A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else.

So, the only things that are true are things that are so simple that idiots can understand them, then.

Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. The real world is vastly more complex than that.


As Asimov pointed out: "For every complex phenomenon, there is an explanation that is simple, concise, easy to understand, and wrong." Unfortunately for her, peacegirl seems to be unable to comprehend any explanation more complex than "water is wet, so if you fall into the creek you'll get wet."


Of course, science would be so much easier if we did it that way: make some stuff up, call it "scientific" and "undeniable," and insist that other people have the burden of testing your totally evidence-free claims. (And when they do test your claims and find them wanting, insist that they're doing it wrong ... somehow.)


Man, all these years I've been doing it the hard way!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I skimmed it. Optics is correct. The only thing there is disagreement on is the direction we see. The belief in afferent vision is not conclusive.

Liar. You yourself have repeatedly stated that you have no intention of reading it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No. Babbling about world peace and translucent robes doesn't count as doing mathematics, neither does saying stupid shit like "3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8".

What do you mean babbling about world peace? Do you even know the first thing about his discovery? No. And why would you bring up translucent robes when you know this was taken completely out of context to make a joke out of this book? Finally, why is it stupid to use 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 to show the undeniable nature of this equation versus using someone's rank as a standard to judge what is true? This was not what made him a mathematician, so please stop before you put your foot in your mouth.

p. 6 This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that
brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Liar. You yourself have repeatedly stated that you have no intention of reading it.

I read parts of it. I know that according to you everything points to the eyes being afferent. The ciliary muscle is undeveloped at birth which is why babies can't focus immediately (Lessans has a different interpretation), and transduction turns light energy into impulses that can be decoded as an image in the brain. All of it fits together perfectly? The only problem is that Lessans has an alternate view.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Finally, why is it stupid to use 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8 to show the undeniable nature of this equation versus using someone's rank as a standard to judge what is true?

Because it's not even a fucking equation.

Mathematicians are people who do mathematics, which is proving theorems.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of it fits together perfectly? The only problem is that Lessans has an alternate view.

It's not a problem, because he's a buffoon and it's utter horseshit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, the only things that are true are things that are so simple that idiots can understand them, then.

Unfortunately, that's not how the world works. The real world is vastly more complex than that.


As Asimov pointed out: "For every complex phenomenon, there is an explanation that is simple, concise, easy to understand, and wrong." Unfortunately for her, peacegirl seems to be unable to comprehend any explanation more complex than "water is wet, so if you fall into the creek you'll get wet."


Of course, science would be so much easier if we did it that way: make some stuff up, call it "scientific" and "undeniable," and insist that other people have the burden of testing your totally evidence-free claims. (And when they do test your claims and find them wanting, insist that they're doing it wrong ... somehow.)

As long as he clarified the definition of these three words so that everyone was on the same page and knew what he meant, he did nothing wrong. And btw, he does have evidence. You just don't want to investigate it because you are looking for data where he starts out with a hypothesis. There are other ways to truth epistemologically speaking.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Man, all these years I've been doing it the hard way!

Maybe so. The more assumptions, the greater the possibility of error.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Thinking is good. Math is good. But arrogance isn't good and can slow down progress or even bring it to a halt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It's not a problem, because he's a buffoon and it's utter horseshit.

If that's how you feel, that's fine, but it's time to take a break. You are starting to get nasty and I can't deal with it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Because it's not even a fucking equation.

Okay, I misused the word. Sorry.

Originally Posted by But

Mathematicians are people who do mathematics, which is proving theorems.

math·e·ma·ti·cian
ˌmaTH(ə)məˈtiSHən/Submit
noun
an expert in or student of mathematics.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, I misused the word. Sorry.

math·e·ma·ti·cian
ˌmaTH(ə)məˈtiSHən/Submit
noun
an expert in or student of mathematics.

No shit. And what is mathematics? Proving theorems.

[The Lone Ranger]

Hey, I glanced at a cookbook once, and I remember it said something about something called "quiche."

By peacegirl logic, this makes me a fully-qualified chef.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only problem is that Lessans has an alternate view.

Which means exactly nothing, since he couldn't be arsed to provide a single shred of evidence for his claims, and since he was demonstrably ignorant of even the most basic of relevant science.

I'm sure my favorite 3-year-old has an alternate view, too. Guess how much relevance that has?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No shit. And what is mathematics? Proving theorems.

He figured out math problems without knowing any mathematical formulas. He received the highest grade possible on a general test (including math) for the army to see where he showed talent. They were so surprised at his excellent score that they said he would be good at anything he put his mind to.

mathematician

Use the noun mathematician when you talk about someone who is highly educated in — and good at — math. Your math teacher might be a great mathematician who's also gifted at explaining math to students.
You can call a person who does math for a living a mathematician, like a math professor or someone who works in statistics or as an actuary. Actually, anyone who has great skill at mathematics is also a mathematician, even if they work as a chef or a taxi driver. The word mathematician is rooted in the Greek mathematikos, which means "relating to mathematics, or scientific," or simply "disposed to learn."
Definitions of
mathematician
1
n a person skilled in mathematics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Hey, I glanced at a cookbook once, and I remember it said something about something called "quiche."

By peacegirl logic, this makes me a fully-qualified chef.

You are, as usual, painting a picture of him that has no resemblance to him whatsoever. He did not glance over things and say he was fully qualified. It took him years of study to make these observations based on patterns that he saw and many more years to put his observations down on paper in a way that could be understood by others.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am telling you that I will not speak to you if your name-calling continues. This will only push me further away and I won't engage in a discussion with you about anything. I never said if you stop insulting me I would answer the same question. In fact, I answered this post many times but it didn't satisfy you. I can't help that.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

So, let's just see how many assumptions these two accounts require.


