to have evaluated!

The proof for his superiority is something that he himself has decided is perfect. You can tell the superiority must be true, because the idea is perfect. Then the excuse: people are just afraid of the idea. It isn't that your father simply made mistakes. Goodness no! He spent a lot of time on it, and as we have already proven, he had a superior education.

I have no idea what he was like in every-day life, but his writing makes him look like a self-satisfied idiot. If he was such a student of human nature, could he not have steered clear of the idiotic and overly sonorous attempts at Socratic dialogue? It sounds like someone talking to a sock-puppet with a funny voice!

He clearly thought he was infallible, that his ideas were flawless. There is no room for him to be wrong in any way, or for his ideas to be improved. If that isn't arrogant, I don't know what is.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I am reducing myself to a troll, but I beg you not to use the fact that collecting data was your standard to determine whether he has something of value. I continue to maintain that he arrived at his conclusions not from the collection of data, but from astute observations that took him years to clarify.

Please stop right here. This is the real crux of the problem. You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. You've got to give him a chance, or you are the the objective gatekeeper you claim to be.

Actually, it's Lessans' problem. Even if he used standard, accepted methodologies of observation, he certainly didn't document them. Are you wondering why he had so much difficulty with academia? That might be part of it.

The book and you often talk of Einstein, but Einstein published papers in scientific journals to reveal his discoveries. His work was vetted by his peers.

Also, you seem to think that somehow LadyShea has more influence beyond her ability to defend her position. She's not some sort of "gatekeeper" here or anywhere. I have to admit though, she has more influence on me because she makes sound, rational arguments.

We've explained it to you before:
1) We don't have to give Lessans a chance. It's up to you to make a compelling argument why we should.
2) Even though you refuse to believe it, many people did give Lessans a chance, and found it wanting.

Oh, and to keep the party attitude, one of my favorite "party" songs.

YouTube - ‪return of the living...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It would tell me that you are not considering any other method of reasoning that could help us determine what is true. No, there is no empirical data, and because of it, you are falsely conclusing he had nothing of value. This is so disgusting to me, I am having a hard time putting my head around the method in which you are determining whether he's a crackpot or not.

CATEGORICALLY WRONG VIVISECTUS!

But you have not read the book in its entirety, and you are using what everyone else says (who have not read the book) as evidence that Lessans was wrong. Is there not something wrong with this type of thinking? Be honest for a change. Please don't tell me that this is the way a scientific investigation should be pursued.

That is the worst excuse for not taking Lesans seriously as anyone could ever conjure up. I have nothing more to say.

Am I on another planet? Did I not just explain to you why your analogy was totally off; that his conclusions did not come from data collection. You cannot compare the need for firemen if there is a fire, to the need for blame and punishment if there is no crime. Can't you let go of this analogy, which is completely inaccurate, in order to move forward?

The premise is wrong, period. Only time will tell if Lessans is right, but I refuse to get caught up in this subject matter, because I will be attacked on the grounds that David is all knowing and is the epitome of the Godfather in this forum who can do no wrong.

What excuses? I am not offering excuses? I am trying my damdest to get you to realize that this knowledge is authentic. What gives me comfort is knowing that every single motion, even the discussion that is being used against him, is necessary for future progress.

There is nothing you disagree with that can't be explained. You have only given one refutation which you think discredits Lessans' entire work of 30+ years. Doesn't that raise a red flag that it is you who could be wrong???? I doubt it.

Well, join the club of someone who has been put down non-stop. I have been interrogated to the point that I feel I'm in a holding cell, so of course I will eventually throw my arms up and say, "You're all right, Lessans was wrong", just to get away from the onslaught of lies that I am being accused of. I hope you at least feel a taste of what I've been going through.

You're answer is so inadequate, I am a loss for words. How can the reader be fair to an author when he did not comply with what was asked of him? If you think that proves you are right and Lessans wrong because of your faulty synopsis, then this is not the book for you.

As I have said many times, the part that deals with evil. There is evidence as to why evil occurs, if you investigate more thoroughly. You have not.

Originally Posted by Vivisecus

I have found none, and neither have you been able to point any out to me. If neither of us can find us, we might start entertaining the notion there isn't any?

Because you did nothing of the sort. You have not investigated this knowledge at all; nada.

Please Vivisectus, stop using that analogy. It's absurd. We need firemen just in case there is a fire. You are assuming that when all the causes of hurt in our environment are eliminated, people will still choose to hurt others. Therefore, we need blame and punishment just like we need firemen. You have not understood this book, and won't until you give it more careful analysis.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Of course it is absurd. That is the whole point. You have no reason to believe it is true. Nor do we have a reason to believe your fathers ideas about harm and retaliation.

