A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, it doesn't stop people from judging what they read, it immediately lets them know that the author is arrogant and thinks the reader is stupid, so the judgments they do make are even harsher due to the bad taste in their mouths from the intro.

Like I said, he wrote the introduction in a way that was necessary. If people think he was arrogant, then they will know not to read the book. Believe me, there will be plenty of people who will be interested, even after reading the introduction. BTW, you would not say he was arrogant if you knew for a fact that he actually had a discovery. The disrespect you and others are showing for him is sad. You will come to regret it one day when his discovery is proven to be genuine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say it did. I asked you on what you base a belief that scientists will research his claims.

I base my belief that scientists will research his claims when enough people begin asking if this could be true. They may decide to investigate to see if his claims could be correct. After all, scientists want to know the truth, and if they are mistaken I'm sure they would want to know the basis for his claim, and why.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We aren't talking about anything else right now. I was responding to your statement:

It is a tautology as stated, which you just agreed is true. So why do you keep saying that it isn't a tautology and that I am wrong, when you know and agree that I am right?

Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation. If you stop at the idea that whatever you choose you choose, and therefore it means nothing, you are cutting yourself off entirely from his main proof, which is so much more than that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Typical charlatan excuse. Every wannabe guru I ever met says the same thing about their "self-realization classes" or whatever brand of snake-oil they are selling.

People value a book based on it's content, not it's price. I own lots of very cheap paperbacks that I value a lot, and some very glossy and expensive books I value so little one of them is now holding up a wobbly table-leg.

That's good to know.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

All this clap-trap about valuing a book because of the price is just a rationalization: you dream of making a decent bit of profit out of the books so you have the money to further stimulate the spread of the ideas in it and maybe also get some things you would like for yourself. Nothing wrong with that, so I do not see why it is necessary to be hypocritical about it and pretend the book is priced the way it is to make people value it.

The book is priced the way it is because that's what it costs to produce it and give everyone a piece of the pie. I have no control over the pricing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem is that it is just not going to happen because the content of the books is pretty bad. There is no ideal price-point that is going to fix that: it just does not appeal to people, and everyone who has ever read it thinks it is full of fallacies and things that are obviously untrue. Until you fix the actual content of the books, they will never sell.

That is not true Vivisectus. The only people who read the .pdf were people who resented Lessans because of his claim regarding the eyes. Very few people have actually read this book. It will sell; I have no doubt. We're at a time in history that this book is needed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Remove the nonsense about sight - leave that for "advanced students" if you like. Try to edit out the more blatant arrogance and the pompous language. Ease up on the "mathematical certainties" and other idiosyncratic language while you are at it: it makes the books look really dumb. Try to avoid sounding like a caricature pretend-scientist from a bad 1950's creature feature: it makes the reader suspect your father was a rather dim buffoon, and what is worse, the book does not contain any evidence to back up what he says, which then confirms to the reader that this suspicion was entirely correct.

That's also not true. I am not changing his wording. Absolute=undeniable=mathematical=scientific. All these words are interchanged throughout the book, and I don't have a problem with it. Believe me, if I did I would change it. Some of his wording is a little dated, but it still doesn't change the validity of his observations, therefore people are going to understand that this discovery was made in the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think there could easily be a market for a new-agey investigation into moral responsibility and determinism. I also think it is the only way you are going to be able to market any of the books at all. In their current form all they do is make a laughing-stock out of you and your father. That is all they have achieved so far, and they will continue to do so unless they are adapted.

I disagree. I think there are people who will be interested and may question his claim regarding the senses, but will see his reasoning as to why he came to those conclusions. They can decide for themselves. The rest of the book is very interesting and informative. It can help so many people in their lives today, not just in the future, which makes the book very relevant for today's world, as well as the new world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not changing his wording. Absolute=undeniable=mathematical=scientific. All these words are interchanged throughout the book, and I don't have a problem with it.

Well you should, because none of these words mean the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I disagree. I think there are people who will be interested...

And what other than blind faith do you base that on?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation.

It is indeed a tautology, and this renders his entire argument fallacious, for you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are proven facts, even though you can't believe it.

