A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, I am willing to move on to Lessans methods in making his discoveries regarding human nature. Were they scientific? If so, then how did he collect his data? I asked you before who he observed and you wouldn't answer...who were the test subjects? How many were there? What were the confounding factors and how did he control for them or address them? Did he have a list of questions he was working from? What were they? How did he adjust for observation bias?

LadyShea, please do not use the fact that because he didn't use the collecting of data to come to his conclusions, that he is necessarily wrong, or just making an assertion. I maintain that his claims came from astute observation that took him years to clarify.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he only observed within his own life and those around him, and didn't set up any controls for his observations, and didn't collect data, he wasn't doing science, he was doing philosophy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop right here. This is the real crux of the problem. You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. You've got to give him a chance, or you are the the objective gatekeeper you claim to be.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, it's Lessans' problem. Even if he used standard, accepted methodologies of observation, he certainly didn't document them. Are you wondering why he had so much difficulty with academia? That might be part of it.

The book and you often talk of Einstein, but Einstein published papers in scientific journals to reveal his discoveries. His work was vetted by his peers.

Lessans did not come to his knowledge through testing. It came through is amazing ability to observe and to reason what he was seeing. Why can't you see this? Why are you so blind? Einstein was in a different position. He found peers because he went to a non-profit university which afforded him the opportunity to get the reviews he needed. This was not Lessans' fate.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Also, you seem to think that somehow LadyShea has more influence beyond her ability to defend her position. She's not some sort of "gatekeeper" here or anywhere. I have to admit though, she has more influence on me because she makes sound, rational arguments.

We've explained it to you before:
1) We don't have to give Lessans a chance. It's up to you to make a compelling argument why we should.
2) Even though you refuse to believe it, many people did give Lessans a chance, and found it wanting.

Oh really? You gave Lessans a chance Specious? What did you do other than agree that Lessans was wrong about efferent vision, and he's wrong about determinism. How can I survive in an atmosphere like this, where he is imediately kicked off the playing field before he is given half a chance.

[Vivisectus]

It would tell me that you are not considering any other method of reasoning that could help us determine what is true. No, there is no empirical data, and because of it, you are falsely conclusing he had nothing of value. This is so disgusting to me, I am having a hard time putting my head around the method in which you are determining whether he's a crackpot or not.

There is nothing else either - no logical support, no sort of compelling analogy with anything else... nothing! Why would anyone accept such an exceptional claim on the basis of no evidence?

CATEGORICALLY WRONG VIVISECTUS!

Ah you are your fathers daughter - you say so, so it must be true. If it is wrong, then point out why - like, explain to me how your father supported his notions. If you cannot, you have to admit that my rather silly example had the exact same reasons to believe in it.

But you have not read the book in its entirety, and you are using what everyone else says (who have not read the book) as evidence that Lessans was wrong. Is there not something wrong with this type of thinking? Be honest for a change. Please don't tell me that this is the way a scientific investigation should be pursued.

But I have read it! I am just not discussing the rest at the moment. I have some issues with other parts of the book as well, but you kept saying that it would be folly to go on without first fully understanding the first 2 chapters.

That is the worst excuse for not taking Lesans seriously as anyone could ever conjure up. I have nothing more to say.

I am not using it as an excuse to take him not seriously. I do not take him seriously because his ideas are poorly written, poorly supported and sometimes downright impossible. I was pointing out that you do an awful lot of finger-pointing, and that it is strange that this is necessary considering this is such a brilliant breakthrough.

Am I on another planet? Did I not just explain to you why your analogy was totally off; that his conclusions did not come from data collection. You cannot compare the need for firemen if there is a fire, to the need for blame and punishment if there is no crime. Can't you let go of this analogy, which is completely inaccurate, in order to move forward?

No, you merely asserted that it was so. You completely failed to explain how it was, in fact very well supported. Like your father you consider your say-so undeniable evidence.

The premise is wrong, period. Only time will tell if Lessans is right, but I refuse to get caught up in this subject matter, because I will be attacked on the grounds that David is all knowing and is the epitome of the Godfather in this forum who can do no wrong.

The premise your father proposed? Or special relativity? Because it has to be one or the other.]