Of course you have no reason to believe the knowledge that crime cannot occur, under certain environmental conditions, because you have no idea what this discovery is about, or how it is extended into all areas of human relation, YET YOU THINK YOU DO, WHICH IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE YOU SET YOURSELF UP AS ALL KNOWING. So your answer is perfectly understandable coming from such obvious ignorance.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a second reason why this idea is flawed, by the way. It assumes that harmful / not harmful is a binary state, not a relative concept.

You can't be serious. All actions are relative based on a person's individual circumstances. He stated early on that one man's meat is another man's poison.

My sister told me that people might be turned off, but I chose to put it in anyway because I wanted people to know his background. But because you didn't know him, you are seeing him in a different light than what I saw. I saw a frustrated man; you saw an arrogant man. It's all about perception. I would hope that you would desire to study the book, but this time the whole book. Look how many phrases were taken out of context. Do you see why it's necessary to read it with a fine tooth comb, and not listen to those who purposely violated his work by butchering it and making it look unrecognizable? As you read it, imagine that he actually has something of value, like Edison or Einstein, and imagine how they would have felt not being able to get their knowledge recognized. Picture them in his place, and maybe the words he used won't feel so grandiose or condescending because that was not who he was.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Here we go again. This book is being maliciously misunderstood. Also, I haven't studied it enough. Meanwhile I get no answers, nothing is dealt with. Just excuse after excuse after excuse. If this book is so brilliant, why does it even have 20 pages of excuses for it being universally rejected?

How can I answer you when all you do is tell me Lessans is wrong. You haven't given me a question to answer. All you do is tell me he is wrong; that firemen are not a condition of fires. How crazy is that????

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And I don't think perception is involved in pointing out that your father was the kind of man who comes to have his ideas evaluated by a professor that he has met for the first time, and is then outraged when the professor won't even let him explain how his own education is far superior. The proof of the superiority of his intellect? He had solved all problems with his ideas, which he is there to have evaluated!

He said his education was far superior when he was attacked for only going to grade school. He retaliated against bigotry, don't you see this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The proof for his superiority is something that he himself has decided is perfect. You can tell the superiority must be true, because the idea is perfect. Then the excuse: people are just afraid of the idea. It isn't that your father simply made mistakes. Goodness no! He spent a lot of time on it, and as we have already proven, he had a superior education.

Nooooo, he was not putting the cart before the horse and using a false syllogism to make his ideas look perfect. That is not how it went down. No wonder you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt. You already have tried and convicted him.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have no idea what he was like in every-day life, but his writing makes him look like a self-satisfied idiot. If he was such a student of human nature, could he not have steered clear of the idiotic and overly sonorous attempts at Socratic dialogue? It sounds like someone talking to a sock-puppet with a funny voice!

I told you part of the responsibility for this dialogue is mine. Stop blaming the wrong source for the wrong thing, okay? You are judging his work like David and LadyShea, who took out of context, everything this man stood for, and then said, "See how idiotic this book is?" I hope you're not going to follow suit, but I have very little confidence that you won't.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He clearly thought he was infallible, that his ideas were flawless. There is no room for him to be wrong in any way, or for his ideas to be improved. If that isn't arrogant, I don't know what is.

I asked you to please put Lessans temporarily into a category of someone who you already know made a major contribution. Replace his name with Edison, and you might conjure up a little more compassion, and a lot less judgment as to who this man was before concluding he was a crackpot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

She has won what?

--J.D.

YouTube - ‪Danica wins ! Finals...

If you don't like NASCAR, I guess you don't like INDY cars either?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

She is the peacegirl of NASCAR. . . .
But, you know, NASCAR is a sport as much as this discussion is a scientific inquiry.

Did I mention country western sucks?
--J.D.

Perhaps you would care to define 'Automobile Racing' for me.

Did I mention, I really don't care what you think of 'Country Western'.

PS Danica drives INDY cars, not NASCAR.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I am reducing myself to a beggar, but I there is no other way than to beg you not to use the fact that collecting data as a standard to determine whether this man has something of value to offer the world.

In that case every random dude with an idea should be afforded the same amount of consideration because they just might have something to offer.

