A revolution in thought

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know?

Oh, man, is this so difficult to understand? Are you really not able to follow an argumentative thread?

I know because the Scandinavians make reasonable choices on one side, and you affirm that it is in line with your father's book on the other side. The only assumption I have is that Scandinavian politicians and officials did not read your father's book.

So to make my argument I do not need any more information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know what Lessans is even proposing?

As said, for this argument, I do not have to know.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that,

No, you did not. You suggested I thought that you thought that Scandinavian do not do a better job.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but you're using this to negate that Lessans has any contribution whatsoever just because the Scandinavians are a little more progressive. Your argument that this book is devoid of value is so breathtakingly silly that it is impossible to engage in any discussion with you (which is perhaps your underlying strategy).

Again, that is not my argument. My argument is that there other grounds than your father's book for making reasonable choices. Nothing more. So to say it methodologically: your father's ideas are not falsified by the Scandinavians, but they are not confirmed either, simply because there other ways to come to 'Scandinavian wisdom'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are sounding like a blithering copycat who is just regurgitating the same old crap people have posted in here.

If you would learn from the argumentations here, nobody wouldn't have to repeat anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And this is coming from someone who has no idea what the book is about.

You do not have to read a book completely to see that it has no quality.

And you have shown that you have no idea of science: its results, how observations and experiments support these results. You don't even notice that your ideas about efferent vision are falsified already for ages.

So everything you say is coming from someone who has no idea about science.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have taken your 13-point list seriously.

I have nowhere really noticed that. You immediately react with sentences like 'how can a punishment be justified when somebody could not have done otherwise?'.

And for the rest, same message as above, you are terrible at following argumentations.

The beginning of the argumentation in your fathers book is more or less like this:

1. Determinism is true.
2. So it is impossible to do otherwise than we did.
3. Blaming is only justified if somebody could have done otherwise.
4. So blaming is not justified.

I am continuously arguing against 3, on 2 grounds:
- that 'could have done otherwise' under exactly the same circumstances is an empty concept, so denying its existence is denying nothing
- that blaming can be justified by applying my 13-point list: when grosso modo all points apply, somebody is fully responsible, and can or may bear the fruits of his action

The other argumentation strain I did not follow yet here, is that there is another reading of 'could have done otherwise', which is less strict, but fully builds on the analysis of causality with counterfactuals. (Where it is interesting that determinism can be seen as an extrapolation of causality. So when you want to deny the value of thinking in terms of counterfactuals you are removing a basis of determinism...)

Alltogether, points 2 and 3 do not hold, so the conclusion 4 simply does not follow. But CFW would amend 4 as something like:

4. If the conditions apply, then agents may bear the fruit of their actions, which amongst others, includes punishing for crimes.

So I am not changing the subject, I am directly attacking the ideas of your father concerning free will.

PS If you think my 4 point list is not correct, then please correct it. Just saying that I did not read the book does not suffice if you want to discuss the free will ideas of your father. (I say this because you never corrected davidm's (Pec of Uliar at CFI) summary of your father's argument, but keep saying it is not correct.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I have nowhere really noticed that. You immediately react with sentences like 'how can a punishment be justified when somebody could not have done otherwise?'.

And for the rest, same message as above, you are terrible at following argumentations.

The beginning of the argumentation in your fathers book is more or less like this:

1. Determinism is true.
2. So it is impossible to do otherwise than we did.
3. Blaming is only justified if somebody could have done otherwise.
4. So blaming is not justified.

I am continuously arguing against 3, on 2 grounds:
- that 'could have done otherwise' under exactly the same circumstances is an empty concept, so denying its existence is denying nothing
- that blaming can be justified by applying my 13-point list: when grosso modo all points apply, somebody is fully responsible, and can or may bear the fruits of his action

The other argumentation strain I did not follow yet here, is that there is another reading of 'could have done otherwise', which is less strict, but fully builds on the analysis of causality with counterfactuals. (Where it is interesting that determinism can be seen as an extrapolation of causality. So when you want to deny the value of thinking in terms of counterfactuals you are removing a basis of determinism...)

