A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Has anyone noticed the parallels between Lessan's claims in the book, and the church and scientists that he is criticising. Even considering that his demand that "experts" validate his claims (which is, in reality, just a request for them to 'rubber stamp' the book), he claims to have absolute truth that is self evident and needs no actual verification by the establishment, only acceptance.

"The old white guy writes with a forked pen."

I hate to lower myself to this level, but you're off your rocker doc. Really and truly you are coming from a nutty place that I can't even get into. If people listen to you, they deserve you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of what he said was absolutely correct. This was not berating academics unless it was justified. AND IT WAS JUSTIFIED LADYSHEA. You are so off target, and you are so arrogant, you posit things before you even know what you're talking about. That's why I can't stomach talking to you much longer.

You said "There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book", now you are saying there is berating, but it's justified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said "There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book", now you are saying there is berating, but it's justified.

Maybe I wasn't clear. He does not berate people for their misunderstanding. He berates them (not in an accusatory way) by showing them where their reasoning is faulty.

[LadyShea]

He berates them (not in an accusatory way) by showing them where their reasoning is faulty.

Whose reasoning was he demonstrating as faulty in the quotes I posted? What was the reasoning he was refuting?

Looks like a pre-emptive attack against any criticism to me.

And what do you mean "not in an accusatory way"? He calls them ignorant, prideful, self-righteous, and dogmatic

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never compared himself to Galileo. You're in the wrong field, dude.

Have you noticed the parallels between the
Catholic Church in the middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot
be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look
through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves, because they were
so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in hands and
thus needed no verification), and today’s self-righteous “church” of
“scientificality” with its dogmas?

You state that he never compared himself to Galileo and then you post a quotation from the book where he does precisely that. That is awesome!

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about Vivisectus. He brings this up in the introduction only to let people know that this book is not an opinion, but a scientific revelation. The reason he could not bring this book to light was because, at that time, he could not reach those in authority who could have helped him. He wasn't calling anyone fools and he never said anything about their fixed worldview? You need a refresher course.

Ah it is scientific? Excellent! Then please to provide the reason to believe conscience works as advertised. Note how I am not even going so far as to ask for evidence.

If you cannot, this work is anything but scientific.

And he very much states that it is their stake in the status quo, their belief in the current ideas, is what keeps them from believing him.

You wouldn't say this if Einstein was positive about a claim

Actually, Einstein WAS wrong about quite a few things. And at no stage does he claim that his theories are "undeniable".

, or someone whom you trusted for their abilities. You wouldn't say the things you're saying here, and you know it. And don't tell me that Einstein wouldn't make a definite claim if he saw the inherent relations.

There IS the added problem that Lessans claims abilities that he simply is not able to demonstrate he has. Or rather, that he demonstrates a clear disability and then expects us all to believe it is one of his strong points.

He demonstrates that he is unable to make a clear, convincing case for his ideas. In fact, he forgets to include the whole case altogether... for the most important part! But that is a seperate issue that the book has, and has nothing to do with this one.

Einstein would never think that whatever he made a claim about would be the final word on the subject, that it would be "undeniable". Science simply is no place for such absolute, final statements. Sometimes scientists can express themselves in such a manner, but that is merely a shorthand, a shorter way of saying "This is the best explanation of the current evidence that I can see, and I cannot clearly see a way at this time to improve it, or to find a new and more useful way of framing the problem itself."

It definitely is enough. What is the discovery Vivisectus since you seem to know so much? I am waiting for an answer. Don't evade the question like you did last time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

or he felt that simply saying that it is the case was enough

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It definitely is enough.

You just admitted that Lessans say-so is good enough for you - that you just believe him and do not requitre any more evidence than him saying that it is so. I am glad we have finally cleared that up.

I am not aware of any discovery in the book. What I am aware of is a lot of claims. The most important of these claims is that once people agree with Lessans that they have no free will, and yet make decisions based on their preferences, that this would not allow them to justify a bad act to themselves that is not a retaliation. If this claim is not supported, the entire system remains a cloud-castle.

The claim is not just not supported: a case for conscience working that way is not even attempted.

He does not seem to have noticed this. In fact he goes on as if he has made a completely convincing argument in favor of it.

