A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

They were all easily debunked.

As for the article you posted, it is (once again) full of unsubstantiated claims, inappropriate use of anecdotal evidence, emotive language, and plain old untruths. Would you like to go through them one by one? I have had no rpoblem debunking anything else you posted. You seem to never respond to those debunkings though, and you just move on.

If I thoroughly and completely demolish this particular article piece by piece, starting with his claim to be a doctor, will you promise to never, ever whinge again about how no-one reads what you post ever again? Because frankly, it does not seem to be worth my time: it never seems to even register.

You see, I didn't think so. Putting your money where your mouth is has never been one of your strong points.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is probably politically motivated. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded. In the new world no doctor, court, or any other institution would ever justify forcing a vaccine on a child against the parent's wishes.

The point you missed is that... best sit down and concentrate hard for this one, as it is rather complicated...

There are TWO parents!

The father wants the children vaccinated, the mother doesn't. The parents are separated and sufficiently angry with each other to take the argument over the children to law - which is how the high court came to be involved in the first place.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The point you missed is that... best sit down and concentrate hard for this one, as it is rather complicated...

There are TWO parents!

The father wants the children vaccinated, the mother doesn't. The parents are separated and sufficiently angry with each other to take the argument over the children to law - which is how the high court came to be involved in the first place.

peacegirl, since your response indicates you didn't read the article, I am really curious as to what your immediate thought was as to why a judge was ruling on this at all. Who did you imagine took the case to court? Why did you assume it was a political thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Weaseling. It is fundamentally dishonest and makes you look ridiculous.

Now you are accuse me of weaseling unfairly, which is a cop out because I am doing just as much research on vaccines as anyone else. Just because LadyShea wanted a yes or no answer does not mean I have to answer it immediately. If autism actually went up after thimerosal was removed completely, I would still have to know whether the children had been previously vaccinated before the mercury was removed and if this was used in the study as proof that thimerosal wasn't involved. I would not say one way or the other with confidence until I know whether the studies are reliable because what they are finding is that the studies themselves are biased.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are apparent contradictions if you are coming from the afferent perspective, but that alone doesn't mean his claim is wrong. It is true that one account of vision must be right and the other wrong. They both can't be right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are these apparent contradictions ones you can reconcile? Or are they irreconcilable contradictions? (And the contradictions we are talking about are not between the two accounts but within your own.)

I told you that they both can't be right, so one has to go. There is absolutely no contradiction within the efferent account because light can travel and still be a condition of sight, not a cause. The distance between the object and the eye in this account is not what matters. What matters is that the object is within optical range. It's YOU that is trying to make this account irreconcilable. Please don't get into this again. I won't answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with him being wrong because I don't believe his observations were wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And yet you just finished telling me that you deliberately evade questions when you know that answering them will make Lessans look wrong.

I only evaded questions or weaseled because I believed correctly that people would use my inability to answer certain questions (e.g., regarding the structure of the eye) against Lessans inappropriately.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why do you keep coming back to this thread? If you don't think there's anything worth investigating, you should be doing other things.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are worth investigating.

How sad! You can think what you want and play this sick game by turning this into an issue about my incompetence, but it won't work because this discovery is genuine. I am going to ignore your posts if you keep it up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you still enjoy lego?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. We recently organized and held a national Lego show which drew in 20,000 visitors and raised over $15,000 for charity.

Wow, that's fantastic! Congratulations!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is your professorship coming?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not working on any professorship. I never was.

Let me rephrase: trying to get a job in your chosen field.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intuition does not come into play with this book. His knowledge was not based on intuition. It was based on astute observation and sound reasoning.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, it is faith rather than intuition which you constantly fall back on with the book.

You have no idea what you're talking about Spacemonkey. You have no idea how incredibly knowledgeable Lessans was, and how analytical, observant, well read and capable of making such a discovery he was. Until this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will miss out unfortunately. I'm not depending on you for anything, so it doesn't matter to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know. I might not have lasted as long as I have if I hadn't weaseled in the beginning. I don't think I weasel anymore, although you might think I do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So lets' summarize: You say you have weaseled in the past, but that you don't weasel any more, i.e. you are making a point of (allegedly) no longer engaging in this kind of behaviour. Yet you also say that you haven't made any attempt to change your behaviour in this thread, or identified any behaviour that you think you should change. How does that work?