Methodology helps me determine which ideas are worthy of further review and consideration and which are not. Without knowing Lessans methodology, let alone if it was sound, he is at the same level for me as Time Cube guy, as L. Ron Hubbard, as that preacher who predicted the world would end 2 weeks ago or so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I maintain that he arrived at his conclusions not from the collection of data, but from astute observations that took him years to clarify.

Observations of who? Observations of what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop right here. This is the real crux of the problem. You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. You've got to give him a chance, or you are the the objective gatekeeper you claim to be.

I didn't say they count for nothing, I said they don't count as science. Reaching conclusions through observation and reasoning- without using controls or data collection- is a philosophical exercise.

You are asking people to turn off all of their critical thinking filters and just accept yours and Lessans statements as truth without providing me any reason to believe he was anything but a guy with an idea he thought highly of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I was wrong in putting that in, but that doesn't change the truth of who this man was. Please...just consider the possibility that he is right and read the book with this perspective. That's all I ask.

Well, if who he was is accurately reflected in his writing, then he was an arrogant ass who felt entitled to acclaim.

If who he was isn't reflected in his writing, that's not my problem, it's yours as his representative. And the problem is amplified because you are not objective about him or his work, so nobody is going to take your word for it that he was not a narcissist or a crazy person.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OBSERVER EFFECT. YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO THIS KNOWLEDGE WHAT DOES NOT BELONG, AND IS AN INACCURATE MEASUREMENT. The unexpected result of this thread, which you have contributed to unwittingly, is that the observer effect has something to do with Lessans' observations. Are you kidding me? I really am at a loss if this is what you think.

I asked you how he addressed the confounding factors including the observer effect, which is a huge part of any scientific observations.

So, he didn't address confounding factors is your answer. Noted

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not arguing the fact that empirical evidence gives us information about reality, but, once again, empirical evidence is not the only avenue to truth. LESSANS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, WHICH YOU ARE IMPLYING, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED THIS EXCERPT. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OBSERVATIONS NEED EMPIRICAL PROOF; BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS LESSANS MADE; IN FACT, EMPIRICAL TESTING COULD DISCREDITED HIM IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF THE TESTING, NOT BECAUSE OF THE INACCURACY OF LESSANS' OBSERVATION. CAN'T YOU GET THIS AT ALL, OR ARE YOU SO STAR STRUCK WITH THE ABSOLUTE ACCURACY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES. It was through astute observation (which you give no credence to), for many many years, that gave Lesasns the ability to come to these astute and accurate conclusions. These conclusions do not belong in the waste basket.

Your father is not to be held to the standards of science, he is not to be critically analyzed, and he doesn't need no stinking EVIDENCE. He was right, dammit!

Maybe we act the way we act because of dark spirits, or thetans, or because we were "educated stupid", or because we have penis/womb envy, or because we are brains in jars, or because Eve ate the fruit. Seriously, peacegirl, do you not see that without any type of empirical evidence, or data, or methodology ALL ideas are worth exactly the same consideration? You grew up with these ideas, so they don't sound like arrogant and insane ramblings to you, but that doesn't extend to the rest of us.

If you understand why you aren't a Scientologist, you might start to understand why we don't accept Lessans ideas without some kind of supporting evidence.

Okay, so you are using this definition of empirical evidence as the only thing that could prove him right. I agree with one thing and that is empirical evidence will be the final touch THAT WILL PROVE HIM RIGHT. But you must carefully read the text in order to be in the position to use empirical evidence to determine whether he has anything to offer mankind.

It wasn't a definition of empirical evidence. It was a description of a single aspect of scientific observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, I am willing to move on to Lessans methods in making his discoveries regarding human nature. Were they scientific? If so, then how did he collect his data? I asked you before who he observed and you wouldn't answer...who were the test subjects? How many were there? What were the confounding factors and how did he control for them or address them? Did he have a list of questions he was working from? What were they? How did he adjust for observation bias?

LadyShea, I am kindly asking you to put aside collection of data as the only way to determine whether someone has something of scientific value. I maintain, and will continue to do so, that he arrived at his conclusions not from the collection of data, but from astute observations that took him years to clarify.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he only observed within his own life and those around him, and didn't set up any controls for his observations, and didn't collect data, he wasn't doing science, he was doing philosophy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop right here. This is the real crux of the problem. You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. You've got to give him a chance, or you are the the objective gatekeeper you claim to be.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, it's Lessans' problem. Even if he used standard, accepted methodologies of observation, he certainly didn't document them. Are you wondering why he had so much difficulty with academia? That might be part of it.

The book and you often talk of Einstein, but Einstein published papers in scientific journals to reveal his discoveries. His work was vetted by his peers.