Where was this advertised? You are the one that is obsessed with what you call his arrogance and the brilliance of his ideas, when he never touted his brilliance. He wasn't like that, damn it. Do you ever consider what I say or do you just listen to your own voice?

It is claimed very clearly that conscience works a certain way, which is why I describe it as working "as advertised". I described it in detail above. He never even tried to make a case for this being true. He just carries on as if he has made a brilliant point about it... but he never does. He just gets sidetracked in one of his self-congratulatory asides, and then continues as if he has made a totally convincing case for it.

I never met the man: I am sure he was lovely and humble in everyday life. His writing, however, is pompous, self-congratulatory, and quite astonishingly arrogant. He calls his own work wonderful dozens and dozens of times. He claims that his arguments are undeniable. He even equates disagreement with lack of understanding: if you disagree with any of the book, just re-read chapter 2 because you must not have understood it.

That is simply what is in the book.

That is strictly coming from your wild imagination, although my father did wear a hat for a large portion of his adult life.

Called it. Most of his ideas seem to stem from the 1940's too.

This is your stuff, not his. You really need to examine this because you've alluded to his pomposity too many times for it to be ignored. Maybe you have some kind of inferiority complex Vivisectus. You really should get it checked out. Do you ever get depressed?

It is indeed an impression, as I clearly say. But I doubt I am the only one who gets this impression. We have already seen references to "Plan 9 from outer space", for instance.

Who knows? Maybe I have some sort of complex. None of that changes one jot about what is demonstrably in the book, however.

There is no stuffy quaintness; just language that came from his time period. There is no colossal arrogance (this is your issue, not his). There are no mistakes when it comes to his observations and his detailed explanations. There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book. I don't know what you're talking about. Give me a sentence. And this is not a manifesto of any kind. If the book was poorly written, blame me. I put it together. If you can do better, I invite you to. But of course you can't which is why it's easy to criticize. If you can do a better job, then you'll have something to base your criticisms on, but as of now you're just a big bunch of hot air.

I do not think the time period can be blamed for the stuffy, dated quality of the language. I am re-reading "The selfish Gene" and it does not suffer from it, though it was written in 1973. Your fathers hero Durant does not suffer from it: he is a wonderfully clear and concise writer, and while his language is obviously a product of his times, it does not feel quite so... dated. And let us not forget: this stuff was written and re-written for ages after the 50's had been and gone.

There are massive mistakes in the book - I have once again pointed out the most important one. It forgets to even attempt to make a case for one of the most important points in the entire book. That is not just a mistake: it is a colossal blunder.

Why would any ability or lack of ability to write this book have anything to do with the validity (or lack thereof) of my criticism of his book? That is simply neither here nor there. My criticisms of the (lack of) reasoning are all squarely based on what is in the book. My criticism of the pomposity, self-congratulatory language and arrogance are also squarely based on things he says in the book. The impression I get from the book is just that: an impression. But it is one that is shared by other people who have read parts of the book, so it seems to have this effect on a fair share of people.

It is just one of many, MANY problems with your ponderous tome.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I wasn't clear. He does not berate people for their misunderstanding. He berates them (not in an accusatory way) by showing them where their reasoning is faulty.

Okay, do you see this? This is weaseling. Lessans was accused of berating academics, you said it never happened and to "show a sentence", you are shown several then you say it was justified, then when called on your original statement now you say you were unclear. Were you unclear when you said "There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book" or were you mistaken or were you lying?

[peacegirl]

He berates them (not in an accusatory way) by showing them where their reasoning is faulty.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Whose reasoning was he demonstrating as faulty in the quotes I posted? What was the reasoning he was refuting?

Looks like a pre-emptive attack against any criticism to me.

