A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Who was observed? What exactly was observed? When and for how long and under what conditions? Where were the observations recorded? What were the control methods? What were the confounding factors and corrections for them? Who reviewed the data and methodology?

Oh, everything came out of Lessans head, that's right. Yeah, what critical thinker would have any trouble accepting that over actual experiments that have undergone a peer review process? How ironical!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who was observed? What exactly was observed? When and for how long and under what conditions? Where were the observations recorded? What were the control methods? What were the confounding factors and corrections for them? Who reviewed the data and methodology?

Who was observed? The dog. What exactly was observed? The dog was being observed as her name was called to see if she could hear as well as recognize her master's face on the screen. When? Before her daily walk with her master. Under what conditions? Under familiar conditions. Where were the observations recorded? It was an informal observation so the observations were not recorded but that doesn't negate the accuracy of the observations. What were the confounding factors and corrections for them? There were no confounding factors that would cause an obvious error in the conclusions drawn. Who reviewed the data and methodology? No one reviewed the data because it was informal, but this could easily be made into a carefully controlled experiment with reliable methodology that is replicated to ensure accuracy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh, everything came out of Lessans head, that's right. Yeah, what critical thinker would have any trouble accepting that over actual experiments that have undergone a peer review process? How ironical!

I believe a critical thinker would question a poorly run experiment done only one time. And a peer review process is only as good the individuals doing the reviewing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And a peer review process is only as good the individuals doing the reviewing.

So now recognized experts in a field are not good enough to do an honest peer review, but some uneducated pool hustler with a get rich sceme, based on a book of fictiion to sell, is more qualified to make scientific observations, becaquse the 'experts' are just trying to protect what they already know through rigorous experiments and controlled observations.

[LadyShea]

Sorry I wasn't clear

Who was observed by Lessans? What exactly did Lessans observe? When and for how long and under what conditions did he make these observations? Where were the observations recorded by Lessans? What were the control methods Lessans used? What were the confounding factors and corrections for them Lessans determined? Who reviewed Lessans data and methodology?

[LadyShea]

I believe a critical thinker would question a poorly run experiment done only one time.

That's not how it works. One set of scientists does their experiment, submits it for peer review and publication, and then if it's published (not guaranteed) other scientists read it. If they think it's interesting, flat out wrong, or biased, or that the methodology could be improved then they might try to replicate the results themselves. Maybe they use more test subjects, or slightly different methods, or try to correct what they saw as confounding factors, or try to prove the original researchers wrong. Their results will then be submitted for peer review and publication and so on.

You don't have the same scientists running the same experiments multiple times.

And a peer review process is only as good the individuals doing the reviewing.

Trained professional scientists who are scrutinizing methodology. It's not perfect, but it's better than no methodology and no peer review and no published data that other scientists can review and attempt to replicate and/or disprove.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They might have seen a difference in objects efferently. They did not have to recognize a face. That would indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain , but this has not been proven.

Why would recognizing a face "indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain"? That's a strange conclusion to jump to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You show me where I recalculated the speed of light and I'll eat my words.

You didn't recalculate it yourself, you said it would need to be recalculated to account for the distances to various objects in the universe

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you trying to defame Lessans?

I'm not trying to "defame" him, LOL I am trying to demonstrate the many, many problems found within his ideas. These problems need to be addressed if you want anyone to take him or you seriously.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so far fetched it's laughable

But germinal substance, eternal consciousness, instantaneous communication, and no people with bad personalities are totally not a laughing matter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep putting me down, but you are the one that offered these experiments and now you're trying to save face. Let it go LadyShea. You're not going to win.

Where did I "put you down"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hello? And you don't think this is conjecture on your part; no different than what people are accusing Lessans of? Give me a break.

It is conjecture, hence my use of the qualifiers "pretty sure", "might" and "of some kind".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Continue with your conjectures. It has no bearing on this discussion or on these claims.

Sure it does. These are all bits and pieces of evidence that suggest Lessans was wrong about dog's congitive ability and how they use sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This post proves absolutely nada.

