A revolution in thought

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Free will has nothing to do with determinism. That's what I said Sidhe. This conversation is getting to be an embarrassment.

I think you mean repetetive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I think you mean repetetive.

No, I meant what I said. This conversation is becoming embarrassing. We have gotten nowhere, and there's no end in sight.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, that is not the reason I am saying this. If you can't understand his reasoning, or you don't have any reason to believe that his premises are correct, the only thing left if we're going to make any headway is to assume that he is right.

That is only true if you define 'headway' as moving in the direction of accepting Lessans' claims. There are certainly other ways to make progress in the consideration of Lessans' claims. One could, perhaps, insist that evidence be produced that supports those claims. If you could produce evidence, any kind of evidence, it is just possible that headway could be made in the direction of convincing people to take Lessans seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I said "temporarily". You can always reject his claims if you feel he is wrong, but not until a thorough investigation (which includes testing) is performed.

Assuming the truth of a proposition before testing it is an execellant method of introducing bias into the testing process. You have repeatedly bemoaned others's bias against believing Lessans claims, yet what you are asking people to do is nothing less than replace a bias against Lessans with a bias in favor of Lessans. Critical inquiry that assumes the presence of error is more likely to get at the truth than inquiry that assumes the absence of error.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you compare him to those who had nothing to offer instead of comparing him to those who had something to offer?

Did you ever have to write one those "compare and contrast" papers for an English class? You compare similarities and contrast dissimilarities. Lessans compares well with those who have nothing to offer and contrasts, equally well, with those who do have something to offer.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I meant what I said. This conversation is becoming embarrassing. We have gotten nowhere, and there's no end in sight.

But then you should be used to that, I mean take my wife. No take my wife.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this case, there is a point to Pacal's wager even though it has nothing to do with betting on the existence of God.

Yes, it's exactly what Angakuk wrote. What you don't seem to understand is that Pascal's Wager isn't a particularly compelling argument, especially when we've exposed so many flaws in the book. I'm more willing to spend $1 on a lottery ticket than spend the money for Lessan's book because my odds are better.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Yes, it's exactly what Angakuk wrote. What you don't seem to understand is that Pascal's Wager isn't a particularly compelling argument, especially when we've exposed so many flaws in the book. I'm more willing to spend $1 on a lottery ticket than spend the money for Lessan's book because my odds are better.

Quite if only everyone worshipped me they would see that.

Sidhe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, that is not the reason I am saying this. If you can't understand his reasoning, or you don't have any reason to believe that his premises are correct, the only thing left if we're going to make any headway is to assume that he is right.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is only true if you define 'headway' as moving in the direction of accepting Lessans' claims. There are certainly other ways to make progress in the consideration of Lessans' claims. One could, perhaps, insist that evidence be produced that supports those claims. If you could produce evidence, any kind of evidence, it is just possible that headway could be made in the direction of convincing people to take Lessans seriously.

The only problem with this is that it's difficult to simulate a new world environment on a smaller scale, but I'm sure it could be done. I think Lessans offered all that he could to mankind. It is up to scientists (not me; I've done my share) to follow up on his findings, if they so desire. If not, this discovery will remain in obscurity until the universe is ready to take it seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I said "temporarily". You can always reject his claims if you feel he is wrong, but not until a thorough investigation (which includes testing) is performed.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Assuming the truth of a proposition before testing it is an execellant method of introducing bias into the testing process. You have repeatedly bemoaned others's bias against believing Lessans claims, yet what you are asking people to do is nothing less than replace a bias against Lessans with a bias in favor of Lessans. Critical inquiry that assumes the presence of error is more likely to get at the truth than inquiry that assumes the absence of error.

The problem with this type of reasoning is that it doesn't allow for any further investigation. It stops everyone in their tracks. I have tried to answer your questions, but you don't seem satisfied with my answer, and because of that, you close yourself off. There is absolutely no progress being made in this thread. Please read the following again because it relates.

According to Richard Milton, in his book, “Alternative Science,
Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment,” “We are
living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which important new
discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and
rejected for reasons that are not scientific. Something precious and
irreplaceable is under attack. Our academic liberty — our freedom of
thought — is being threatened by an establishment that chooses to
turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from their own scientific
circles. Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the
gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has
a two thousand year record of success not because it has been guarded
by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of open-minded
experiment is worth any amount of authoritative opinion by self-styled
scientific rationalists.

The scientific fundamentalism of which these
are disturbing signs is found today not merely in remote provincial
pockets of conservatism but at the very top of the mainstream
management of science on both sides of the Atlantic. Human
progress has been powered by the paradigm-shattering inventions of
many brilliant iconoclasts, yet just as the scientific community
dismissed Edison’s lamp, Roentgen’s X-rays, and even the Wrights’
airplane, today’s “Paradigm Police” do a better job of preserving an
outdated mode of thought than of nurturing invention and discovery.
One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the
new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to
appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy
skepticism.

But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than
a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine
the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a phenomenon that
occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be
almost an integral part of the process. It seems that there are some
individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to
risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that
mark.

This book is about those scientists. But, more importantly,
it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to
prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo
subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of
ridicule and ostracism. Often those who cry taboo do so from the best
of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific
enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank
ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl
Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out
to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are
adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the
tyranny they seek to resist.

These modern skeptics are sometimes the
most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of
science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth.
And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real
crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet.
Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however
barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank.

Decline and Fall of All Evil; Introduction; pp. 7 & 8.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you compare him to those who had nothing to offer instead of comparing him to those who had something to offer?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Did you ever have to write one those "compare and contrast" papers for an English class? You compare similarities and contrast dissimilarities. Lessans compares well with those who have nothing to offer and contrasts, equally well, with those who do have something to offer.