You can't have proven facts without proof. And not only do you lack proof, but you lack any evidence whatsoever in support of any of your or your father's claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We do not have to for the same reason we are not waiting for empirical evidence to confirm that big-bottom fairies come out at night and feed me skittles. Actually, since there is no evidence to the contrary, that is slightly more likely to be true than your fathers ideas about sight.

That's not true and you know it. His observations make a lot of sense, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This has been explained to you ad nauseam: appealing to potential future evidence is simply saying that there IS no evidence. It argues against your idea, not in favor of it. And on top of that you require that potential future evidence to explain observations that conflict with efferent sight, such as our ability to accurately launch probes, the observations of the moons of Jupiter, etc. etc. etc.

I know the moons of Jupiter and other observations conflict with efferent sight, which is why there is all this hatred for him. I'm glad he's not here to see it because it would hurt me to know that he was being treated in such a terrible manner.

I'm sorry that you think he was arrogant but he was just frustrated and had to write the introduction the way he did to stop people from using false standards to judge the veracity of this work.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And what he achieved was to make himself look even more like a crackpot, as he uses every standard crackpot tactic. This supposed brilliant student of human behavior seems to have had this positively planet-sized blind spot where the way his writing strikes people is concerned. Or was it his plan all along to make himself seem like a complete idiot?

I don't think the introduction is bad at all. I went over it and I'm okay with it. If people are that offended because he introduced his book the way he did, then they shouldn't read the book. It's as simple as that. He explained what happened to him to preclude the same thing from happening again. If people can't understand that, then they are the ones with the problem, not him.

If you would immediately judge him from this, then you are the person he was addressing.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why would he address people that the book is not meant for? Wonderful example of Lessanese logic there.

Because he wanted to weed them out. He was tired of the standards that were being used to judge his capabilities. If they were not going to allow him to demonstrate what he discovered just because he went to the 7th grade and was not a member of a leading university, then he wanted them to know that his words were not meant for their ears, as he put it. This still holds.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know what you're talking about. [...] I question your entire approach toward this problem, and I'm sorry to say it is wrong, not the model.

How could you possibly know my approach is wrong if you don't even know what I'm talking about? Does that make any sense to you?


Anyway, there are three components to my approach:

1. The general method of reductio ad absurdum (RAA), which states that anything which implies a contradiction or absurdity must be false.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


2. That your position entails that the photons at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) came from somewhere they were never located.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


3. That it is not possible for photons (or anything else) to ever have come from somewhere they never were.

Do you think this part is wrong? [Y/N]


Please indicate which part of my approach you reject, or admit that your only objection to my approach is that you don't like it because it refutes your claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't have proven facts without proof. And not only do you lack proof, but you lack any evidence whatsoever in support of any of your or your father's claims.

You keep saying that but I don't agree. You know his reasoning as to why he believed the eyes aren't a sense organ, and he gave a very clear demonstration as to why man's will is not free. Then he showed in detail how the two-equation works because of how conscience works. These were very astute observations. If his observations are sound, then everything that follows from his reasoning must also be sound. Someone can describe an accurate observation, without requiring the kind of empirical proof that you are demanding, although the proof of the pudding is obviously in the eating; in other words, when these laws of our nature that we are at last getting to understand, create the kind of world that was never thought possible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that but I don't agree. You know his reasoning as to why he believed the eyes aren't a sense organ, and he gave a very clear demonstration as to why man's will is not free. Then he showed in detail how the two-equation works because of how conscience works. These were very astute observations. If his observations were sound, then everything that follows from his reasoning is also sound. Someone can describe accurate observations, which do not require the kind of empirical proof that you are demanding, although this will be the ultimate proof when these laws of our nature create the kind of world that was never thought possible.

Every single step of his reasoning is fallacious and he didn't make any observations. You are still conflating the two meanings of 'observation', and your father's claims don't qualify by either one. His claims about vision were based on complete ignorance of actual science, along with further claims about infant and canine vision which were neither true nor even relevant. His 'demonstration' regarding free will was based upon a complete ignorance of compatibilism and the fallacy of inferring meaningful conclusions from a tautological premise. And his explanation of his two-sided non-equation was based on completely unsupported assumptions about conscience that he had no evidence for whatsoever. You still don't have a single scrap of supporting evidence for any of his claims, still less anything amounting to actual proof.