It worked in the past; I don't need to weasel now. And stop sounding like Dr. Phil.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I have answered most of the questions regarding vaccines. I have found supporting evidence that shows there is a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism in some children. I have found reports saying that Andrew Wakefield's research was confirmed. I have read reports where children were observed as being less robust after mass vaccinations. I don't know all the answers and I don't claim to, but as a parent the vaccine schedule that is now up to 36 doses before age 2 and starting in infancy is disturbing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Non sequitur.

Where is what I said a non-sequitur?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Even if all of this were true, you have still made things up, weaseled out of answering questions, and dismissed evidence in favour of intuition. Just like I said.

What have I made up? As I said, I will trust a parent's observations, especially when the connection between a vaccine and a radical change in their child's behavior (one hour after the shot) is staring us right in the face.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because appearances are not always correct. What appears to be true isn't always true, especially when someone sees something from a different perspective that was never considered.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what? How does this show that we should not count it as evidence against Lessans that there are things his account can't explain which our account can? If it were the other away around - with Lessans being able to explain phenomena that the afferent account could not explain, would you recommend that we all ignore this and deny it as evidence in his favour just because "apearances are not always correct"?

That is why I am saying that further empirical testing should give us more information, but it has to be an unbiased test. The tests that have been run were only trying to confirm what they have taken for granted is a fact, which can easily be skewed in the direction of what they are looking to find.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not sure. I really hate to think that people would use the fact that my father wasn't an astronomer as some kind of proof that he didn't know what he was talking about, and by proxy, me as well.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They don't. They use the fact that he made claims which any competent astronomer knows for a fact to be wrong, as evidence that he did not know what he was talking about.

But that goes back to the issue of how the efferent position changes the function of light, not the properties of light. It's like driving on two sides of the highway. They are diametrically opposed which brings a different set of factors that you are failing to see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, it is pretty conclusive that the earth is round. The flat earthers have not proved their theory. All they are doing is making assertions. I believe more experiments will prove that my father was correct. Obviously, if it can't be empirically tested, then his claim will never be confirmed or denied.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's also pretty conclusive that vision is afferent and delayed. Lessans certainly hasn't proved his theory, though he sure makes several assertions. Why isn't it possible that the Earth is flat and something else is going on that merely makes it seem round? After all, you seem to think that an unexplained "something else might be going on there" is enough to make evidence against efferent vision less than conclusive. The evidence in both cases is just as strong, and in neither case is it absolutely conclusive beyond any remote possibility of error.

The evidence is not as strong in favoring a flat earth. So far there is no empirical evidence that supports a flat earth over a round earth. Please don't compare this to Lessans' claim because evidence (through testing) may end up in his favor afterall.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. Evidence is crucial, but you are discounting his evidence because he didn't use the scientific method...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I dismiss his unsupported claims because he has no evidence at all. I am not discounting his evidence, as he doesn't have any for us to discount.

You keep saying this even in regard to his proof of determinism. Maybe it's you that won't allow yourself to give him the benefit of the doubt before telling me that this is a non-discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I did. I don't know how it would have turned out. Maybe people would have thought I was a troll and that would have been the end of the thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You think people would have been more likely to view you as a troll if you had honestly admitted to not knowing things instead of constantly weaseling and evading questions? Do you really think the thread could not have continued if you'd been honest instead of trying (rather transparently) to hide your ignorance?

Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have, but at the time it wasn't a chance worth taking. Now I don't care.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true Spacemonkey; how can you say that in all honesty? I have learned a lot from this research, so even if no one in here does my efforts have not been for naught. I doubt if you have been following the research that I have posted.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What I said was perfectly true, and you have just confirmed it again by cutting and pasting yet another source that you hope supports what you already believe and which you have no doubt made no attempt whatsoever to verify for accuracy.

What does cutting and pasting have to do anything? I am reading these articles that provide information which contradicts government sponsored studies. Doesn't LadyShea cut and paste? I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy and what I am finding is that the government sponsored studies are often skewed in favor of Big Pharma. So now what? Is she checking them for accuracy? Is she a weasel? Why am I being the only one targeted as being a weasel?