What excuses? I am not offering excuses? I am trying my damdest to get you to realize that this knowledge is authentic. What gives me comfort is knowing that every single motion, even the discussion that is being used against him, is necessary for future progress.

The endless complaining how people are maliciously trying to misunderstand the book, are closed-minded, don't put in the effort to read the book, are too invested in the current theories, ask too many questions, don't take it seriously... it goes on and on and on. Those excuses.

There is nothing you disagree with that can't be explained. You have only given one refutation which you think discredits Lessans' entire work of 30+ years. Doesn't that raise a red flag that it is you who could be wrong???? I doubt it.

I can find some more objections if you want. The sight one I focus on because it contradicts everything we know about how matter works, and is easily shown to be in contradiction with reality. If you are ever going to admit even the slightest flaw in this book, it should be here.

The second one I chose because it deals with the basis of your fathers ideas about ethics and morality, and because he basis all of his ethical thinking on it. I have 2 problems with it actually - firstly, harmful / not harmful is a relative concept, not a binary state. Something could be both at the same time, and that means we will not be able to prevent evil from happening.

Secondly, we have no reason to believe - except for the fact that your father said it was so - that justification is required to strike a first blow, and that blame is a condition for justification. Despite your repeated exclamations of "Yes we do!" you nevertheless are unable to supply me with those reasons.

Well, join the club of someone who has been put down non-stop. I have been interrogated to the point that I feel I'm in a holding cell, so of course I will eventually throw my arms up and say, "You're all right, Lessans was wrong", just to get away from the onslaught of lies that I am being accused of. I hope you at least feel a taste of what I've been going through.

Not before you claimed - repeatedly - that whoever disagreed was too stupid, too lazy, too closed-minded or too mean to agree. Call it a retaliation to your first blow.

And you have not been interrogated - you wanted these ideas examined, and we did. That fact that you don't like the conclusions is not our fault.

You're answer is so inadequate, I am a loss for words. How can the reader be fair to an author when he did not comply with what was asked of him? If you think that proves you are right and Lessans wrong because of your faulty synopsis, then this is not the book for you.

Then show me how and why it is inadequate, in stead of just throwing up yet more baseless assertions.

Because you did nothing of the sort. You have not investigated this knowledge at all; nada.

If I didn't I would not be able to come up with objections that you are unable to deal with. If more study would remedy this, you would be able to remedy it. You would be able to show what I had missed and show me the error of my ways. As it is all you have is yet more excuses and accusations - I did not want to see it, I did not study hard enough, I am malicious and lazy...

Of course you have no reason to believe the knowledge that crime cannot occur, under certain environmental conditions, because you have no idea what this discovery is about, or how it is extended into all areas of human relation, YET YOU THINK YOU DO, WHICH IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE YOU SET YOURSELF UP AS ALL KNOWING. So your answer is perfectly understandable coming from such obvious ignorance

.

Yet another claim with no substance. I have looked very closely at it, and presented you with objections which I based on the matter in the book. If you could deal with those objections you would do so in stead of resorting to shouting "You so innorant!". But you cannot, because it is all based on a completely unsupported assertion.

You can't be serious. All actions are relative based on a person's individual circumstances. He stated early on that one man's meat is another man's poison.

Nevertheless in order for his system to work, a deed cannot be both harmful and not harmful, or harmful while being perceived as beneficial, or vice versa. If they are, then a new first blow can arise even if blame is removed and turns out to be the condition for justification after all, and we have not in fact dealt with the problem of evil. It is called the binary trap - where people accidentally think in terms of black / white, on / off and do not realize that this does not in fact correspond with reality.

How can I answer you when all you do is tell me Lessans is wrong. You haven't given me a question to answer. All you do is tell me he is wrong; that firemen are not a condition of fires. How crazy is that????

I tell you I believe he is wrong about sight and present you with the physics and some everyday observations and facts that show that he must be. I also present to you some reasons why I don't think your father proves his point, and that his conclusion are therefor not compelling. Just because you chose only to read the firemen-analogy - which you still have not dealt with, by the way, except for saying "No it isn't! My Father is right and you are ignorant / mean / lazy / closed minded!" - doesn't mean other ones were not there.

He said his education was far superior when he was attacked for only going to grade school. He retaliated against bigotry, don't you see this?