The Standard View:

Assumption #1: The Universe is not deliberately trying to fool us into believing something that is not so, by deliberately altering physical constants on an arbitrary basis, and in a way that completely violates the laws of physics and yet is completely undetectable by even our most sophisticated methodologies.

Assumption #2: There is no Assumption #2.

The Lessans View:

Assumption #1: Essentially every practicing scientist in the history of science is an idiot.

Assumption #2: An invisible, undetectable force is altering spacecraft trajectories, so as to create the illusion of real-time seeing

Assumption #3: This same invisible, undetectable force is altering the onboard recording devices in space probes, so as to hide this deception.

Assumption #4: Some invisible, undetectable force is causing planets and their moons to speed up and slow down in their orbits by the exact amount necessary to create the illusion that we see in delayed time, in violation of the laws of physics.

Assumption #5:This invisible, undetectable force is keyed toward creating the illusion of delayed vision here on Earth, but nowhere else in the Universe, since an observer anywhere else in the Solar System would not see these events as being synchronized.

Assumption #6: Some unknown force is altering the records of our spacecraft in order to create the illusion of delayed sight, since when spacecraft in different parts of the Solar System photograph the same object at the same time, they see it at different times, depending on where they are -- exactly as if they were seeing in delayed time.

Assumption #7: Some unknown force is altering our perceptions and digital records, since Solar Observatory spacecraft photographing the Sun in visible light and ultraviolet/infrared/x-radiation see the same results, indicating that we don't see in real time.

Assumption #8: Some unknown force is deliberately coordinating the movements of neutrinos and photons when we view supernovae, for the perverse purpose of creating the illusion that we see in real-time -- even though, according to Lessans, we should detect the neutrinos thousands of years after we see the light burst.

Assumption #9: Even though we understand the functioning of neurons down to the movement of individual atoms, everything that we understand is wrong. In defiance of the laws of physics and chemistry, neurons can carry impulses even when discharged, and in the opposite direction of the charge gradient.

Assumption #10: Though every single dissection of the human eye shows that the optic nerve contains no efferent fibers, it is nonetheless an efferent organ.

Assumption #10b: There is another nerve which connects the retina and the brain, though this nerve is invisible and cannot be detected by even the most careful of dissections or CAT scans.

Assumption #10c: The neocortex has photoreceptors, though the most careful of dissections fails to locate any.

Assumption #11: Even though technology like lidar depends on an understanding of how we see and detect light, and even though lidar works -- "something else must be going on."

Assumption #12: Even though cameras are designed and built on the principle that we understand the properties of light and how our eyes and brains process light in order for us to see; and even though cameras work -- "something else must be going on."

Assumption #13: Even though GPS and other navigational systems depend upon time dilation in order to function, and even though they actually work -- "something else must be going on."

Actually, we could go on all day about all the assumptions that must be made in order for Lessans' claims to be correct. But there's only so much time available.

The big one is simple, though:


The Lessans View:

The Central Assumption: Essentially everything we thought we understood about basic physics, optics, cosmology, neural physiology, neural anatomy, the visual pathway, special relativity, and even special relativity -- is wrong. Somehow.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are, as usual, painting a picture of him that has no resemblance to him whatsoever. He did not glance over things and say he was fully qualified. It took him years of study to make these observations based on patterns that he saw and many more years to put his observations down on paper in a way that could be understood by others.

I was pointing out your idiocy.

You claim that you understand the "standard theory" of vision because you "skimmed" an explanation. Yet you continue to demonstrate over and over and over again that you have no understanding whatsoever of even the most basic principles of the "standard theory."

That makes you either a moron or a liar. Or both.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It took him years of study to make these observations based on patterns that he saw and many more years to put his observations down on paper in a way that could be understood by others.

Yes it took him years to wade through "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" and then he thought he saw patterns in a work of historical fiction, and that is supposed to make him an expert of human psychology. He also wore out several dictionaries because he couldn't keep a definition straight, is his head. So now you are admitting that his "astute observations" were merely his thoughts in his head, and not something he actually saw with his eyes.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thinking is good.

How on Earth would you know?

Math is good.

Again, how on Earth would you know, since you don't even know what an "equation" is?

But arrogance isn't good and can slow down progress or even bring it to a halt.

Arrogance, I'll grant, is something you know a great deal about. After all, you're the poster girl for arrogance and willful ignorance, and the walking embodiment of how arrogant and willful ignorance makes one incapable of learning.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not glance over things and say he was fully qualified. It took him years of study to make these observations based on patterns that he saw and many more years to put his observations down on paper in a way that could be understood by others.

Of course he didn't glance over something and say he was fully qualified, he glanced over something and totally failed to understand it, and still believed he was fully qualified to criticize it. He was only successful in the last part, his ideas are easy to understand, even though they are wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I read parts of it.

And understood none of it. (Read, understand, and agree, all mean the same thing?)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which means exactly nothing, since he couldn't be arsed to provide a single shred of evidence for his claims, and since he was demonstrably ignorant of even the most basic of relevant science.

I'm sure my favorite 3-year-old has an alternate view, too. Guess how much relevance that has?

Several years ago my grandson had a theory, "It's too far away, you can't see it."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He figured out math problems without knowing any math.

He received the highest grade possible on a general test (including math) for the army to see where he showed talent. They were so surprised at his excellent score that they said he would be good at anything he put his mind to.

Yes, he got an answer, but it was the wrong answer.

I'm sure the army test was just as good as the Mensa test.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Dude, you're lucky that Ari doesn't seem to get it either, otherwise I would make fun of you now.

Just to be clear, are you saying that to an observer on the Earth, who is not moving on the surface of the Earth, the Sun would always be in the same position in the sky?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

They are aiming at the majority who will not listen to the minority.