Lessans did not come to his knowledge through testing. It came through is amazing ability to observe and to reason what he was seeing. Why can't you see this? Why are you so blind? Einstein was in a different position. He found peers because he went to a non-profit university which afforded him the opportunity to get the reviews he needed. This was not Lessans' fate.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Also, you seem to think that somehow LadyShea has more influence beyond her ability to defend her position. She's not some sort of "gatekeeper" here or anywhere. I have to admit though, she has more influence on me because she makes sound, rational arguments.

We've explained it to you before:
1) We don't have to give Lessans a chance. It's up to you to make a compelling argument why we should.
2) Even though you refuse to believe it, many people did give Lessans a chance, and found it wanting.

Oh really? You gave Lessans a chance Specious? What did you do other than agree that Lessans was wrong about efferent vision, and he's wrong about determinism. How can I survive in an atmosphere like this, where he is imediately kicked off the playing field before he is given half a chance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can I survive in an atmosphere like this, where he is imediately kicked off the playing field before he is given half a chance.

Useing this analogy, the most Lessans has ever done is to walk onto the field and declare "I win", "Because I say so".

[Kael]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Useing this analogy, the most Lessans has ever done is to walk onto the field and declare "I win", "Because I Astutely Observe so."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I am kindly asking you to put aside collection of data as the only way to determine whether someone has something of scientific value.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In that case every random dude with an idea should be afforded the same amount of consideration because they just might have something to offer.

You cannot compare Lessans to other people, which is what you're doing with your one and only standard of determination; empirical evidence. Unless you widen your understanding of what constitutes scientific fact, you will never be able to accept that this knowledge is different than any random dude who comes down the pike.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Methodology helps me determine which ideas are worthy of further review and consideration and which are not. Without knowing Lessans methodology, let alone if it was sound, he is at the same level for me as Time Cube guy, as L. Ron Hubbard, as that preacher who predicted the world would end 2 weeks ago or so.

That is where the disconnect is. Somehow you have put him into a category of these people, and I don't know how to prove to you that he doesn't belong there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I maintain that he arrived at his conclusions not from the collection of data, but from astute observations that took him years to clarify.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Observations of who? Observations of what?

Observations of human beings and what caused them to act in certain ways. He read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire seven times. He tore up eight dictionaries just from opening and closing the book. No, this does not prove he had something genuine, but it should give you a little pause before throwing him out to pasture.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he only observed within his own life and those around him, and didn't set up any controls for his observations, and didn't collect data, he wasn't doing science, he was doing philosophy.

Please stop right here. This is the real crux of the problem. You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. Google epistemology. There are other ways to have a valid observation. You've got to give him a chance, or you are not the objective gatekeeper of truth you make yourself out to be.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say they count for nothing, I said they don't count as science. Reaching conclusions through observation and reasoning- without using controls or data collection- is a philosophical exercise.

No, 100 times no. This knowledge mathematically puts an end to war and crime. This is not a philosophical tract. This is a scientific discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are asking people to turn off all of their critical thinking filters and just accept yours and Lessans statements as truth without providing me any reason to believe he was anything but a guy with an idea he thought highly of.

I know that's what you think, and I don't know if I can penetrate this impasse, but I want you to know that he was the most critical thinker you could ever imagine. Doesn't that raise a red flag that you might have given him a raw deal before assuming that he was the likes of another Ron Hubbard?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I was wrong in putting that in, but that doesn't change the truth of who this man was. Please...just consider the possibility that he is right and read the book with this perspective. That's all I ask.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, if who he was is accurately reflected in his writing, then he was an arrogant ass who felt entitled to acclaim.

That is your perspective, which is why you are assuming he was arrogant. If you changed your perspective, which I am urging you to do, you would get a completely different picture of who this man really was. You would see him as someone who was terribly frustrated because he knew that war could be prevented, and it hurt him to no end to be refused an audience just because he didn't have the "proper" credentials.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If who he was isn't reflected in his writing, that's not my problem, it's yours as his representative. And the problem is amplified because you are not objective about him or his work, so nobody is going to take your word for it that he was not a narcissist or a crazy person.