He had just met the man, could not have known more than his credentials, and concluded without any further inquiry that his educations was, and I quote, "far superior". At least he was consistent in his regard for evidence, I guess.

Nooooo, he was not putting the cart before the horse and using a false syllogism to make his ideas look perfect. That is not how it went down. No wonder you can't even give him the benefit of the doubt. You already have tried and convicted him.

I am not talking about his ideas. I am talking about his arrogance. A man can be as arrogant as you like and still be right.

I told you part of the responsibility for this dialogue is mine. Stop blaming the wrong source for the wrong thing, okay? You are judging his work like David and LadyShea, who took out of context, everything this man stood for, and then said, "See how idiotic this book is?" I hope you're not going to follow suit, but I have very little confidence that you won't.

It really does not help.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

He clearly thought he was infallible, that his ideas were flawless. There is no room for him to be wrong in any way, or for his ideas to be improved. If that isn't arrogant, I don't know what is.

I asked you to please put Lessans temporarily into a category of someone who you already know made a major contribution. Replace his name with Edison, and you might conjure up a little more compassion, and a lot less judgment as to who this man was before concluding he was a crackpot.

That is very much your fathers style, I notice. He wants to be considered a genius, but does not feel a very great need to prove that this is so. It is also your style - you presuppose that your father is a major contributor, and that his work all makes sense, as long as you believe that it does.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Kael and doc. I just hope you all don't give up. If you do, at least I know I made every effort to show you who Lessans really was, and if I lost this battle, well... there are more battles yet to be won.

We all know who Lessans really was, an astute con-artist trying to sell 'snake-oil' to the unsuspecting masses. His big mistake was to go way overboard with his claims and got into territory he didn't understand, where there were plenty who did understand and tried to point out his errors. But he was so wrapped up in his own magnificence that he failed to see that there may have been errors in his thought process which gave the game away and spoiled his little scam. I'm sure you are going to continue to hawk your imagined meal ticket, but I would avoid religious forums as they will say 'only God can remove evil from the world' except you apparently think of Lessans as some kind of god, but then why did he die? Did he also walk on water, decend on a cloud with the book inscribed on gold tablets, did he heal others but couldn't save himself?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? You gave Lessans a chance Specious? What did you do other than agree that Lessans was wrong about efferent vision, and he's wrong about determinism. How can I survive in an atmosphere like this, where he is imediately kicked off the playing field before he is given half a chance.

I didn't say that I gave him a chance. I wrote him off as a quack pretty much as soon as I started reading the book. Too many red flags for me to take seriously.
From Shermer's Baloney Detection Kit:
- Have the claims been verified by another source?
- How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
- Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only supportive evidence been sought?
- Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's conclusion or to a different one?
- Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
- If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?
- Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
From Skeptoid's How to Spot Pseudoscience:
- Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities?
- Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?
- Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?
- Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?
- How good is the quality of data supporting the claim?

- not to mention the idiosyncratic use of terminology.

Pretty much, the book screams, "Pseudoscience!" from every page.

However, I believe that others have willingly read the book to understand it, and have not been convinced.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a broken record. I will not answer the same question 100 times just because you think you are right.

Answering it once would be quite sufficient.



Your entire modus operandi is:

1. Lessans said it
2. Lessans was an infallible supergenius
3. Therefore it's undeniably true
4. Anyone who disagrees is close-minded and/or stupid and/or immoral
5. Repeat ad nauseum.

There's no better illustration of this than your claims regarding how humans see vs. how cameras and telescopes "see."

You spent pages insisting that the human eye does not have to wait for light to reach it and therefore sees in "real time," but that cameras and telescopes do have to wait for the light to arrive, and so don't "see" in real time.

Did you have any evidence for this claim? No, of course not.

Did you waver in the slightest when numerous people pointed out that the claim is both demonstrably false and logically absurd? No, of course not. Instead, you insisted that anyone who didn't uncritically accept your claim was being close-minded.


Then you discovered that this isn't actually what Lessans had written. So you instantly abandoned the notion that you'd previously claimed was "undeniably true" and took up a claim that -- if possible -- was even more absurd and easily-disproved.