It proves you are not even remotely objective.

Not a thing in these experiments proved Lessans wrong.

Prove? Nope. Suggest or indicate? Yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are blind in this respect because of your total allegiance to empirical testing, which is not always right, and you will go to any lengths to protect what is clearly inaccurate.

And you are blind to reality because of your total allegiance to Lessans and will go to any lengths to protect his assertions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sorry I wasn't clear

Who was observed by Lessans? What exactly did Lessans observe? When and for how long and under what conditions did he make these observations? Where were the observations recorded by Lessans? What were the control methods Lessans used? What were the confounding factors and corrections for them Lessans determined? Who reviewed Lessans data and methodology?

LadyShea, this is getting ridiculous. How many times do I have to say that he did not use this methodology. He was an observer of life. If you hold that against him, we can forget making an ounce of progress. There has to be some letting go of your hard nosed line on how "truth" can be found out. If I'm observing something that exists and I am describing what I am observing, that does not necessarily require more proof to be correct in my observations. I have also said that these observations can be proved empirically, which is the ultimate test of validity. If these principles don't work in real life, then that would prove that he was wrong, and only then.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not how it works. One set of scientists does their experiment, submits it for peer review and publication, and then if it's published (not guaranteed) other scientists read it. If they think it's interesting, flat out wrong, or biased, or that the methodology could be improved then they might try to replicate the results themselves. Maybe they use more test subjects, or slightly different methods, or try to correct what they saw as confounding factors, or try to prove the original researchers wrong. Their results will then be submitted for peer review and publication and so on.

You don't have the same scientists running the same experiments multiple times.

Trained professional scientists who are scrutinizing methodology. It's not perfect, but it's better than no methodology and no peer review and no published data that other scientists can review and attempt to replicate and/or disprove.

That's all well and good if an experiment is duplicated, tweaked, or given tighter controls, etc., but at some point these premises have to be considered axioms otherwise we are stuck. No progress can be made. I will repeat that this knowledge can be tested in real life, but to just keep challenging his findings without any interest in how these principles extend, is unfortunate. But that's what is happening.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to start this way otherwise we are stuck and there is absolutely no progress being made. I will repeat that this knowledge can be tested in real life, but to just keep challenging his findings without any interest in how these principles extend, is unfortunate. But that's what is happening.

There is no progress being made because there is no progress to be made. If Lessans ideas are false (and they almost certainly are), who cares how these principles extend?

We're challenging these ideas because we think they are unsupported, probably useless, and most importantly, likely false.

[LadyShea]

I have also said that these observations can be proved empirically, which is the ultimate test of validity. If these principles don't work in real life, then that would prove that he was wrong, and only then.

"Can be tested" vs. "Has/Have been tested and here are the results". Most any idea, no matter how implausible, "can be tested", and so that phrase is meaningless. Results are what matter and you have none.

The principles didn't seem to work in your own marriage, and you apparently chose not to "test them" with your own kids...you didn't even explain the foundational no free will concept to them. So, why should we think they work in "real life" when they didn't work in your life?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

There is no progress being made because there is no progress to be made. If Lessans ideas are false (and they almost certainly are), who cares how these principles extend?

We're challenging these ideas because we think they are unsupported, probably useless, and most importantly, likely false.

But with all that has been used against him, you are not correct. What more can I say?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Can be tested" vs. "Has/Have been tested and here are the results". Most any idea, no matter how implausible, "can be tested", and so that phrase is meaningless. Results are what matter and you have none.

The principles didn't seem to work in your own marriage, and you apparently chose not to "test them" with your own kids...you didn't even explain the foundational no free will concept to them. So, why should we think they work in "real life" when they didn't work in your life?

I AM LIVING IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT LADYSHEA. THAT IS AN ACCUSATION THAT HAS NO MERIT WHATSOEVER. I AM HUMAN AND AM REACTING TO THE CONDITIONS OF MY ENVIRONMENT. DON'T YOU GET THIS AT ALL?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I AM LIVING IN A FREE WILL ENVIRONMENT LADYSHEA.