[Vivisectus]

That's not true and you know it. His observations make a lot of sense, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

They make sense to exactly one person: you. They do not to the rest of the world I am afraid.

I know the moons of Jupiter and other observations conflict with efferent sight, which is why there is all this hatred for him. I'm glad he's not here to see it because it would hurt me to know that he was being treated in such a terrible manner.

Appeals to emotion do not change the facts.

I don't think the introduction is bad at all. I went over it and I'm okay with it. If people are that offended because he introduced his book the way he did, then they shouldn't read the book. It's as simple as that. He explained what happened to him to preclude the same thing from happening again. If people can't understand that, then they are the ones with the problem, not him.

Everyone is out of step, except out johnny.

Oh but wait - being in step is what this particular johnny claims to be an expert on: he claims to be this wonderfully perceptive student of human behaviour.

One that could not predict the fact that he puts off every single reader he ever had... except Janis.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Because he wanted to weed them out. He was tired of the standards that were being used to judge his capabilities. If they were not going to allow him to demonstrate what he discovered just because he went to the 7th grade and was not a member of a leading university, then he wanted them to know that his words were not meant for their ears, as he put it. This still holds.

He seems to have overdone it a bit. No-one here ever dismissed him because of his lack of education. It is his ignorance of basic facts that people dismiss him for.

But hey: lovely trick isn't it? You get to pretend that your ideas are dismissed because of bias, and not because they make no sense.

And that is the true arrogance of the intro: it pretends that any disagreement must be caused by bias. Your father simply could not imagine the possibility of him being dead wrong, of anything existing that he could not think of. And that is a sad kind of arrogance, because if you have it, you are doomed to keep yourself ignorant even if you have the opportunity to learn.

Like you, really.

[Stephen Maturin]

So then, I reckon the lesson of these latest exchanges is that Lessans' writings have been evaluated and found wanting in all respects. However, this whole large-butted fairy thing clearly warrants serious empirical investigation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know LadyShea. He had his reasons for making this claim, but if scientists desire to test the claim, that will be up to them. I'm just passing along knowledge that I believe they would want to know about just in case there is any validity to his claim.

There is no reason to think that any scientists will ever test these claims, so you are asking us to "wait and see" for something that we have no reason to believe will happen. Why would you do that?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, there will be plenty of people who will be interested, even after reading the introduction.

There will be plenty of people interested in making fun of the crackpot, sure. The whole Internet is interested in The Time Cube. He even spoke at MIT and Georgia Tech and had a documentary made about him. Kooks are fascinating to a great number of people.

BTW, you would not say he was arrogant if you knew for a fact that he actually had a discovery.

Why not? Plenty of people are both arrogant and correct.

The disrespect you and others are showing for him is sad.

He showed disrespect to every reader of his book, right in his intro.

You will come to regret it one day when his discovery is proven to be genuine.

Nope, I don't regret being honest, even when I end up being mistaken

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is indeed a tautology, and this renders his entire argument fallacious, for you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.

There are no inferences being made at this point. This is an observation only. His argument is anything but fallacious. Instead of trying to understand what he's saying (which you have not done), you immediately come back with a rebuttal that is inaccurate. You're always trying to puff yourself up as if you know more than you really do. That's why it's difficult to even talk to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There will be plenty of people interested in making fun of the crackpot, sure. The whole Internet is interested in The Time Cube. He even spoke at MIT and Georgia Tech and had a documentary made about him. Kooks are fascinating to a great number of people.

Why not? Plenty of people are both arrogant and correct.

He showed disrespect to every reader of his book, right in his intro.

Nope, I don't regret being honest, even when I end up being mistaken

He was correct, and he was anything but arrogant. You would change your tune if you found out that he was right. He showed respect for everyone, but he was not treated respectfully which is why he wrote the intro the way he did. Take it or leave it LadyShea. I'm not interested in discussing this with you anymore. He was superior to you in his reasoning ability. There's no comparison, so get off your high horse!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I base my belief that scientists will research his claims when enough people begin asking if this could be true. They may decide to investigate to see if his claims could be correct. After all, scientists want to know the truth, and if they are mistaken I'm sure they would want to know the basis for his claim, and why.