Thus proving that the one and only standard of "truth" that matters to you is: "Lessans said it, therefore I believe it."



Not only did you instantly change your argument based not upon analysis or thought, but rather the discovery that Lessans hadn't said what you thought he did -- you then had the gall to congratulate yourself for being "open-minded" and being able to change your mind in light of new evidence.

But you did no such thing. You didn't change your mind, and you certainly didn't evaluate the evidence -- you simply discovered that you had been toeing the wrong line.


The one constant is that you thoughtlessly and uncritically accept anything and everything that Lessans says [or that you think he says] as gospel truth and regard anyone else's failure to thoughlessly and uncritically accept his claims as signs of close-mindedness and/or moral failings.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot compare Lessans to other people

Why not? Because you say so?

Unless you widen your understanding of what constitutes scientific fact, you will never be able to accept that this knowledge is different than any random dude who comes down the pike.

Why should I? Because you say so?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you have put him into a category of these people, and I don't know how to prove to you that he doesn't belong there.

You can't prove to me that he doesn't belong there because he did NOTHING to remove himself from the assorted nuts. He did nothing to put himself into the category of "scientist"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observations of human beings and what caused them to act in certain ways.

Which human beings? How did he know they were representative of all human beings?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire seven times.

So? What does that prove? That he can read? I have read a lot of books, some of them multiple times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He tore up eight dictionaries just from opening and closing the book.

Again, so what? I use a dictionary daily.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this does not prove he had something genuine, but it should give you a little pause before throwing him out to pasture.

What should give me pause? That he read and used a dictionary?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, 100 times no. This knowledge mathematically puts an end to war and crime. This is not a philosophical tract. This is a scientific discovery.

He presented no math and no science, so it is a philosophical work at best.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that's what you think, and I don't know if I can penetrate this impasse, but I want you to know that he was the most critical thinker you could ever imagine. Doesn't that raise a red flag that you might have given him a raw deal before assuming that he was the likes of another Ron Hubbard?

Again, all I have to go on is your say so, and Lessans words as written. Neither indicate critical thinking at play. Why should I see a red flag? Because you say there is one?

What exactly differentiates Lessans from Hubbard for people, like me, that didn't know either man personally?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is your perspective, which is why you are assuming he was arrogant. If you changed your perspective, which I am urging you to do, you would get a completely different picture of who this man really was. You would see him as someone who was terribly frustrated because he knew that war could be prevented, and it hurt him to no end to be refused an audience just because he didn't have the "proper" credentials.

If you have hard data and replicable results, credentials don't matter. Just this week a college student made a major scientific discovery and made the news worldwide.

Amelia Fraser-McKelvie is not a career researcher or a post-doctoral fellow or even in graduate school, but working on a summer scholarship at the Monash School of Physics, she conducted a targeted X-ray search for the matter called the Universe's 'missing mass' and found it – or at least some of it.

Great discoveries are indeed made by observing things that have been overlooked. However, researchers never, ever stop at the observation phase! Lessans failed to form a testable hypothesis and failed to provide any mathematical or scientific support to be analyzed.

Look at how observations, along with demonstrations of accuracy of the observations and replicability and mathematical concepts led from one discovery to another and through various top scientists wrt to the Photoelectric Effect
. That's science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess that's why you kept repeating that I was his daughter, as if this somehow lessened his credibility right off the bat.

No, it lessens YOUR objectivity. It makes you highly biased. It makes your claims that this work is somehow "different", without providing any reason for readers to believe you, seem like emotionally motivatred pleading. You have proven your non-objectivity over and over again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't change your perspective LadyShea; all I can do is ask you to stay open to the possibility that this knowledge is genuine. I am not asking you to agree unless you recognize, after careful scrutiny, that his knowledge is undeniable; as undeniable as two plus two equals four.

I have asked you to try to see things from the standpoint of a stranger hearing about this from you for the first time. Why should I consider Lessans above anyone else with an idea? What valid reasoning have you given me?

I gave very pointed criticisms after reading the first two chapters, I have carefully refuted some of Lessans claims and your response is to tell me I do not understand and that I am wrong. You basically assume your readers are stupid and refuse to address valid criticisms. You use emotional outbursts to try to gain sympathetic compliance with your bias.