Either 'Man has free will' or 'Man does not have free will', What man believes is irrevelant. "Free Will Environment" is meaningless nonsense, only your excuse for the failure of the principles in your life. Lessans could not prove that Man had no free will and neither can you, but it either is or isn't, what we believe or can prove will not change it. All that is claimed or asserted is useless till it can be proved or demonstrated, and none of Lessans claims have any foundation in reality at this time. Many of his claims have been demonstrated to be false, to everyone but one and you are hardly qualified to validate any of them. Perhaps your prayers are not sincere, It is said 'If you have the faith of a grain of mustard seed you can move mountains', you haven't moved anything yet, might be a clue as to just how much you believe what you are saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They might have seen a difference in objects efferently. They did not have to recognize a face. That would indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain , but this has not been proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would recognizing a face "indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain"? That's a strange conclusion to jump to.

Are you being serious?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Says the person who thinks we need to recalculate the speed of light to fit her conclusions.

I never said anything about the speed of light.

You show me where I recalculated the speed of light and I'll eat my words.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't recalculate it yourself, you said it would need to be recalculated to account for the distances to various objects in the universe

Only when it comes to the brain and how it works. If there is no calculation necessary, then the speed of light stands. I am not disputing anything other than how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you trying to defame Lessans?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm not trying to "defame" him, LOL I am trying to demonstrate the many, many problems found within his ideas. These problems need to be addressed if you want anyone to take him or you seriously.

I'm doing the best I can against the tide of anger and disbelief.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so far fetched it's laughable

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But germinal substance, eternal consciousness, instantaneous communication, and no people with bad personalities are totally not a laughing matter.

You are doing what you can't stand in other people. You are making me look stupid, using my words incorrectly, and laughing at what you don't understand. You sound like a fundamentalist atheist to prove you're right no matter what.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I picked 5 studies from the first page of a Google search. I don't think any of them are conclusive, merely indicative of the larger body of knowledge available. That you even expect "proof" from a few web links posted by a layperson is very telling of your mindset.

I went through the entire Google, and none of them had one replicated study. Not one. And you think this is good science? Obviously, only those studies that are defying conventional wisdom will show up. It proves nothing whatsoever. I am surprised at you coming from a science background.

You keep putting me down, but you are the one that offered these experiments and now you're trying to save face. Let it go LadyShea. You're not going to win.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I "put you down"?

Don't act all innocent LadyShea. Just let it go. I'm not into this bickering.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pretty sure that if one intensely researched the issue (which requires access to peer reviewed scientific journals and a thorough understanding of scientific methodology and lots of time) one might reach a well supported conclusion of some kind.

I care less about peer review. I want to see proof, not someone's opinion because of his rank.

Hello? And you don't think this is conjecture on your part; no different than what people are accusing Lessans of? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is conjecture, hence my use of the qualifiers "pretty sure", "might" and "of some kind".

Okay, at least you are qualifying what you are saying. Think about that next time you claim in no uncertain terms that Lessans is wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have not intensely researched the issue, but that in 30 seconds with Google I can find multiple studies indicating dogs can recognize photographs, facial expressions (which would show that facial features are also recognized) and differentiate between landscapes, I lean towards thinking that dogs can, in fact, recognize their masters faces. I additionally believe that further study would lead me to conclude that.

Continue with your conjectures. It has no bearing on this discussion or on these claims.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure it does. These are all bits and pieces of evidence that suggest Lessans was wrong about dog's congitive ability and how they use sight.

It is so obvious to me that these experiments are inadequate. If you don't see that, you are totally brainwashed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were brought up distrusting - even disrespecting- the scientific process in favor of your own uncontrolled, undocumented "observations", so I doubt you can ever objectively look at anything that might cast doubt on Lessans claims of absolute truthiness. This post proves it.

Let's take a poll. Let's see if everyone is as brainwashed as you when we ask them if they ever saw their dog recognize a picture of them. Let's be real here instead of depend on fake experiments that conclude what the experimenter wants the conclusion to be.