It would take only a little effort for a competent scientist to check this out. Review the existing data, run a few tests and it would be all over, why hasn't any scientist wasted his time on it yet?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Call it a tautology if you want, but this does not mean that it's circular and that there is no value in his observation. If you stop at the idea that whatever you choose you choose, and therefore it means nothing, you are cutting yourself off entirely from his main proof, which is so much more than that.

A tautology does not mean it is not true, it just means that it cannot be used to prove anything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The book is priced the way it is because that's what it costs to produce it and give everyone a piece of the pie. I have no control over the pricing.

BullShit! The author or editor has complete control over the whole process. You pick the publisher, and printer by proxi, and if someone has told you it is out of your hands, they are lying to you and taking your money. You can dictate how much the book sells for, and the only reason for such a high price tag is so that you can make a lot of money on something of no value.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no inferences being made at this point.

Of course there are inferences being made. You can't say both that he employs sound reasoning and that no inferences are being made. He infers from this tautological premise that there is no free will, in the sense that the actual choice is the only one that could have been made. That is fallacious because you cannot validly infer contingent conclusions from necessary premises.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of trying to understand what he's saying (which you have not done), you immediately come back with a rebuttal that is inaccurate. You're always trying to puff yourself up as if you know more than you really do. That's why it's difficult to even talk to you.

You always come back with faith-based unsupported claims that our rebuttals are inaccurate instead of trying to understand what we are saying. And you attack our motivations and make ad hominem comments instead of addressing our objections, just as you are doing here.

You can't even comprehend the simple point that photons can't come from somewhere they never were. How can you expect to accurately evaluate anything else?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was correct, and he was anything but arrogant.

He was incorrect and incredibly arrogant, and the only one who can't see that is you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The book is priced the way it is because that's what it costs to produce it and give everyone a piece of the pie. I have no control over the pricing.

Then why pretend it is priced that way to make people value it?

That is not true Vivisectus. The only people who read the .pdf were people who resented Lessans because of his claim regarding the eyes. Very few people have actually read this book. It will sell; I have no doubt. We're at a time in history that this book is needed.

Well, at least this is something we can easily settle. By what date can we agree that actually, you were wrong and the book just does not sell? Or are you going to go on pretending that this is suddenly going to take off for another decade?

But then again you are really not interested in actually trying anything with this book, now are you? It would burst your bubble. Much safer to do nothing and pretend everyone who comes into contact with your ideas is biased.

That's also not true. I am not changing his wording. Absolute=undeniable=mathematical=scientific. All these words are interchanged throughout the book, and I don't have a problem with it. Believe me, if I did I would change it. Some of his wording is a little dated, but it still doesn't change the validity of his observations, therefore people are going to understand that this discovery was made in the 20th century.

Again, the rest of the world disagrees.

I disagree. I think there are people who will be interested and may question his claim regarding the senses, but will see his reasoning as to why he came to those conclusions. They can decide for themselves. The rest of the book is very interesting and informative. It can help so many people in their lives today, not just in the future, which makes the book very relevant for today's world, as well as the new world.

I think in stead they may notice that he merely says THAT sight works a certain way and then forgets to provide the proof he promises. And the hundreds of other mistakes, flaws and fallacies.

So far, empirical testing bears out that 99.99 percent of people feel the book is worth slightly less than toilet paper.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not changing his wording. Absolute=undeniable=mathematical=scientific. All these words are interchanged throughout the book, and I don't have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well you should, because none of these words mean the same thing.

Maybe they don't, but he clarified how he was using the terms so it's a non issue as far as I'm concerned. If you want to nitpick go right ahead.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I disagree. I think there are people who will be interested...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And what other than blind faith do you base that on?

It's a knowing; call it intuition if you want. I am so very sure that people are going to not only read this book but be impressed by it, and want to spread the word, that I have no worries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He was incorrect and incredibly arrogant, and the only one who can't see that is you.

You can keep repeating this until the cows come home, but I knew him and he was anything but arrogant Spacemonkey. This just shows me how incredibly wrong you are.