No LadyShea, I am not pre-emptively attacking any criticism that you make. I am attacking your criticism after you show me what you are pointing out, and it's unfounded. You are trying to find anything you can to discredit this man, and it's amazing how you twist things to make his writing appear the way you want it to. You have an agenda and if I ever do preemptively criticize you it's because I've talked to you for two years and I can almost predict what you are going to say. Maybe that's not fair, but I'm fed up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what do you mean "not in an accusatory way"? He calls them ignorant, prideful, self-righteous, and dogmatic

He was stating the truth based on his experiences. The people he encountered were ignorant, prideful and dogmatic. He also wrote:

Because this book
dares to oppose the three forces that control the thinking of mankind;
government, religion, and education; the most dangerous thinking of
all; the kind that really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed
but because of some fallacious standard presumes to know, I have
found it necessary to resort to this manner of introducing my work in
the fervent hope that I can break through this sound barrier of learned
ignorance, for which no one is to blame, and reach those who will be
able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations involved before
another century passes by or an atomic explosion destroys millions of
lives.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay, do you see this? This is weaseling. Lessans was accused of berating academics, you said it never happened and to "show a sentence", you are shown several then you say it was justified, then when called on your original statement now you say you were unclear. Were you unclear when you said "There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book" or were you mistaken or were you lying?

You're off on another tangent, which has nothing to do with the validity of these principles. If he did condemn (or berate) these people, he had justification. He was forced to resign himself to the position he was in, but he knew that it could not have been any other way, since man's will is not free. He died knowing this, and he was at peace.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...chapter two is where the book rather amusingly fails to provide even a case for believing it is correct. It is not that there is merely insufficient proof, or a poorly argued logical reason to assume it might be so. There is - literally - nothing there, except for the statement that it works that way. Either the author was a bumbling idiot of enormous proportions who spent 15 years (thinking and reading, 8 hours a day) without ever noticing the massive gaping hole where the most important part of his idea should be, or he felt that simply saying that it is the case was enough.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

It definitely is enough.

I find this really awesome. You have actually admitted that his say-so was enough proof. That is fine as far as you are concerned: you have a strong belief that whatever your father said was correct.

There is a problem, however. If he was such a genius, then how come he never noticed he never even tried to make a case for the most important part of the book? The whole rest of the book (not counting the parts about sight and, presumably, not-reincarnation) is just an extension of the idea that will is not free, that we are nevertheless acting according to our preferences and are responsible, and that blame is what allows us to justify doing bad things that are not provoked, which then means that if we stopped blaming, people would be unable to do bad things. The ideas about marriage, how to order society, how to conduct our economies... these are all based on this idea which he seems to think he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That is not just a mistake. That is a really large blunder.

So if someone did not have a pre-conceived notion of your father as a genius... why should they take his word for it? Especially when he does not seem to even notice that that is exactly what he is asking to do, and happily goes on as if he has made a wonderfully convincing point?

In fact, how do you reconcile your belief in his genius, and this very obvious blunder? So far you seem to simply ignore it and carry on as if it is not there. But it is, and it is quite noticable. How do you maintain this belief in his complete correctness faced with such a massive problem in the book, one so big that even you have been unable to deny it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, I am not pre-emptively attacking any criticism that you make. I am attacking your criticism after you show me what you are pointing out, and it's unfounded.

I quoted Lessans berating academics in what seems to have been a pre-emptive attack by Lessans against their (the academics') criticisms. This was in response to your claiming he had not berated anybody anywhere in the book.

You then claimed this was not berating, but showing faulty reasoning. What reasoning was he refuting and whose reasoning was he showing as faulty in the quoted passages?

How on Earth is it "unfounded"? You made a statement, I refuted it using Lessans own words. Now you are weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to find anything you can to discredit this man, and it's amazing how you twist things to make his writing appear the way you want it to.

I didn't twist anything, I quoted passages word for word.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have an agenda and if I ever do preemptively criticize you it's because I've talked to you for two years and I can almost predict what you are going to say. Maybe that's not fair, but I'm fed up.

I can predict that you will always weasel, just as you are now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was stating the truth based on his experiences. The people he encountered were ignorant, prideful and dogmatic.

How is that "not accusatory" when he accuses them of being ignorant, prideful and dogmatic? Now you are changing your story from "not in an accusatory way" to "they were justified accusations"...which makes you dishonest.

[peacegirl]

added to post:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said "There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book", now you are saying there is berating, but it's justified.

Maybe I wasn't clear. He did not berate people for their misunderstanding. He was explaining why he was refused the courtesy of an investigation in the hope that what happened to him during his lifetime would preclude the same thing from happening again. Can't you understand his feelings at all LadyShea, or are you that hardened? You are reading into all kinds of things that aren't there (I wonder why) which is doing you a disservice. You think you're investigative skills are great, but in actuality the things that you are nitpicking about are taking you away from focusing on the discovery. I believe you're doing this in an effort to discredit him so that people won't take him seriously; sort of like what Spacemonkey did when he asked me what mistakes my father made.