[LadyShea]

If autism actually went up after thimerosal was removed completely, I would still have to know whether the children had been previously vaccinated before the mercury was removed and if this was used in the study as proof that thimerosal wasn't involved. I would not say one way or the other with confidence until I know whether the studies are reliable because what they are finding is that the studies themselves are biased.

There are tens of thousands of kids who were born after thimerosal was removed, so could not have been vaccinated before that. You should be able to look at autism stats for kids born after 2003 in the US to see if the rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady...right? You don't even have to look at "official" stats...see what the autism activist parents are saying if you prefer (Autism Speaks, Generation Rescue). Also, other countries have completely different health care systems, so might not have the same political and monetary pressures you feel are corrupting all of our scientists, so look for stats elsewhere too.

Even take the mercury question out of it completely, and simply answer whether autism rates are increasing, decreasing, or staying steady based on your research.

You are the one that has been arguing that we are experiencing an unprecedented epidemic of "chronic issues" in children that might be related to vaccines, yet you are weaseling away from even naming these issues and exploring them individually. How can you know if vaccines are involved if you don't even know the exact condition you are researching or if it is a problem at all? Is autism one of them?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that they both can't be right, so one has to go. There is absolutely no contradiction within the efferent account because light can travel and still be a condition of sight, not a cause. The distance between the object and the eye in this account is not what matters. What matters is that the object is within optical range.

This is the point that needs to be explained for Efferent vision to even be considered. Light travels at a finite speed, that everyone agrees on. But you claim that in Efferent vision the image of an object is at the eye without any time passing from the time the photons are at the object till the image (apparently photons) are at the retina. This point must be explained in a way that can be tested and proven. So to support Efferent vision, you need to come up with some testable hypothesis to do so.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you are accuse me of weaseling unfairly...

Well, you've admitted to weaseling, and there's no such thing as fair weaseling. It is a fundamentally dishonest practice, and one you should be trying to stop using instead of trying to rationalize and justify.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that they both can't be right, so one has to go. There is absolutely no contradiction within the efferent account...

Yet you've contradicted yourself every single time you've tried to explain it. You've admitted there are apparent contradictions. So I'm asking you if these apparent contradictions are ones you can reconcile or if they are irreconcilable contradictions. Which are they?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only evaded questions or weaseled because I believed correctly that people would use my inability to answer certain questions (e.g., regarding the structure of the eye) against Lessans inappropriately.

That doesn't justify weaseling. You can't justify dishonesty by claiming that honest answers might make you look silly. Dishonesty makes you look a whole lot worse. Wrong answers only make you look ignorant. Weaseling makes you look both ignorant and dishonest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How sad! You can think what you want and play this sick game by turning this into an issue about my incompetence, but it won't work because this discovery is genuine. I am going to ignore your posts if you keep it up.

You asked me why I am here, so I gave you an honest answer. If you don't like the answer then you shouldn't have asked the question.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no idea how incredibly knowledgeable Lessans was, and how analytical, observant, well read and capable of making such a discovery he was. Until this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will miss out unfortunately.

I think we can all agree that users on this forum don't know the depth and breadth of Lessans knowledge, analytical and observational ability, as it was not evident in his writing. One would certainly hope, for Lessans sake, that he was smarter than his writing indicated.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why I am saying that further empirical testing should give us more information, but it has to be an unbiased test. The tests that have been run were only trying to confirm what they have taken for granted is a fact, which can easily be skewed in the direction of what they are looking to find.

And here is where you are demonstrating that you don't really understand how science works. Testing an established theory doesn't get much traction in the scientific community, except as a teaching aid to demonstrate a known principle. The only reason a scientist would conduct an experiment on a known principle is to disprove it and make a name for himself as the discoverer of new knowledge. Disproving an accepted theory carries big rewards of fame and fortune and this is one of the more common practices in science, to devise an experiment and discover new knowledge.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It worked in the past; I don't need to weasel now.

No, it did not work in the past. It made you look both ignorant and dishonest. Weaseling has not helped you in any way. Stop trying to rationalize and justify your bad behaviour.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is what I said a non-sequitur?

That was explained in the very next sentence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What have I made up?

I already gave examples in the previous post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why I am saying that further empirical testing should give us more information, but it has to be an unbiased test. The tests that have been run were only trying to confirm what they have taken for granted is a fact, which can easily be skewed in the direction of what they are looking to find.