Alltogether, points 2 and 3 do not hold, so the conclusion 4 simply does not follow. But CFW would amend 4 as something like:

4. If the conditions apply, then agents may bear the fruit of their actions, which amongst others, includes punishing for crimes.

So I am not changing the subject, I am directly attacking the ideas of your father concerning free will.

PS If you think my 4 point list is not correct, then please correct it. Just saying that I did not read the book does not suffice if you want to discuss the free will ideas of your father. (I say this because you never corrected davidm's (Pec of Uliar at CFI) summary of your father's argument, but keep saying it is not correct.)

This summary by David is such crap that if you choose to take a short cut over studying the real text, I'm not interested in hearing anything more from you. You are taking the cowards way out. Isn't that everyone has taught me in here; go to the source for your answers; don't accept something secondhand? Why are you piggybacking onto someone's else's take (without doing your own research), which is completely biased and filled with inaccuracies? Why?????

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So there are more theories of justice that just this retributive justice theory? Gosh, who knew? Oh yeah, me - because I just told you. Do you read what you quote?

The entire judicial system of most democratic countries justify punishment based on retributive justice. Why are you bringing up other definitions of justice, as if this somehow discounts the definition I'm using? I know, you want to prove Lessans wrong here so you can prove him wrong regarding the eyes. That's your only motive.

[peacegirl]

[quote=The Lone Ranger;1238232]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the of judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes (but rarely, of course,) the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

Oh, so what you're saying is that no discoverer on this list has ever been discredited at first for being wrong when he was actually correct. Is that what you're saying?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire judicial system of most democratic countries justify punishment based on retributive justice.

So the legal Courts of England and Wales (my own country of residence) dish out fines for speeding based on retributive justice?

Please, tell me more.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This summary by David is such crap that if you choose to take a short cut over studying the real text, I'm not interested in hearing anything more from you. You are taking the cowards way out. Isn't that everyone has taught me in here; go to the source for your answers; don't accept something secondhand? Why are you piggybacking onto someone's else's take (without doing your own research), which is completely biased and filled with inaccuracies? Why?????

Nice try. But the contents of my posting has nothing to do with davidm's summary. If my 4 points do not cover Lessans' argument against free will, then let me know.

And btw, the posting was meant to show you that I did not change the subject: it is about this argument. You only confirm that you react like a bull on a red cloth on sentences you do not like, not on the contents and structure of an argument.

And it is true what davidm says. You do not take that chance to improve such summaries. I bet on it that you will say that my 4 points are wrong, but that you will do nothing to correct them. (Except saying: read the book...)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Oh, man, is this so difficult to understand? Are you really not able to follow an argumentative thread?

I know because the Scandinavians make reasonable choices on one side, and you affirm that it is in line with your father's book on the other side. The only assumption I have is that Scandinavian politicians and officials did not read your father's book.

So to make my argument I do not need any more information.

I am taken aback by your lack of thoroughness. Who in the world said that people cannot make reasonable choices? Who said that people had to read my father's book for them to make reasonable choices? Giving them this much, they do not hold the answer to world peace.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know what Lessans is even proposing?

Originally Posted by GdB

As said, for this argument, I do not have to know.

You're right. You can conclude that Lessans has nothing valuable to offer when you have no understanding of what this book is about. You are looking like a damn fool.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that,

Originally Posted by GdB

No, you did not. You suggested I thought that you thought that Scandinavian do not do a better job.

Okay, so now you know that I do not think that you think that I believe Scandinavians are not doing a better job, because they are. This has nothing to do with the significance of this discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but you're using this to negate that Lessans has any contribution whatsoever just because the Scandinavians are a little more progressive. Your argument that this book is devoid of value is so breathtakingly silly that it is impossible to engage in any discussion with you (which is perhaps your underlying strategy).

Originally Posted by GdB

Again, that is not my argument. My argument is that there other grounds than your father's book for making reasonable choices. Nothing more. So to say it methodologically: your father's ideas are not falsified by the Scandinavians, but they are not confirmed either, simply because there other ways to come to 'Scandinavian wisdom'.

