A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great, so you'll be sending my copy soon then, right?

Why in the world would you want this book Spacemonkey? You have expressed over and over that you don't think it's supported, and have called it a non-discovery. Why would I want to spend my money to send it to someone whose mind is already made up that this knowledge holds no value?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

From that same blogger

He's read "a bit" about evolution, and finds Ann Coulter believable, so why would I pay any attention to what he says about it over people who devote their entire lives to studying biology?

He made one point that I believe was well taken. To dismiss his one point because you don't agree with him on everything is extremely narrow. I can agree with you on some things and not on others, without feeling conflicted.

[peacegirl]

This is an interesting article I came upon. Again, I don't have to agree with everything to appreciate the things I do agree with, or the things that give me food for thought.

Science is a human activity which involves human observation, human curiosity and human motivation by moral consciousness or 'conscience'. As a human activity, science depends for its validity on maturity of human conscience. The scientist with mature conscience lives at the consciousness level of ego-transcendance - the 'level of Being'. At the level of being, it is possible to see things as they without proneness for judgement or exploitation, without desires for projection of one's own values i.e. objectively.

http://www.holisticeducator.com/scientism.htm

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not automatically disqualify him. That's your slant, but to say this is an automatic disqualification is doing the very thing that this post was purposely written. You don't get to make this decision as to what qualifies and what doesn't, unless you have conclusive proof. Most of science (as defined) is theoretical (however true something may appear), which gives others the right to debate it. Isn't that what is so sacred in a place that prides itself on free thought? Can you see how disconcerting this is?

What on earth is that sme...? Hmm. Sunday Supplement postmodernism, with a base of equivocation and ignorance and a top note of No U. Result:

Ugh.

[peacegirl]

This explains what Lessans observed, but in different words.

Fatalism

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, I don't have to agree with everything to appreciate the things I do agree with, or the things that give me food for thought.

In general, when I want to give myself food for thought, I don't go raiding the dumpsters for a bite.

[peacegirl]

Food for thought (no dumpster food here):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/business...-econom-1.html

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why in the world would you want this book Spacemonkey? You have expressed over and over that you don't think it's supported, and have called it a non-discovery. Why would I want to spend my money to send it to someone whose mind is already made up that this knowledge holds no value?

So you've forgotten again why you were sending me a copy, have you? It wasn't for me or my benefit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why in the world would you want this book Spacemonkey? You have expressed over and over that you don't think it's supported, and have called it a non-discovery. Why would I want to spend my money to send it to someone whose mind is already made up that this knowledge holds no value?

It seems that you promised to send Spacemonkey a copy of the book whan you got them, are you now trying to wiggle out of fulfilling your promise? Is this a demonstration of what we can expect in the 'Golden Age'? a lot of broken promises. What Spacemonkey thinks of the book is irrevelant, and what he might do with it or say about is also irrivelant, you, Peacegirl, made a promise.

Spacemonkey, Please let us know if Peacegirl fulfilles her promise, or reneges on what she said she would do. Just another indication of what kind of person she is.

"Little lie, Big lie'?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you've forgotten again why you were sending me a copy, have you? It wasn't for me or my benefit.

I know why I was going to send you the book. My question is: If you don't think it's a worthwhile book, why would you even think of giving it to a university?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know why I was going to send you the book.

Your questions show that you had forgotten but have now remembered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My question is: If you don't think it's a worthwhile book, why would you even think of giving it to a university?

To help you.

[thedoc]

Yes, perhaps the University Professors, who Lessans and Peacegirl have soundly condemed as biased and stuck in their false knowledge, will read the book and agree, in part, to some of the ideas there-in, at which point Peacegirl will praise their understanding in recognizing true knowledge and wisdom.

Flip - Flop - Flip - Flop - Flip - Flop.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't make any claims. He was showing how theory can graduate into fact through a psychological acceptance that is not based on established proof, but on how long the theory has been in existence.

Bingo. Evidence can be misleading. If it is not conclusive, it remains a theory however convinced someone is as to its validity, which should leave some room for other points of view. Logical empiricism is one model of exploration in the search for truth, not the only one.