None of this even remotely addresses what I just asked, so I will repeat the question: How does this show that we should not count it as evidence against Lessans that there are things his account can't explain which our account can? If it were the other away around - with Lessans being able to explain phenomena that the afferent account could not explain, would you recommend that we all ignore this and deny it as evidence in his favour just because "appearances are not always correct"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that goes back to the issue of how the efferent position changes the function of light, not the properties of light. It's like driving on two sides of the highway. They are diametrically opposed which brings a different set of factors that you are failing to see.

You don't see them either, as you've never been able to explain efferent vision without flatly contradicting yourself. These vague metaphors and analogies don't help you at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is not as strong in favoring a flat earth. So far there is no empirical evidence that supports a flat earth over a round earth. Please don't compare this to Lessans' claim because evidence (through testing) may end up in his favor afterall.

The evidence is so strong against efferent vision that the only thing you've been able to say in response to it is that maybe something else is going on there, and that we should wait for more evidence to come in. But we can just as easily say exactly the same thing about a flat Earth. Maybe something else is going on there too, and we should wait for more evidence to come in. You said the standards we are using to judge Lessans are no good. So what specific standards can we employ that will allow us not to reject his ideas but won't also open the door to nonsense like flat Earth theory?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying this even in regard to his proof of determinism.

Yes, I certainly do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have, but at the time it wasn't a chance worth taking. Now I don't care.

It wasn't worth taking the chance of being honest instead of an evasive weasel? How do you type this tripe with a straight face?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does cutting and pasting have to do anything?

It shows you don't understand anything you are allegedly reading well enough to paraphrase it in your own words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy...

I don't think you're doing that at all. What measures have you taken to verify the accuracy of your last cut and paste?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is she checking them for accuracy? Is she a weasel?

Yes and No, respectively.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why am I being the only one targeted as being a weasel?

Because you're the only one who weasels. But that wasn't the charge here. The present point was that what you seem to consider 'research' isn't really research at all.

[thedoc]

An example of my previous post.

Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson Didnt' believe in the Big bang theory, they both favored the steady state theory of the Universe, yet they discovered the 'Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation' that supported the Big Bang Theory and disproved the Steady State Theory. According to Peacegirl they should have suppressed the knowledge and ignored the discovery.

However I imagine they enjoyed the Nobel Prize that went with it. I understand there is a very good dinner at the ceremony.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, this is probably politically motivated. For a high court to have the final word over the parent is, in my mind, unethical. There are many cases where a parent's right to choose is disregarded. In the new world no doctor, court, or any other institution would ever justify forcing a vaccine on a child against the parent's wishes.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Politically motivated? You think, what, the judge is running for office next or something? That he made that ruling to annoy people with the Conservative party?

Do you even know what you're writing?

Yes I know what I"m writing. Just because he's not running for office doesn't mean he isn't part and parcel of the political system that appointed him. Don't you think he knows what the conservative party expects (which is to answer conservatively and in keeping with the times), and don't you think this has an effect on his decision?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the safety of the rest of the population, bad science and lies (the ones you are perpetuating) are ignored and overruled when they threaten the safety of so many.

I'm not perpetuating lies Dragar. If anything, I'm promoting what many toxicologists and biochemists are already aware of; that vaccines are not as safe as government claims they are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought I said that I look in the mirror often and will change things that I believe need adjustments. I was not referring to this thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ah, so when you responded to LadyShea complaining about her behaviour in this thread and asking her if she ever looks herself in the mirror and attempts to change her behaviour, and then saying that you do do so, you meant only that you do this outside of the thread and not in it? Is that what you meant? Why don't you look at yourself in a mirror with respect to this thread as well? You really should.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I haven't succeeded. I said I haven't managed to change my behavior in this thread because I haven't tried to.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not? Your behaviour has been absolutely attrocious.

No it hasn't Spacemonkey. Is this all you have left in an effort to defeat me?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said I'm trying.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ah, no. You just finished explicitly telling me that you have not been trying in any way to change your behaviour in this thread.

I said in the early days of this thread when I felt backed into a corner I may have weaseled, but I have no reason to now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am searching for the studies by professionals in the field of toxicology, biochemistry and the like that prove vaccines are not as safe as people would like to believe.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. You are searching for evidence to support what you already believe instead of making any effort to look at both sides equally and fairly. And when you find something, you cut and paste it into the thread without having made any attempt to analyze or verify what it claims. This is not research.