This post proves absolutely nada.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It proves you are not even remotely objective.

Not a thing in these experiments proved Lessans wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Prove? Nope. Suggest or indicate? Yes.

And you actually give credit to these shoddy experiments over real observations that are repeatable?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are blind in this respect because of your total allegiance to empirical testing, which is not always right, and you will go to any lengths to protect what is clearly inaccurate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you are blind to reality because of your total allegiance to Lessans and will go to any lengths to protect his assertions.

No, only reality matters to me. It doesn't matter that he happened to be my father. You are the one that is totally in denial based on experiments that you happened to pull off of Google. How shoddy is that?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But with all that has been used against him, you are not correct. What more can I say?

Again, you can only assert this, and your defense of the book is even more confused than the text. I'm really sorry peacegirl, but if I thought Lessans' book had any merit, I'd consider them, but I honestly think the book is at best useless.

[LadyShea]

All you have offered, in all these months and posts her at and in all these years on the web, peacegirl, is your belief in Lessans unsupported assertions. It's simply not enough, as you have found out over and over again.

Since nobody here looks to even be slightly moved in the direction of supporting Lessans ideas, why are you continuing to argue? Do you think you are going to convince anyone that still happens to be reading this thread? Do you think some newbie is going to come along that might have a different mindset?

You took the book offline, you've tried to address everyone here to the best of your ability, and it ain't going your way. Time to try something else, seriously. Get to work marketing the book and creating your own website. is probably a lost cause.

[Stephen Maturin]

Maybe it's time. I mean, it's not as though anyone in this thread ever said "if efferent vision is correct, the speed of light would have to be recalculated" or anything. A statement like that would really turn this thread into a .

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But with all that has been used against him, you are not correct. What more can I say?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Again, you can only assert this, and your defense of the book is even more confused than the text. I'm really sorry peacegirl, but if I thought Lessans' book had any merit, I'd consider them, but I honestly think the book is at best useless.

I'm sorry you feel that way. That's why I said that if you can't accept these axioms at face value (because we're not going to be able to test them empirically at this time), this thread will have been a total failure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to start this way otherwise we are stuck and there is absolutely no progress being made. I will repeat that this knowledge can be tested in real life, but to just keep challenging his findings without any interest in how these principles extend, is unfortunate. But that's what is happening.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

There is no progress being made because there is no progress to be made. If Lessans ideas are false (and they almost certainly are), who cares how these principles extend?

You keep saying that, but why not assume for the sake of argument that he is right. There have been very few people actually participating, and those that are are not taking the time to think through the reasoning behind his observations. Instead, they are out to discredit him come hell or high water only because he didn't collect data. This is not good science. He didn't set out to make a discovery which is why he didn't come to these conclusions through this methodology.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

We're challenging these ideas because we think they are unsupported, probably useless, and most importantly, likely false.

Likely is not definitely. So why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt so we can move forward, otherwise there will only be more of the same whether it's 1,000 pages or 10,000 pages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you have offered, in all these months and posts her at and in all these years on the web, peacegirl, is your belief in Lessans unsupported assertions. It's simply not enough, as you have found out over and over again.

You're right; it would be madness on my part to go to another philosophy forum. The fact that there is a sort of group think, and the fact that people are challenging me without thoroughly reading the book (which no one actually has done), is evidence that the method I am using is faulty, not the content.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since nobody here looks to even be slightly moved in the direction of supporting Lessans ideas, why are you continuing to argue? Do you think you are going to convince anyone that still happens to be reading this thread? Do you think some newbie is going to come along that might have a different mindset?

I don't think anyone is going to get anything out of this thread except its entertainment value. Everybody likes a good fight once in awhile to see how long it takes to knock someone out.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You took the book offline, you've tried to address everyone here to the best of your ability, and it ain't going your way. Time to try something else, seriously. Get to work marketing the book and creating your own website. is probably a lost cause.

I keep hoping against all hopes that someone will come forward and ask questions about the actual discovery and its extension, but no such luck. This is probably a lost cause.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that, but why not assume for the sake of argument that he is right. There have been very few people actually participating, and those that are are not taking the time to think through the reasoning behind his observations.