[LadyShea]

Maybe I wasn't clear. He did not berate people for their misunderstanding. He was explaining what happened to him and why they did not give him the courtesy of an investigation in the hope that what happened to him during his lifetime would preclude the same thing happening again.

What is it you were unclear about? You said he didn't berate anyone anywhere in the book, yet it is full of him berating academics, experts, and scientists. Why not admit that he did, indeed, berate entire groups of people?

Can't you understand his feelings at all LadyShea, or are you that hardened?

His feelings of superiority? His feelings of utter disdain for those better educated than he was?

WTF hardened? I pointed out that he did, in fact, berate people in an accusatory manner despite your claims that he did not. It's right there in the book. HOw do you figure that is about me at all? What does "hardened" have to with any of this? Weasel.

Whatever he was in real life, his book reads like he was a pompous ass with a mouth full of sour grapes, and I quoted some of that to you to show you how it reads to people that aren't you. I guarantee that some significant percentage of people that read the book will also read pomposity and berating in there. You might want to learn how to address that now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I find this really awesome. You have actually admitted that his say-so was enough proof. That is fine as far as you are concerned: you have a strong belief that whatever your father said was correct.

I said that his observations and reasoning were enough to prove that he knew whereof he spoke. He saw certain undeniable relations which were based on his astute observations from which everything else followed.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is a problem, however. If he was such a genius, then how come he never noticed he never even tried to make a case for the most important part of the book? The whole rest of the book (not counting the parts about sight and, presumably, not-reincarnation) is just an extension of the idea that will is not free, that we are nevertheless acting according to our preferences and are responsible, and that blame is what allows us to justify doing bad things that are not provoked, which then means that if we stopped blaming, people would be unable to do bad things. The ideas about marriage, how to order society, how to conduct our economies... these are all based on this idea which he seems to think he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is that your synopsis? No wonder you're all screwed up when it comes to this knowledge. The other discoveries have nothing to do with his first discovery about the will of man. Let me explain this again. Threats of blame and punishment give us the advance justification (which conscience needs) to take advantage of others (if that's our desire) because we know, well in advance, that if we're questioned, we can shift our responsibility in order to mitigate the circumstances. In other words, the very act of questioning our conduct gives us an opportunity to offer the authorities a rationalization in order to get off the hook of what is our responsibility.

p. 68 Once he chooses to act on his desire whether it is a minor or more
serious crime he doesn’t come right out and say, “I hurt that person
not because I was compelled to do it against my will but only because
I wanted to do it,” because the standards of right and wrong prevent
him from deriving any satisfaction out of such honesty when this will
only evoke blame, criticism, and punishment of some sort for his
desires. Therefore he is compelled to justify those actions considered
wrong with excuses, extenuating circumstances, and the shifting of
guilt to someone or something else as the cause, to absorb part if not
all the responsibility which allowed him to absolve his conscience in a
world of judgment and to hurt others in many cases with impunity
since he could demonstrate why he was compelled to do what he really
didn’t want to do.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So if someone did not have a pre-conceived notion of your father as a genius... why should they take his word for it? Especially when he does not seem to even notice that that is exactly what he is asking to do, and happily goes on as if he has made a wonderfully convincing point?

This has absolutely nothing to do with you taking his word for it. This was an accurate observation and if you read on it becomes more clear how conscience works. It makes absolute sense and it can be seen everyday when people are caught in a crime. They try to justify what they did, which eases their conscience and gets them a lesser jail time, or no jail time at all, if their excuse sounds reasonable enough.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact, how do you reconcile your belief in his genius, and this very obvious blunder? So far you seem to simply ignore it and carry on as if it is not there. But it is, and it is quite noticable. How do you maintain this belief in his complete correctness faced with such a massive problem in the book, one so big that even you have been unable to deny it?