There is a lot of wisdom out there which is a good thing. Who is asking the Scandinavians to confirm or deny this discovery when they know nothing about it? Why are you freaking out when you have no conception of what it's about EITHER? You are a terrible investigator, far worse than LadyShea, TLR, Davidm, and Spacemonkey put together. I've been told not to waste my time with compatibilists, and I can see why.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are sounding like a blithering copycat who is just regurgitating the same old crap people have posted in here.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you would learn from the argumentations here, nobody wouldn't have to repeat anything.

Be quiet, will you? You are stuck in a groove that looks like I can't win because anything I say say to refute your compatibilist ideas, you will tell me that I'm arguing against LFW. Your conception of freedom is not compatible with determinism because every choice a person makes is not free, even the choices you say ARE free.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And this is coming from someone who has no idea what the book is about.

Originally Posted by GdB

You do not have to read a book completely to see that it has no quality.

And you have shown that you have no idea of science: its results, how observations and experiments support these results. You don't even notice that your ideas about efferent vision are falsified already for ages.

So everything you say is coming from someone who has no idea about science.

You are not the deep thinker you think you are. The more theories that are out there, the greater is the need to sift through the garbage to find the gem. You have made up your mind that Lessans is wrong regarding the eyes, so he must be a phony. This has caused people to condemn him unfairly and prematurely. That seems to be par for the course when any discoverer disagrees with the status quo until he is proven right many years later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Nice try. But the contents of my posting has nothing to do with davidm's summary. If my 4 points do not cover Lessans' argument against free will, then let me know.

And btw, the posting was meant to show you that I did not change the subject: it is about this argument. You only confirm that you react like a bull on a red cloth on sentences you do not like, not on the contents and structure of an argument.

And it is true what davidm says. You do not take that chance to improve such summaries. I bet on it that you will say that my 4 points are wrong, but that you will do nothing to correct them. (Except saying: read the book...)

You don't have an argument GdB, because you don't know what the discovery is. Do you see how unfair this is, or are you still blind?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh, so what you're saying is that no discoverer on this list has ever been discredited at first for being wrong when he was actually correct. Is that what you're saying?

What I'm saying is that most of the examples given are flat-out lies.


Consider just one of the "examples," Robert Bakker. He published The Dinosaur Heresies in 1986, arguing that most of the general public's beliefs regarding dinosaurs are outdated. Many (perhaps most, maybe even all) dinosaurs were "hot-blooded," he argued, with fast, mammalian-style metabolisms.

Was this a "heretical" position according to the paleontological community? Was he ostracized for his views? No, and no.

Indeed, Ostrum had shown that species such as Deinonychus antirrhopus were almost-certainly active, warm-blooded animals decades before Bakker published The Dinosaur Heresies.


This is not to argue that all of Bakkers' ideas are widely accepted in the scientific community. His initial claims that Tyrannosaurus rex could run at 45 mph and that Brontosaurs galloped about the landscape like gigantic horses were quickly shown to be biomechanically and physiologically implausible, at best. As Bakker himself has recognized.



The point here is that most of these claims that the scientists in question were ridiculed and ostracized for their "heretical" ideas are not just wrong, they're flat-out lies. (And the rest are, at best, exaggerations.)

I've pointed this out to you before. And yet you continue to make the claim.

That makes you a liar, since you're repeating claims which you know are demonstrably false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So the legal Courts of England and Wales (my own country of residence) dish out fines for speeding based on retributive justice?

Please, tell me more.

I did not say that all infractions of the law deserve retributive justice. Dishing out fines for speeding has nothing to do with retribution because no one was hurt. Why do you try to twist everything I say just because you don't like his claim regarding the eyes? It's so obvious Dragar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

What I'm saying is that most of the examples given are flat-out lies.


Consider just one of the "examples," Robert Bakker. He published The Dinosaur Heresies in 1986, arguing that most of the general public's beliefs regarding dinosaurs are outdated. Many (perhaps most, maybe even all) dinosaurs were "hot-blooded," he argued, with fast, mammalian-style metabolisms.

Was this a "heretical" position according to the paleontological community? Was he ostracized for his views? No, and no.