What is your motive Spacemonkey? To prove to everyone that I don't know how to do research, and therefore could not know whether Lessans has a discovery or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really. If I don't have a valid refutation that I believe supports my argument, I will admit it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't know how this is meant to relate to what I said. Your weaseling (past and/or present) does not actually hide your ignorance. It only makes you look dishonest in addition to being ignorant. It is not a good strategy. It is something you should be actively trying to change instead of rationalizing and defending it.

Okay, thanks for the advice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I agree with peacegirl here. As a parent it is my right to hire out my minor children to work in the collieries or brothels and no court, however high, has the right to interfere with the choices I make for my children.

You cannot compare a negligent parent who would hire her children out to work in collieries or brothels with a parent who does not want her children vaccinated for safety or health reasons. Actually,

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The point you missed is that... best sit down and concentrate hard for this one, as it is rather complicated...

There are TWO parents!

The father wants the children vaccinated, the mother doesn't. The parents are separated and sufficiently angry with each other to take the argument over the children to law - which is how the high court came to be involved in the first place.

What's your point Ceptimus? In a divorce case where the decision is in the courts hands, they have to take a stand. It is no surprise that the courts would take the side of the parent who wants his children vaccinated since this is considered the more respectable decision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think we can all agree that users on this forum don't know the depth and breadth of Lessans knowledge, analytical and observational ability, as it was not evident in his writing. One would certainly hope, for Lessans sake, that he was smarter than his writing indicated.

This is coming from thedoc as usual; someone who doesn't understand the first thing about what was written. It's no wonder he says it wasn't evident in his writing; he has no knowledge as to what constitutes observational and analytical ability.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's your point Ceptimus? In a divorce case where the decision is in the courts hands, they have to take a stand. It is no surprise that the courts would take the side of the parent who wants his children vaccinated since this is considered the more respectable decision.

If you understand this, Why are you arguing against it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot compare a negligent parent who would hire her children out to work in collieries or brothels with a parent who does not want her children vaccinated for safety or health reasons. Actually,

Actually you can compare these actions as they all endanger the health and well being of the child.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot compare a negligent parent who would hire her children out to work in collieries or brothels with a parent who does not want her children vaccinated for safety or health reasons. Actually,

What do you mean I can't do that? I just did it.

At any rate, you missed the point, again. You said it was unethical for a court to have the final word over the parent. You didn't offer any qualifications or exceptions to that rule. That being the case, it must be that it is always and in every circumstance unethical for a court to overrule the will of a parent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it did not work in the past. It made you look both ignorant and dishonest. Weaseling has not helped you in any way. Stop trying to rationalize and justify your bad behaviour.

You told me I was weaseling because I didn't give a straight answer as to autism going up, down, or remaining steady. I was not weaseling Spacemonkey, so stop accusing me of this in every single post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why I am saying that further empirical testing should give us more information, but it has to be an unbiased test. The tests that have been run were only trying to confirm what they have taken for granted is a fact, which can easily be skewed in the direction of what they are looking to find.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this even remotely addresses what I just asked, so I will repeat the question: How does this show that we should not count it as evidence against Lessans that there are things his account can't explain which our account can? If it were the other away around - with Lessans being able to explain phenomena that the afferent account could not explain, would you recommend that we all ignore this and deny it as evidence in his favour just because "appearances are not always correct"?

Spacemonkey, he would have wanted people to scientifically test his claim. He was not against this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that goes back to the issue of how the efferent position changes the function of light, not the properties of light. It's like driving on two sides of the highway. They are diametrically opposed which brings a different set of factors that you are failing to see.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't see them either, as you've never been able to explain efferent vision without flatly contradicting yourself. These vague metaphors and analogies don't help you at all.