What blunder Vivisectus? This man was correct in his observations. There is no blunder so I have nothing to maintain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, I am not pre-emptively attacking any criticism that you make. I am attacking your criticism after you show me what you are pointing out, and it's unfounded.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I quoted Lessans berating academics in what seems to have been a pre-emptive attack by Lessans against their (the academics') criticisms. This was in response to your claiming he had not berated anybody anywhere in the book.

What are you trying to prove here? That I was wrong when I said he didn't berate people? Is winning the argument all you want to do, or do you want to learn? To make you happy, yes, he accused these people of being prideful (and dogmatic, and self-righteous) in the introduction, and he had very good reason. They were displaying these behaviors. He couldn't get his foot in the door. He couldn't even get an audience. They didn't even know what he discovered, yet they judged him prematurely like you're doing. He wanted the reader to know of his experiences.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You then claimed this was not berating, but showing faulty reasoning. What reasoning was he refuting and whose reasoning was he showing as faulty in the quoted passages?

I was referring to the body of his discovery. He did not berate anyone even if they didn't understand him or if they had questions. He would try to help clarify what he meant. As far as the introduction, you can call it what you want. You can make it appear that I am a weasel and a liar when I said he didn't berate anyone. That's your intention anyway; to make me fail in everyone's eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How on Earth is it "unfounded"? You made a statement, I refuted it using Lessans own words. Now you are weaseling.

Because I wasn't referring to the introduction. I don't even consider the intro as a form of berating anyone. He was just explaining what happened to him in the hope that it would preclude the same thing from happening again, as I already said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to find anything you can to discredit this man, and it's amazing how you twist things to make his writing appear the way you want it to.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't twist anything, I quoted passages word for word.

You twist the meaning of his words. I don't know why you're doing this. We're so off track as usual.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have an agenda and if I ever do preemptively criticize you it's because I've talked to you for two years and I can almost predict what you are going to say. Maybe that's not fair, but I'm fed up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can predict that you will always weasel, just as you are now.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what do you mean "not in an accusatory way"? He calls them ignorant, prideful, self-righteous, and dogmatic

Yes, and that's what they are. He was telling the truth. He wasn't berating everyone, but if the shoe fits, they need to wear it and own it so that they recognize in themselves what they are doing. This is a serious problem in academia, and he is not the only one who has felt it.

He was stating the truth based on his experiences. The people he encountered were ignorant, prideful and dogmatic.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is that "not accusatory" when he accuses them of being ignorant, prideful and dogmatic? Now you are changing your story from "not in an accusatory way" to "they were justified accusations"...which makes you dishonest.

But that's what they were, so call it what you want. They were obstructing his ability to bring his discovery to light because they were the top echelon and he couldn't make headway. They were too proud to even hear what he had to say. They were also unconsciously ignorant and dogmatic. But ultimately, he knew they were not to blame as frustrated as he was.

ac·cuse/əˈkyo͞oz/


Verb

1.Charge (someone) with an offense or crime.
2.Claim that (someone) has done something wrong.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

But you said no such thing. You said his say-so was enough. Besides, there is no "reasoning", no "observation", no nothing to be found in the book about why we should believe conscience works as he says.

I do not blame you for being unable to follow the book. It is very poorly written.

Says who?

I know this is WHAT you believe. I just see no reason to assume it is true.

Yup. That is WHAT he claims. Still no reason to believe it is true.

[

This has absolutely nothing to do with you taking his word for it.

Yes it does - you just said it does about a post and a half ago.

Also - if not, then why should we believe it?

This was an accurate observation

...why should I believe this to be the case?

and if you read on it becomes more clear how conscience works.

No, you just get endless repetitions of what he believes.

It makes absolute sense

To only you.

and it can be seen everyday when people are caught in a crime. They try to justify what they did, which eases their conscience and gets them a lesser jail time, or no jail time at all, if their excuse sounds reasonable enough.

And this is a reason to believe that conscience works that way? You have odd standards for proof.

What blunder Vivisectus? This man was correct in his observations. There is no blunder so I have nothing to maintain.

The blunder - as I endlessly point out, is that he forgot to include any reason to believe he was correct about conscience.

And you know this, or you would simply point out where in the book it can be found.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You state that he never compared himself to Galileo and then you post a quotation from the book where he does precisely that. That is awesome!