You keep saying the same thing in different words. So where do we go from here? Another 100 pages of non-discussion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Quite if only everyone worshipped me they would see that.

Sidhe

You think you've exposed flaws in the book, which has nothing to do with actually exposing true flaws.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think you've exposed flaws in the book, which has nothing to do with actually exposing true flaws.

How would you know? You haven't read my links?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

How would you know? You haven't read my links?

I don't have to read your links to know that there is nothing in them that can negate a necessary truth.

[Vivisectus]

I find that funny, as it argues against letting a fixed, predetermined idea dominate your thinking and warp your view of reality.

Like treating this book as 100% correct, no matter how much reality contradicts it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think you've exposed flaws in the book, which has nothing to do with actually exposing true flaws.

Regardless of alleged flaws, Pascal's Wager still isn't a very compelling argument.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I find that funny, as it argues against letting a fixed, predetermined idea dominate your thinking and warp your view of reality.

Like treating this book as 100% correct, no matter how much reality contradicts it.

Vivisectus, I would never let a fixed predetermined idea dominate my thinking and warp my view of reality. It just so happens that this discovery is genuine, therefore couldn't it be all of you who have a warped view of reality but you don't even know it? I think that is the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Regardless of alleged flaws, Pascal's Wager still isn't a very compelling argument.

I don't know where the comparison to Pascal's wager started. Proof of God cannot be empirically tested, but this discovery can, so you can't really use Pascal's wager as a reason not to take a chance on this knowledge.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, I would never let a fixed predetermined idea dominate my thinking and warp my view of reality. It just so happens that this discovery is genuine, therefore couldn't it be all of you who have a warped view of reality but you don't even know it? I think that is the case.

Ah I see. It is not that the book is wrong, per se. It is just that we have the wrong kind of reality!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah I see. It is not that the book is wrong, per se. It is just that we have the wrong kind of reality!

Yes, if you believe in free will you are deluded. But we weren't supposed to know the truth until now, so don't blame yourself for having a distorted view of reality.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, if you believe in free will you are deluded. But we weren't supposed to know the truth until now, so don't blame yourself for having a distorted view of reality.

Strange though - no matter what I believe, my camera still works...

[Sidhe]

There is only one God and Muhammed is his Prophet.

Alu al akbar.

[Angakuk]

[quote=peacegirl;976841
You keep saying the same thing in different words. So where do we go from here? Another 100 pages of non-discussion? [/QUOTE]

You keep saying the same thing using the same old words. So where do we go from here? Another 100 pages of non-discussion?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to read your links to know that there is nothing in them that can negate a necessary truth.

Translation: I am not interested in learning. I am especially not interested in learning anything that might tend to cast doubt on any of Lessans' claims.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know where the comparison to Pascal's wager started. Proof of God cannot be empirically tested, but this discovery can, so you can't really use Pascal's wager as a reason not to take a chance on this knowledge.

The statement above, "you can't really use Pascal's wager as a reason not to take a chance on this knowledge" shows you don't understand Pascal's Wager or how it applies and is also an appeal to Pascal's Wager.



Although you refuse to admit it, parts of Lessans' book have already been proved false by empirical testing, it doesn't provide confidence that the remainder will survive scrutiny. This makes an appeal to "take a chance" on it even less desirable.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
Free will has nothing to do with determinism. That's what I said Sidhe.

Interisting, in the book Lessans uses determinism, (or his peculiar definition of it) to prove that man does not have free will, now it has nothing to do with it. I don't believe that Peacegirl understands everything she thinks she knows about the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Strange though - no matter what I believe, my camera still works...

Why would it not? Efferent vision doesn't change the property of light or the fact that light must strike the lens for a picture to be taken.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The statement above, "you can't really use Pascal's wager as a reason not to take a chance on this knowledge" shows you don't understand Pascal's Wager or how it applies and is also an appeal to Pascal's Wager.



Although you refuse to admit it, parts of Lessans' book have already been proved false by empirical testing, it doesn't provide confidence that the remainder will survive scrutiny. This makes an appeal to "take a chance" on it even less desirable.

Specious_reasons, there is no part of this book that has been proved false by empirical testing. The test that was supposed to prove that dogs could recognize their handler from a picture was far from reliable. What other empirical tests are you referring to?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying the same thing in different words. So where do we go from here? Another 100 pages of non-discussion?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You keep saying the same thing using the same old words. So where do we go from here? Another 100 pages of non-discussion?

Do I hear echos?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to read your links to know that there is nothing in them that can negate a necessary truth.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Translation: I am not interested in learning. I am especially not interested in learning anything that might tend to cast doubt on any of Lessans' claims.

As I said, this is a necessary truth even if you don't see it yet, so why aggravate myself with theories that do not come close to discrediting this knowledge. If Lessans is right, then it doesn't matter what links someone gives me, it cannot negate a principle that is based on natural law. Besides, Sidhe has not read the book. He has no conception of what Lessans even means when he says we don't have free will, yet he is so sure that Lessans can't be right.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specious_reasons, there is no part of this book that has been proved false by empirical testing. The test that was supposed to prove that dogs could recognize their handler from a picture was far from reliable. What other empirical tests are you referring to?

Didn't I already say that you refuse to admit it? Why bother rehashing hundreds of pages of posts only to have you refuse the evidence again?

Real time, efferent vision is false. Period. It was disproven empirically before Lessans even wrote his book. You are incapable of understanding why and it's pointless to remind you. Simply re-read this thread to remind yourself of the dozens of ways it's been proved wrong. Better yet, go read The Lone Ranger's post you have so far ignored. I will not waste more time on your willful stupidity.