That wasn't his purpose. He was just showing how a theory can graduate into fact (sound familiar?), where thinking outside of that box, or challenging that ideology, makes you a heretic worthy of the worst form of ostracism.

I think he made his point quite clear. Not everything has to be debated and dissected to appreciate someone's thoughts on a subject.

He knows nothing about science, or why certain scientific theories are considered factual due to overwhelming evidential support, so why should I give a single shit what his thoughts on the subject are?

And he did make claims, he claimed that the orthodoxy is stifling inquiry in a number of specific areas, one of them being evolutionary theory, which he knows nothing about except reading "a bit".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He knows nothing about science, or why certain scientific theories are considered factual due to overwhelming evidential support, so why should I give a single shit what his thoughts on the subject are?

And he did make claims, he claimed that the orthodoxy is stifling inquiry in a number of specific areas, one of them being evolutionary theory, which he knows nothing about except reading "a bit".

LadyShea, you are so stuck on your belief that truth can only be found by starting with a hypothesis called the scientific method (which is a conjured up condition of what determines proof; not a reality of what the proof actually shows) is the only way of finding truth that you aren't hearing anything that contravenes your prejudices. Let me make something clear to you: A theory is a theory is a theory. That is what this guy was trying to say, not that the theory of evolution is necessarily wrong, but it has not been proven conclusively therefore it leaves room for other models of thought. Ironically, the person who is trying to be the most objective is the least objective. Just think about it before spouting off another one of your assertions, the very assertions you accuse Lessans of making. Do you not see the humor here? I'm sure you don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your questions show that you had forgotten but have now remembered.

To help you.

Why do I get the feeling that you are playing me? I don't believe you for a second Spacemonkey. You have called this discovery a non-discovery for over a year. Am I supposed to think that all of a sudden you have empathy for my situation? Uh uh. Give me a better reason or I will believe you're not telling the truth as to your motivations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He knows nothing about science, or why certain scientific theories are considered factual due to overwhelming evidential support, so why should I give a single shit what his thoughts on the subject are?

You know nothing about the conclusions given about dogs being able to recognize their masters except for the totally flawed experiments that were meant to confirm what you wanted to believe. And you, of all people, don't question your allegience? Again, you see the speck in other people's eyes but you can't see the log in your own eye because you're too close to it. I don't mean to imply that there isn't a place for empiricism. There absolutely is, but it is not the only way to truth LadyShea, and the fact that you aren't hearing me at all, just defending your position, makes me realize that you're no different than the fundamentalist that you laugh at in ignorance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And he did make claims, he claimed that the orthodoxy is stifling inquiry in a number of specific areas, one of them being evolutionary theory, which he knows nothing about except reading "a bit".

It doesn't matter that he read "a bit". This is not the point of this article. Do you not get this? This is not about whether evolution is right or not. It is about not making a theory into a fact so no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject, because it's been monopolized by the "big brother of science" who has claimed all rights to this subject by virtue of making their theories FACTS. They don't have the right to do this.

[LadyShea]

You know nothing about the conclusions given about dogs being able to recognize their masters except for the totally flawed experiments that were meant to confirm what you wanted to believe

On what rational criteria are you basing a conclusion that all of the studies are totally flawed?

I know the answer, they don't agree with Lessans and that's enough for you. You are the one trying to confirm a bias, to the point where you just dismiss any and all evidence without even a cursory review of the methodology or findings, let alone any kind of in depth study.

Why are you arguing with me instead of marketing the book?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do I get the feeling that you are playing me? I don't believe you for a second Spacemonkey.

I can only lead you to the water, Janis.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have called this discovery a non-discovery for over a year.

Because that's what it is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Am I supposed to think that all of a sudden you have empathy for my situation?

I've always had empathy for your situation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Give me a better reason or I will believe you're not telling the truth as to your motivations.

I don't care what you think of my motivations.

When do you receive your actual books? You should already have my postal address, but let me know if you need me to resend it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

On what rational criteria are you basing a conclusion that all of the studies are totally flawed?

I know the answer, they don't agree with Lessans and that's enough for you. You are the one trying to confirm a bias, to the point where you just dismiss any and all evidence without even a cursory review of the methodology or findings, let alone any kind of in depth study.

Why are you arguing with me instead of marketing the book?