He was not comparing himself to Galileo. I put this in to show that scientists can be just as prideful and dogmatic over what they are arrogantly convinced is true, as the Catholic Church was when they wouldn't even look into Galileo's telescope. It's so easy to see the speck in someone else's eye, but it's much more difficult to see the log that's in one's own eye.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;1129484]

Yes it does - you just said it does about a post and a half ago.

Also - if not, then why should we believe it?

...why should I believe this to be the case?

No, you just get endless repetitions of what he believes.

To only you.

And this is a reason to believe that conscience works that way? You have odd standards for proof.

The blunder - as I endlessly point out, is that he forgot to include any reason to believe he was correct about conscience.

And you know this, or you would simply point out where in the book it can be found.

There is an entire section related to conscience and how it functions (in Chapter Two), which leads up to the discovery.

[LadyShea]

I put this in to show that scientists can be just as prideful and dogmatic over what they are arrogantly convinced is true, as the Catholic Church was when they wouldn't even look into Galileo's telescope.

You put it in? Did Lessans write it or did you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you trying to prove here? That I was wrong when I said he didn't berate people?

Yes, that's what I was proving. You said to "show you" where he berated people, so I showed you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is winning the argument all you want to do, or do you want to learn?

I want to call you on your dishonesty and weaseling and see if you'll own up to it. And, I am learning a lot, all the time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To make you happy, yes, he accused these people of being prideful (and dogmatic, and self-righteous) in the introduction, and he had very good reason.

Thanks for admitting it. Whether his reasons were "good" is a matter of opinion of course.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were displaying these behaviors. He couldn't get his foot in the door. He couldn't even get an audience.

He wasn't owed an audience, or an open door, or anything of the sort...nobody is owed those things. Why did he expect an audience? Do you think every person with an idea should expect to be given an audience for them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to the body of his discovery.

Why would you refer to that when that wasn't at all what we were discussing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not berate anyone even if they didn't understand him or if they had questions. He would try to help clarify what he meant. As far as the introduction, you can call it what you want. You can make it appear that I am a weasel and a liar when I said he didn't berate anyone. That's your intention anyway; to make me fail in everyone's eyes.

I am not making it appear like anything. You are a weasel.My intention is to challenge your bullshit in all its various forms. "Everyone" thinks I am just as crazy as you for continuing to engage you so I am not doing it for their eyes.

Because I wasn't referring to the introduction.

Why not? That's what I quoted, you should have referred to the passages I put up for discussion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You twist the meaning of his words. I don't know why you're doing this. We're so off track as usual.

I didn't twist anything. I posted quotes. Do they have a meaning other than what the words say?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, and that's what they are. He was telling the truth. He wasn't berating everyone, but if the shoe fits, they need to wear it and own it so that they recognize in themselves what they are doing. This is a serious problem in academia, and he is not the only one who has felt it.

And he was arrogant and self righteous himself, the quoted passages show that clearly as well...if the shoe fits why not make him wear it too?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's what they were, so call it what you want. They were obstructing his ability to bring his discovery to light because they were the top echelon and he couldn't make headway.

Obstruction? He had freedom of speech, nothing was blocking him from publishing his ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were too proud to even hear what he had to say.

This is the arrogance. He had no reason to expect to be listened to by anyone. Nobody owed him an audience...why did he expect one?

[davidm]

I think I've finally figured out why it's so damned hard to get off the crack cocaine that is this little idiot peacegirl. It's because every time she unlimbers her adventurous finger to type, she unleashes upon her avid interlocutors something so incredibly false and stupid that it makes one practically piss one's pants with laughter. Laughing at her, and by extension at her dum-dum daddykums, is what keeps drawing one back. After all, laughter is the best medicine!

I mean, how big a laugh riot is it that Stupid Seymour should invoke both Galileo and Einstein in his barf bag that passes for a "book"? Einstein's relativity theory, as has been effortlessly demonstrated, demolishes Stupid Seymour's claims about real-time seeing right out of the box. But, of course, so does the example of the moons of Jupiter! And here we have dum-dum putting in his book stuff about Galileo without the slightest clue that the moons of Jupiter disprove his real-time seeing. (Among the things that the clergy allegedly "refused to look at" in G's telescope were, of course, the moons of Jupiter!) What could be more hilarious?

But wait! There's more!

Quoth Seymour the Stupid.