False implies anything. Using a false statement as the basis for a conclusion renders that conclusion meaningless. It's one of the problems with Pascal's Wager, which you are yet again trying to invoke.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead, they are out to discredit him come hell or high water only because he didn't collect data. This is not good science. He didn't set out to make a discovery which is why he didn't come to these conclusions through this methodology.

Actually, it's pretty good science to discredit a "scientific" work which didn't collect data.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Likely is not definitely. So why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt so we can move forward, otherwise there will only be more of the same whether it's 1,000 pages or 10,000 pages.

I used "likely false" because I was generally talking about all of Lessans' book. Some claims are so certainly false that I have no trouble calling them as such.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Maybe it's time. I mean, it's not as though anyone in this thread ever said "if efferent vision is correct, the speed of light would have to be recalculated" or anything. A statement like that would really turn this thread into a .

And it's not like anyone is disputing the Theory of Relativity either..because if so talk about a wreck!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They might have seen a difference in objects efferently. They did not have to recognize a face. That would indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain , but this has not been proven.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would recognizing a face "indicate the wavelengths were actually being interpreted by the brain"? That's a strange conclusion to jump to.

Why is that a strange conclusion?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Says the person who thinks we need to recalculate the speed of light to fit her conclusions.

You show me where I recalculated the speed of light and I'll eat my words.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't recalculate it yourself, you said it would need to be recalculated to account for the distances to various objects in the universe.

I said the distance that we are seeing the actual object or image has to be recalculated.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you trying to defame Lessans?

I'm not trying to "defame" him, LOL I am trying to demonstrate the many, many problems found within his ideas. These problems need to be addressed if you want anyone to take him or you seriously.

There are not many many problems with this knowledge as you suggest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is so far fetched it's laughable

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But germinal substance, eternal consciousness, instantaneous communication, and no people with bad personalities are totally not a laughing matter.

You are, as usual, making his claim of efferent vision laughable by using the phrase "instantaneous communication". You are making laughable the words he uses to describe why we are born over and over again, and you are making laughable the fact that the verdict is far from conclusive as to which has the most influence on behavior; nature or nurture.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I picked 5 studies from the first page of a Google search. I don't think any of them are conclusive, merely indicative of the larger body of knowledge available. That you even expect "proof" from a few web links posted by a layperson is very telling of your mindset.

You're right. None of them are conclusive. But you keep repeating that these experiments have a scientific foundation and are therefore accurate. You keep telling me to read the studies. Why would you ask me to do this if you didn't think they were accurate and in contradiction to Lessans' claims?

You keep putting me down, but you are the one that offered these experiments and now you're trying to save face. Let it go LadyShea. You're not going to win.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did I "put you down"?

Your attitude toward me seems condescending.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pretty sure that if one intensely researched the issue (which requires access to peer reviewed scientific journals and a thorough understanding of scientific methodology and lots of time) one might reach a well supported conclusion of some kind.

Yes, and that conclusion may not end up supporting what you think it will.

Hello? And you don't think this is conjecture on your part; no different than what people are accusing Lessans of? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is conjecture, hence my use of the qualifiers "pretty sure", "might" and "of some kind".

And those qualifiers mean that there is a lot of wiggle room.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have not intensely researched the issue, but that in 30 seconds with Google I can find multiple studies indicating dogs can recognize photographs, facial expressions (which would show that facial features are also recognized) and differentiate between landscapes, I lean towards thinking that dogs can, in fact, recognize their masters faces. I additionally believe that further study would lead me to conclude that.

Continue with your conjectures. It has no bearing on this discussion or on these claims.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure it does. These are all bits and pieces of evidence that suggest Lessans was wrong about dog's congitive ability and how they use sight.

Not if the experiments are not replicated. The bits and pieces add up to nothing but a bunch of disconnected behaviors. I googled the studies also, and they show nothing conclusive. You are trying so hard to make a case against Lessans but you're not succeeding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were brought up distrusting - even disrespecting- the scientific process in favor of your own uncontrolled, undocumented "observations", so I doubt you can ever objectively look at anything that might cast doubt on Lessans claims of absolute truthiness. This post proves it.