I guess that's why you kept repeating that I was his daughter, as if this somehow lessened his credibility right off the bat. I can't change your perspective LadyShea; all I can do is ask you to stay open to the possibility that this knowledge is genuine. I am not asking you to agree unless you recognize, after careful scrutiny, that his knowledge is undeniable; as undeniable as two plus two equals four.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OBSERVER EFFECT. YOU ARE ATTRIBUTING TO THIS KNOWLEDGE WHAT DOES NOT BELONG, WHICH IS AN INACCURATE MEASUREMENT. The unexpected result of this thread, which you have contributed to unwittingly, is that the observer effect has something to do with Lessans' observations. Are you kidding me? I really am at a loss if this is what you think.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I asked you how he addressed the confounding factors including the observer effect, which is a huge part of any scientific observations.

So, he didn't address confounding factors is your answer. Noted

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not arguing the fact that empirical evidence gives us information about reality, but, once again, empirical evidence is not the only avenue to truth. LESSANS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, WHICH YOU ARE IMPLYING, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED THIS EXCERPT. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OBSERVATIONS NEED EMPIRICAL PROOF; BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS LESSANS MADE; IN FACT, EMPIRICAL TESTING COULD DISCREDITED HIM IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF THE TESTING, NOT BECAUSE OF THE INACCURACY OF LESSANS' OBSERVATION. CAN'T YOU GET THIS AT ALL, OR ARE YOU SO STAR STRUCK WITH THE ABSOLUTE ACCURACY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES. It was through astute observation (which you give no credence to), for many many years, that gave Lesasns the ability to come to these astute and accurate conclusions. These conclusions do not belong in the waste basket.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your father is not to be held to the standards of science, he is not to be critically analyzed, and he doesn't need no stinking EVIDENCE. He was right, dammit!

There is no observer effect. You are trying so hard to find flaws because he didn't find answers in the prescribed way, therefore you are are equating him with real kooks, and will prevent you from reading this work in an unbiased way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe we act the way we act because of dark spirits, or thetans, or because we were "educated stupid", or because we have penis/womb envy, or because we are brains in jars, or because Eve ate the fruit. Seriously, peacegirl, do you not see that without any type of empirical evidence, or data, or methodology ALL ideas are worth exactly the same consideration? You grew up with these ideas, so they don't sound like arrogant and insane ramblings to you, but that doesn't extend to the rest of us.

That's because you don't see his reasoning, and you have not understood the book. You are not well versed in the discovery, and you have not read the extension. That is why you cannot imagine that he could have a genuine discovery.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you understand why you aren't a Scientologist, you might start to understand why we don't accept Lessans ideas without some kind of supporting evidence.

There are major flaws with scientology. He even mentioned something to that effect in the book.

How many of
you recognized in Durant’s Mansions of Philosophy your own
wisdom, which now turns out to be ignorance? Another way of
building up one’s own feeling of superiority is by disagreeing, but the
great humor lies in the fact that the standards we used to judge
another were equally fallacious. Because 6 is closer to the answer of
the cow problem than 7 doesn’t make it less wrong, nor does a book
like Dianetics become more true because it is dedicated to Durant, or
less true because it was not accepted by psychiatry.

Okay, so you are using this definition of empirical evidence as the only thing that could prove him right. I agree with one thing and that is empirical evidence will be the final touch THAT WILL PROVE HIM RIGHT. But you must carefully read the text in order to be in the position to use empirical evidence to determine whether he has anything to offer mankind.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It wasn't a definition of empirical evidence. It was a description of a single aspect of scientific observation.

So let it remain one aspect of scientific observation, but don't cloud your thinking and assume that this is the only way to scientific achievement. That would close the door to any further investigation, which is not what anyone who is determined to know the truth, would want.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He found peers because he went to a non-profit university which afforded him the opportunity to get the reviews he needed. This was not Lessans' fate.

The kind of University attended, or even if any was attended at all, is irrelevant, Up untill recently most sciences relied heavily on amature contributions, Now Astronomy is the one science where amatures still play a major role in discoveries. Academic standing has nothing to do with having work reviewed and evaluated, Lessans failed to properly support his findings, and then tried to bully or embarrass people into approving it out of hand without any kind of review. He expected to have his ideas automatically approved because he said they were correct, and when they were not, he proceded to attack the credentials of those who would not rubber stamp his book. He was not a scientist, he was not a mathematician, He was not an astute thinker, he did every thing wrong that could possably be done wrong if he expected to get any kind of hearing. It appears he even refused to entertain any debate on the concepts, they were to just be accepted, or you didn't understand them, read the book again till you agree 100%. Lessans was an arrogant fool.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No Kael and doc. I just hope you all don't give up. If you do, at least I know I made every effort to show you who Lessans really was, and if I lost this battle, well... there are more battles yet to be won.