Originally Posted by Seymour the Stupid

Have you noticed the parallels between the
Catholic Church in the middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot
be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look
through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves, because they were
so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in hands and
thus needed no verification), and today’s self-righteous “church” of
“scientificality” with its dogmas?

Is there any actual truth to this claim?

Please see: Who Refused to Look through Galileo's Telescope?

But for an especially in-depth analysis, see The Galileo Affair. This is by Paul Newall, aka Hugo Holbling, who used to post here many moons ago.

One interesting take-home point of the latter piece is this: It simply isn't true that the Church debarred Galileo from teaching using Copernicus to calculate celestial phenomena! What they asked was that he not say that the Copernican model was true. Because, at that time, absent further empirical evidence that was not then available, both the Ptolemaic model and the Copernican model equally well accounted for what was observed in the sky. It is true that Ptolemy's model, with its epicycles and stuff, was vastly more complex, and hence ran afoul of what today we know as the Razor, but as Newall has written elsewhere, the Razor is no big deal.

Anyway, this epistemic issue is still relevant. Many if not most scientists today acknowledge that defeasible theories describing and predicting what is seen are models, and do not necessarily describe the world as it actually is. It may not even be possible to do that. Hawking calls it "model-dependent realism."

Finally -- and this is the part that is so beautiful! Let's accept, just for the sake of a neat analogy, Stupid Seymour parroting the myth of "refused to look." So we have an analogical argument. According to Stupid Seymour, those who don't accept his claims are "refusing to look through the telescope."

The irony (and humor!) is so rich because, obvioiusly, it is in fact Seymour and his dum-dum daughter who are the ones "refusing to look through the telescope." Because simply by looking at the moons of Jupiter through the Goddamned telescope, one quickly learns that we do not see in real time, as Lessans claimed, and also learns WHY we don't. But all of this goes WHOOSH right over peacegirl's head. Even though a 12-year-old can understand it.

And no, peacegirl, I'm still not reading any more of your rubbish, but I do check in on the thread from time to time for lulz and read what OTHER people are saying, and sometimes, alas, they quote your ass!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me explain this again. Threats of blame and punishment give us the advance justification (which conscience needs) to take advantage of others (if that's our desire) because we know, well in advance, that if we're questioned, we can shift our responsibility in order to mitigate the circumstances.

Yes, that's his claim. Unfortunately there's not a scrap of support for this anywhere in the entire book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was an accurate observation and if you read on it becomes more clear how conscience works.

It becomes clear how Lessans' thought conscience works, but he never bothered to give anyone any reason to think he was correct. Merely calling something an accurate observation doesn't make it so.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is an entire section related to conscience and how it functions (in Chapter Two), which leads up to the discovery.

Unfortunately he forgot to include in that chapter any actual support for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is it you were unclear about? You said he didn't berate anyone anywhere in the book, yet it is full of him berating academics, experts, and scientists. Why not admit that he did, indeed, berate entire groups of people?

His feelings of superiority? His feelings of utter disdain for those better educated than he was?

WTF hardened? I pointed out that he did, in fact, berate people in an accusatory manner despite your claims that he did not. It's right there in the book. HOw do you figure that is about me at all? What does "hardened" have to with any of this? Weasel.

Whatever he was in real life, his book reads like he was a pompous ass with a mouth full of sour grapes, and I quoted some of that to you to show you how it reads to people that aren't you. I guarantee that some significant percentage of people that read the book will also read pomposity and berating in there. You might want to learn how to address that now.

You are full of sour grapes LadyShea, and you are full of pomposity in the way you attack him. Amazing that you don't see this. If you don't like the introduction, and you can't accept the things he shared in complete honesty, then this book is not meant for your ears.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unfortunately he forgot to include in that chapter any actual support for his assumption of the innate potential perfection of conscience.

You keep saying that and you're wrong Spacemonkey. If conscience works this way universally, then it does have the potential to control behavior under the conditions he delienates. You, like LadyShea, are doing yourself a disservice because you will never be able to get past Chapter One due to your stubborn resistance to even hear what he has to say [even for a moment]. Oh well, what can I say? There's nothing I can do about it. You keep coming back with the same refrain over and over again and it doesn't change the accuracy of his perceptions.