That's because you do not seem to understand that traveling photons, which involves time, does not make this account impossible. Metaphors were used to help you to see what it is I'm talking about. I'm trying to make it easier to grasp. By virtue of the fact that the object can be seen automatically puts the light at the eye or camera. There is no time involved, although light travels which I never denied.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is not as strong in favoring a flat earth. So far there is no empirical evidence that supports a flat earth over a round earth. Please don't compare this to Lessans' claim because evidence (through testing) may end up in his favor afterall.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The evidence is so strong against efferent vision that the only thing you've been able to say in response to it is that maybe something else is going on there, and that we should wait for more evidence to come in. But we can just as easily say exactly the same thing about a flat Earth. Maybe something else is going on there too, and we should wait for more evidence to come in. You said the standards we are using to judge Lessans are no good. So what specific standards can we employ that will allow us not to reject his ideas but won't also open the door to nonsense like flat Earth theory?

First off, scientists cannot assume that the afferent account is correct. In order for the tests to be accurate, there can be no bias in either direction. There are experiments that can be done on Earth that can help to determine whether his claim holds any weight. I still say that the fact dogs cannot identify their loving masters from a picture is a clue that the eyes DO NOT work like the other senses. You can dispute this all you want, but that does not mean he was wrong. I believe further testing will validate his claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying this even in regard to his proof of determinism.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I certainly do.

And you're wrong here as well. Your reasoning in favor of compatibilism is a nice concept. It's just not accurate. Determinism is incompatible with any kind of free will concept (the kind compatibilism uses) except as a useful definition that justifies blame and punishment. It is useful because without it, people in our society would get away with murder. I get it, but there is a better alternative and you won't listen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have, but at the time it wasn't a chance worth taking. Now I don't care.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It wasn't worth taking the chance of being honest instead of an evasive weasel? How do you type this tripe with a straight face?

Maybe if I had thought it through I would have answered differently, but I know how people judge based on extraneous things, and I didn't want people to judge me before we even got started. I understand that they judged me for weaseling and that I was better off being honest, but it's too late. We can't go back in time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does cutting and pasting have to do anything?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It shows you don't understand anything you are allegedly reading well enough to paraphrase it in your own words.

I can paraphrase the gist of a study, but I would not take it upon myself to explain the ins and outs a long study that has many facets to it. How can you ask me to do that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't think you're doing that at all. What measures have you taken to verify the accuracy of your last cut and paste?

My last cut and paste was a commentary. It was not a scientific study.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is she checking them for accuracy? Is she a weasel?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes and No, respectively.

She cuts and pastes Spacemonkey. So she can and I can't?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why am I being the only one targeted as being a weasel?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you're the only one who weasels. But that wasn't the charge here. The present point was that what you seem to consider 'research' isn't really research at all.

I am trying to understand the studies that have concluded there is no correlation between autism and mercury, or chronic illness and the number and frequency of the latest vaccine schedule. Scientists, toxicologists, et al are questioning the credibility and reliability of these studies. So why can't I? What is wrong with questioning the results?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What do you mean I can't do that? I just did it.

At any rate, you missed the point, again. You said it was unethical for a court to have the final word over the parent. You didn't offer any qualifications or exceptions to that rule. That being the case, it must be that it is always and in every circumstance unethical for a court to overrule the will of a parent.

No, it's not always unethical but in the new world these situations will not come up. Yes, in our society we have to overrule parents who are not responsible but we're not talking about irresponsible parents. We're talking about the right of a court to overrule a parent's right to what she believes is in the best interest of her child. The courts are not scientists. They don't know if this child could be damaged due to the vaccines that he now is being mandated by law to get.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually you can compare these actions as they all endanger the health and well being of the child.

And I'm the one accused of making unjustified assertions? The controversy over vaccine safety is not even close to being determined.

[Vivisectus]

You see, in the Brave New World, people will always know when they are right! And they will always know when they are wrong. And they will simply choose not to be wrong.

In the Brave New World, Peacegirl would not be able to justify not doing her homework to herself, as it might lead to her taking decisions that would lead to harm for other people. Whereas in this world, she is fine with repeating misinformation: someone will blame her for it, and this allows her to justify repeating blatant falsehoods that she could have easily checked up on, but did not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not always unethical but in the new world these situations will not come up. Yes, in our society we have to overrule parents who are not responsible but we're not talking about irresponsible parents. We're talking about the right of a court to overrule a parent's right to what she believes is in the best interest of her child. The courts are not scientists. They don't know if this child could be damaged due to the vaccines that he now is being mandated by law to get.

you are right the courts are not scientists, but the courts do not make decisions out of thin air, they rely on expert witnesses for the data on which they make their decisions. you've been watching too much "Judge Judy".