Do you see why you are no different than someone presenting Dianetics to us?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not arguing the fact that empirical evidence gives us information about reality, but, once again, empirical evidence is not the only avenue to truth.

It kinda is, in my opinion

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LESSANS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION, WHICH YOU ARE IMPLYING, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE POSTED THIS EXCERPT. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME OBSERVATIONS NEED EMPIRICAL PROOF; BUT THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE OBSERVATIONS LESSANS MADE; IN FACT, EMPIRICAL TESTING COULD DISCREDITED HIM IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF THE TESTING, NOT BECAUSE OF THE INACCURACY OF LESSANS' OBSERVATION. CAN'T YOU GET THIS AT ALL, OR ARE YOU SO STAR STRUCK WITH THE ABSOLUTE ACCURACY OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO SEE THE FOREST FROM THE TREES.

Can't I get what at all? Can't I get that YOU think Lessans has something spectacular to offer? Yeah I get that. Can't I get that you think I should scrap the criticial thinking skills that have served me well for 30 years on your say so?

This is just more emotional pleading and histrionics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was through astute observation (which you give no credence to), for many many years, that gave Lesasns the ability to come to these astute and accurate conclusions. These conclusions do not belong in the waste basket.

Who says they don't belong in the waste basket? Oh, that's right, only you. And you are in no position to make that determination.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying so hard to find flaws because he didn't find answers in the prescribed way, therefore you are are equating him with real kooks, and will prevent you from reading this work in an unbiased way.

The flaws are immediately apparent and huge

That's because you don't see his reasoning, and you have not understood the book. You are not well versed in the discovery, and you have not read the extension. That is why you cannot imagine that he could have a genuine discovery.

His reasoning is poor, and I did understand what I've read.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are major flaws with scientology.

There are major flaws with Lessans.

So let it remain one aspect of scientific observation, but don't cloud your thinking and assume that this is the only way to scientific achievement.

Yeah, valid results obtained from solid methods really is the only way to scientific achievement. Everything else is either religion or philosophy.

That would close the door to any further investigation, which is not what anyone who is determined to know the truth, would want.

I don't close the door on knowledge, provided I can analyze it.

[thedoc]

Reading and posting on this thread made me think of an episode of one of the late nite talk shows I saw a few years ago. The host (I think it was Leno) had a guest who was going to demonstrate that he could break metal forks and spoons in half with just his mental powers. (If there is anyone who doesn't know the trick, it uses 'metal fatigue', and by bending the spoon or fork several times ahead of time, you can weaken the metal to where just a small amount of movement will complete the process and the metal will break.) The guest had 'Prepared' several pieces for the demonstration but unbeknownst to the guest the host had substituted 'Unprepaired' pieces for the demonstration. Once on stage the guest realized the switch and knew the trick would not work, and proceded to make excuses that he didn't feel the power right now. The host then had the prepaired pieces brought out and gave the trick away by breaking some of the 'prepaired' pieces himself. The guest walked off the stage. This all made me think that Lessans and Peacegirl would probably have done very well selling books if thay had set up at a carnival as one of the side show booths. People go to a carnivla expecting to be scamed and would have been ready to pay for some good entertainment. The gimmick could have been to pay a fee to ask the 'expert' a question and when they have paid enough they win a book to read the correct answer. Even those knowledgable on the subjects would be willing to pay for a good show. Oh well, lost opertunities.

[ChuckF]

Sounds like Uri Geller failing on Johnny Carson.

I haven't been reading this thread for, oh, 190 pages or so. When did it peacegirl abandon pretense and shift into straight up Lessans personality cult mode?

ETA: I am just skimming over this efferent vision nonsense loool

[Vivisectus]

Around page 50. Anyway - is there any more of this delicious potato salad? Someone seems to have beaten me to the pickle, I see...

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Sounds like Uri Geller failing on Johnny Carson.

I haven't been reading this thread for, oh, 190 pages or so. When did it peacegirl abandon pretense and shift into straight up Lessans personality cult mode?

ETA: I am just skimming over this efferent vision nonsense loool

About 189 pages ago.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If he only observed within his own life and those around him, and didn't set up any controls for his observations, and didn't collect data, he wasn't doing science, he was doing philosophy.