Indeed, Ostrum had shown that species such as Deinonychus antirrhopus were almost-certainly active, warm-blooded animals decades before Bakker published The Dinosaur Heresies.


This is not to argue that all of Bakkers' ideas are widely accepted in the scientific community. His initial claims that Tyrannosaurus rex could run at 45 mph and that Brontosaurs galloped about the landscape like gigantic horses were quickly shown to be biomechanically and physiologically implausible, at best. As Bakker himself has recognized.


The point here is that most of these claims that the scientists in question were ridiculed and ostracized for their "heretical" ideas are not just wrong, they're flat-out lies. (And the rest are, at best, exaggerations.)

So then these people were wrong, so what? That doesn't make all the discoverers originally thought of as crackpots wrong.

To truth only a brief celebration is allowed between the two long
periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or disparaged as
trivial.
Arthur Schopenhauer

Interpretation: Many things we accept today as fact were ridiculed
and opposed in the not so distant past; this goes to show that just
because an idea is unpopular now doesn’t mean it won’t be unilaterally
accepted in the future.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I've pointed this out to you before. And yet you continue to make the claim.

That makes you a liar, since you're repeating claims which you know are demonstrably false.

You love to throw the word "liar" around, don't you? Well I don't think it's a false claim that some discoverers were considered crackpots before they were recognized as true discoverers.

Some people have commented that these people were not real crackpots. They worked as real scientists and had ideas that just took time to establish. They are not like the people who turn up in physics and maths forums with crazy ideas that have no respect for hundreds of years of progress in science. Furthermore, our “crackpots”-who-were-right are a tiny minority compared to all the ones who were wrong.

I disagree with these points. Firstly, these people really were treated as crazy and were subjected to ridicule or were ignored. The cases described here are the extremes. There are many more who have merely had an important paper rejected. In fact it is hard to know the real extent of the problem because only the most important stories get told in the history of science. My guess is that these people represent the tip of a large iceberg most of which lies hidden below the threshold it takes for historians to take note.

Furthermore, even if the “crackpots” who were right are the minority among all “crackpots”, they are still the most significant part. It is better to create an environment in which these people can have their theories recorded for the sake of the few who are right, than to try to dispel them all because of some irrational fear that they disrupt real science.

crackpots who were right | viXra log

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So there are more theories of justice that just this retributive justice theory? Gosh, who knew? Oh yeah, me - because I just told you. Do you read what you quote?

I am pretty sure that peacegirl reads the things she quotes with the same degree of care and comprehension that she applies to all the posts in this thread.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that all infractions of the law deserve retributive justice.

"The entire judicial system...justify punishment based on retributive justice."

[Dragar]

By the way peacegirl, are you ever going to explain how mirrors work?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Bump!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

By the way peacegirl, are you ever going to explain how mirrors work?

I already did. Mirrors work the same exact way in both accounts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

"The entire judicial system...justify punishment based on retributive justice."

Retributive justice is how the criminal justice system works. I'm speaking for the United States. The whole philosophy behind criminal justice is the belief that the person did not have to do what he did, and is therefore deemed punishable under the law. Rehabilitation takes a back seat to punishment although efforts are being made to help prisoners assimilate back into society.

How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?

The criminal justice system is comprised of three major institutions which process a case from inception, through trial, to punishment. A case begins with law enforcement officials, who investigate a crime and gather evidence to identify and use against the presumed perpetrator. The case continues with the court system, which weighs the evidence to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If so, the corrections system will use the means at their disposal, namely incarceration and probation, to punish and correct the behavior of the offender.

Throughout each stage of the process, constitutional protections exist to ensure that the rights of the accused and convicted are respected. These protections balance the need of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute criminals with the fundamental rights of the accused (who are presumed innocent).

cont at: How Does the Criminal Justice System Work? - FindLaw

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did. Mirrors work the same exact way in both accounts.

So why does it matter, given we don't 'interpret the light' in your version of events?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Retributive justice is how the criminal justice system works. I'm speaking for the United States.

Funny, because before you were talking about 'most democratic countries'! I'm glad to see you've stepped back from that remark.

No admission you overreached, as usual, I notice.