You are so wrong here. Statistical significance is made up; it's contrived LadyShea. What happens if the number goes one percent below the level of what is significant? Does that mean the evidence is correct? Seriously LadyShea, if you are the kind of person who is trying to be objective, you need to rethink the standards upon which you judge what is objective and what is not. I see your struggle, but I know Lessans is right (from my own observations; you can reject them if you so choose) and I'm not going to concede because you want to be right. You are not right. I know you never intended this, but you are the spokesperson here. Your responses influence those here. I am not here to upset you but only to point out your flaws in the way you have evaluated the knowledge. All I can say is take a second look. Read the book in its entirety which you have not done. When you have, you are then entitled to claim he is inaccurate. Until then, you do not have this right, no matter how right you feel you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can only lead you to the water, Janis.

Because that's what it is.

I've always had empathy for your situation.

I don't care what you think of my motivations.

When do you receive your actual books? You should already have my postal address, but let me know if you need me to resend it.

You blew it Spacemonkey. I thought originally you were interested in the book. I know now you want to display the book because you believe (in your total self-importance as a PHILOSOPHER CUM LAUDE) there are flaws. You are looking for confirmation from your higher uppers at these universities. Guess what? If you want to do this, you are going to have to buy the book for $39.95 or whatever a reseller is selling it for. I cannot afford monitarily to send the book to you personally. If you had any inkling of what I have been through, you would understand my situation. But you have not because you feel justified in ruining Lessans' reputation since you think you have proven him wrong. You have done no such thing. This has gotten more sick than I have ever imagined it to be.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You blew it Spacemonkey. I thought originally you were interested in the book, but I know now you want the book to display what you think are flawws and get confirmation from your crones at these universities. Guess what? If you want to do this, you are going to have to buy the book for $39.95 or whatever a reseller is selling it for. I cannot afford monitarily to send the book to you, and you should understand my situation. But you don't because you feel justified in ruining Lessans' reputation. This has gotten more sick than I ever imagined it to ever get.

So you're openly reneging on your promise? Shame on you, Peacegirl.

I've never given you any reason to think I was interested in the book, and I've always been completely upfront about my offer and what I would do with the book.

For you to pull out now, citing financial difficulties and blaming me at the same time (a first blow right there!) is deeply dishonest and reprehensible.

Have you no shame? Have you no conscience? Apparently your word counts for nothing.

[LadyShea]

LadyShea, you are so stuck on your belief that truth can only be found by starting with a hypothesis called the scientific method (which is a conjured up condition of what determines proof; not a reality of what the proof actually shows) is the only way of finding truth that you aren't hearing anything that contravenes your prejudices.

Sorry peacegirl, that's how science is done. Who do you reckon is going to "confirm the discovery is valid" if not scientists? How can scientists go about confirming it if scientific methodology can't be applied?

Exactly what is your expectation...that a "top scientist" will read it, say "I approve this message" and away you go?

[LadyShea]

no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject, because it's been monopolized by the "big brother of science" who has claimed all rights to this subject by virtue of making their theories FACTS. They don't have the right to do this.

Who in this society is somehow prevented from expressing their thoughts on any subject? That guy has a blog, right? He has a chance to express any thought he wants and he does so and did so for several years! You are publishing a book...no monopoly is preventing you doing that. Correct?

So what the fuck are you talking about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can only lead you to the water, Janis.

Because that's what it is.

I've always had empathy for your situation.

I don't care what you think of my motivations.

I know you don't care. That's the problem.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When do you receive your actual books? You should already have my postal address, but let me know if you need me to resend it.

What are you talking about? I don't need your address. If you want the book, go to www.trafford.com, and buy it like everybody else. If it's not worth it to you, don't buy it. It's as simple as that LadyShea, so stop making this more than it is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who in this society is somehow prevented from expressing their thoughts on any subject? That guy has a blog, right? He has a chance to express any thought he wants and he does so and did so for several years! You are publishing a book...no monopoly is preventing you doing that. Correct?

So what the fuck are you talking about?

You did not even address my question. This just shows me how closed off you really are: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The sad part of all of this is that your stance on this subject is preventing the very thing you were hoping to find. How ironic.