This post proves absolutely nada.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It proves you are not even remotely objective.

I am being more objective than you. You can't let go of your belief that there is no other method to finding a truth than setting up a hypothesis and testing it.

Not a thing in these experiments proved Lessans wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Prove? Nope. Suggest or indicate? Yes.

Absolutely not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are blind in this respect because of your total allegiance to empirical testing, which is not always right, and you will go to any lengths to protect what is clearly inaccurate.

And you are blind to reality because of your total allegiance to Lessans and will go to any lengths to protect his assertions.

There you go again trying to diminish the discovery, as if it doesn't stand on its own.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

False implies anything. Using a false statement as the basis for a conclusion renders that conclusion meaningless. It's one of the problems with Pascal's Wager, which you are yet again trying to invoke.

No I'm not. I'm not asking you to believe anything without some reasoning behind it. But if you are so sure his premises are wrong, we cannot continue on, because you are asking for something I can't give you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead, they are out to discredit him come hell or high water only because he didn't collect data. This is not good science. He didn't set out to make a discovery which is why he didn't come to these conclusions through this methodology.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, it's pretty good science to discredit a "scientific" work which didn't collect data.

That is one method but not the only one, but you can't see that. This has definitely caused a train wreck.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

We're challenging these ideas because we think they are unsupported, probably useless, and most importantly, likely false.

Likely is not definitely. So why can't you give him the benefit of the doubt so we can move forward, otherwise there will only be more of the same whether it's 1,000 pages or 10,000 pages.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I used "likely false" because I was generally talking about all of Lessans' book. Some claims are so certainly false that I have no trouble calling them as such.

Throughout history there have been discoveries that were rejected at first but turned out to be true. I wouldn't be so certain that this is not one of them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why is that a strange conclusion?

Because there is no basis on which to conclude such a thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the distance that we are seeing the actual object or image has to be recalculated.

"if efferent vision is correct, the speed of light would have to be recalculated" ~peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are not many many problems with this knowledge as you suggest.

Yes, there are. Review the last 400 pages

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are, as usual, making his claim of efferent vision laughable by using the phrase "instantaneous communication".

Instantaneous communication is a necessary consequence of Lessans description of efferent vision. It is laughable all by itself, I did not "make it" laughable

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making laughable the words he uses to describe why we are born over and over again

Again, I am not making anything anything. It is laughable all by itself

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making laughable the fact that the verdict is far from conclusive as to which has the most influence on behavior; nature or nurture.

No I am not. I am laughing at your assertion that personality won't be a factor in romantic relationships in Lessans New World because "nobody will have bad personalities". That is a laugh riot, again, all by itself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. None of them are conclusive. But you keep repeating that these experiments have a scientific foundation and are therefore accurate.

I didn't say they are accurate. They used scientific methodology and collected data and their results were reviewed for publication indicating that they used reasonable scientific principles in conducting the experiment. I think that's a pretty good reason to take note of the results and see how it fits with similar experiments and into the larger body of knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep telling me to read the studies.Why would you ask me to do this if you didn't think they were accurate and in contradiction to Lessans' claims?

I do? Which studies?

I have said you should study a lot, because you look like an idiot trying to refute everything from physics to anatomy when you know nothing about what you are refuting.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your attitude toward me seems condescending.

Right back atcha sister, you have been condescending since page 1

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, and that conclusion may not end up supporting what you think it will.

So? Do you think I find that prospect problematic in the least? I reach conclusions based on supporting evidence and argument...doesn't matter what I think I will conclude ahead of time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am being more objective than you. You can't let go of your belief that there is no other method to finding a truth than setting up a hypothesis and testing it.

Basing ones conclusions on outside evidence rather than emotion and dogmatism is what being objective is all about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There you go again trying to diminish the discovery, as if it doesn't stand on its own.

If the discovery stood on its own you wouldn't be here arguing with me.