The whole philosophy behind criminal justice is the belief that the person did not have to do what he did, and is therefore deemed punishable under the law. Rehabilitation takes a back seat to punishment although efforts are being made to help prisoners assimilate back into society.

Punishment is not the same as retribution (as you even point out above!). So please, show me this principle of retributive justice that the American justice system is founded upon. How do they use this principle of retribution in environmental or contract law, for instance?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I will be leaving here.

Uh huh.

You may try another forum or three, but you'll be right back here when the people who run those forums decide they've had enough of your bullshit. So it was, so it is, so shall it always be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. It's counterproductive.

I'm glad you realize that. Now let's see whether you have the guts to do anything about it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could [sic] care less what people think about my father in these type forums.

I suppose that's a good thing. Thanks to your efforts, people around the worldwide web consider your father an egomaniacal, histrionic, ill-informed, chronically butthurt kook, a small man who desperately wanted to be a great man. If I'd publicly brutalized my father's memory as you have yours, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will find a different place to share this knowledge, and they will not think of Lessans in this way.

You will find another forum, squabble with strangers about efferent vision, and your audience will reach the same conclusions about Lessans that your prior audiences have reached. Eventually they'll get sick of your bullshit and you'll be back here. You're incapable of acting otherwise, else you would have done so long ago.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't make all the discoverers originally thought of as crackpots wrong.

No one said it did. Don't be an idiot.

You love to throw the word "liar" around, don't you?

No I don't. It's exactly the opposite. Have you not been paying attention at all?

What I despise is your constant repetition of claims that you know are false.

Well I don't think it's a false claim that some discoverers were considered crackpots before they were recognized as true discoverers.

The problem is that almost all of the "examples" you give are demonstrably false. And even after it's pointed out that your "examples" are false, you continue to use them. That's lying, and it's despicable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Uh huh.

You may try another forum or three, but you'll be right back here when the people who run those forums decide they've had enough of your bullshit. So it was, so it is, so shall it always be.

I'm glad you realize that. Now let's see whether you have the guts to do anything about it.

I suppose that's a good thing. Thanks to your efforts, people around the worldwide web consider your father an egomaniacal, histrionic, ill-informed, chronically butthurt kook, a small man who desperately wanted to be a great man. If I'd publicly brutalized my father's memory as you have yours, I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

You will find another forum, squabble with strangers about efferent vision, and your audience will reach the same conclusions about Lessans that your prior audiences have reached. Eventually they'll get sick of your bullshit and you'll be back here. You're incapable of acting otherwise, else you would have done so long ago.

And when he's proven right, you will be shocked and embarrassed by the way you portrayed him.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Furthermore, even if the “crackpots” who were right are the minority among all “crackpots”, they are still the most significant part. It is better to create an environment in which these people can have their theories recorded for the sake of the few who are right, than to try to dispel them all because of some irrational fear that they disrupt real science.

crackpots who were right | viXra log[/I]

It is true that a few crackpots that were right does not prove Lessans to be wrong, nor does it prove him to be right. Lessans other ideas that have been demonstrated to be wrong, do lend credence to the idea that he is probably wrong about everything that he has written. If he had stopped at determinism and blame, he might be getting a fair hearing in the philosophical community. But given all the other claims he has made, puts him clearly in the category of a know-nothing crackpot, who will never be taken seriously, nor should he. Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No one said it did. Don't be an idiot.

You are acting like there have been no discoverers who were seen as crackpots, which was my whole point in bringing this up.

You love to throw the word "liar" around, don't you?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No I don't. It's exactly the opposite. Have you not been paying attention at all?

What I despise is your constant repetition of claims that you know are false.

It is not false to say that there were true discoverers who were once classified as crackpots.

Well I don't think it's a false claim that some discoverers were considered crackpots before they were recognized as true discoverers.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The problem is that almost all of the "examples" you give are demonstrably false. And even after it's pointed out that your "examples" are false, you continue to use them. That's lying, and it's despicable.

I didn't give examples. Maybe you disagree with some of the people mentioned on that list, but the bottom line is that there have been discoverers who were thought of as crackpots before they were vindicated.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

when he's proven right