This is an important point, peacegirl.


Neither you nor Lessans gets to define what science is. You can claim that his ideas are "scientific fact" all you want, but if he didn't follow scientific procedures, then they are not.


Once more, just to be clear: neither you nor Lessans gets to choose what does and does not constitute science. There is a well-established set of rules for what does and does not constitute scientific inquiry. Much as you might wish otherwise, you can't simply declare that what someone is doing is "legitimate science" if it doesn't follow those rules.


There's no point in claiming that's "unfair" or any such thing. It's not unfair or biased at all -- it's how science is defined. If you're not using scientific methodology, then you're not doing science. By all means, feel free to philosophize all you want; but if you aren't using scientific methodology, it's dishonest to pretend that you're doing science.


You're like someone who's taking part in a game of football -- and getting all upset that no one takes you seriously when you keep insisting that it's really a game of baseball.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doesn't anybody want to know the book I'm reading? I'm trying to change the subject if you haven't noticed? Well, even though no one is interested, I'll tell you anyway. It's called CORRUPTED SCIENCE: Fraud, ideology and politics in science by John Grant.

Is there a chapter on your father?

[LadyShea]

There is a Baloney Detector for kids too. I work on this with Kiddo, as part of the science education I have already started with him (schools are woefully lax in science, unfortunately, due to the emphasis on reading/math standards and testing)

1. Forceful declarations do not substantiate facts or truth

2. Every effect has a rational cause

3. Two events occurring in sequence do not imply a causal relationship

4. The universe is governed by natural laws and principles

5. The inability to think of an alternative does not make the reason at hand right, nor does proving one idea wrong make another idea right

6. All the data and/or observations must be considered

7. Beware of generalizing from the Particular to the universal

8. Quantities must add up

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Sounds like Uri Geller failing on Johnny Carson.

I haven't been reading this thread for, oh, 190 pages or so. When did it peacegirl abandon pretense and shift into straight up Lessans personality cult mode?

ETA: I am just skimming over this efferent vision nonsense loool

Thanks, thats more years than I thought, but there are a lot of things that don't seem like that long ago, TMI, Mt St Hellens, Red Skelton, Howdie Doodie, Laugh In, the original Star Trek.

[LadyShea]

And, peacegirl, just so you don't think I have expectations of Lessans that I don't have for bona fide researchers, let me point you to my critique of a piece written by Dr. Robin L. West (posts 2, 3, 4 and 9 are my critique, the rest of the thread is discussion about it)

She has credentials falling out of her ass. She has taught at some of the most prestigious universities in the country. And none of that transformed her unsupported assertions into "truth" for me. Also note I defended the religious, who she bashed. So much for my hating religion and anything that smells of God.

[ShottleBop]

Sports will continue because this is a source of entertainment to the general public, but the blame that exists between ball players and umpires will come to an end. An umpire is doing the best he can with the tools he has but when he knows that the players will never criticize his decision because they know he can’t help himself he will do everything in his power to make absolutely certain he gives a correct call, and this will compel him to resort to slow motion television pictures wherever possible. In fact, it is not too difficult to install a protected camera right behind the plate while the umpire sits in a box with a television that has been screened off for strikes and balls. When a bell rings, he yells “Strike!” If they are looking for a player to be a part of a group effort you will also consult the newspapers that list all openings where competition and winning as part of a team are involved, which places a tremendous responsibility on your ability when no one will judge it but you, and no one will ever blame you for weakening the team. If several applications are mailed in from different parts of the world to join a team that has an opening, there will be no discrimination in selecting an applicant because all would have to be extremely qualified under the conditions and flipping a coin would suffice. As to how many teams there should be in the various sports, this can easily be determined by the space and time available. In the future there will always be something going on and no one will be lacking in entertainment. . . .

Reminds me of another well-known auto-didact and philosopher.

[LadyShea]

Reminds me of another well-known auto-didact and philosopher.

Who? Marx?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't close the door on knowledge provided I can analyze it.

Translation, it must agree with what Lessans wrote.

[LadyShea]

I said that, not peacegirl

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said that, not peacegirl

Sorry It was at the bottom of a long post and I was having trouble keeping track of who was saying what, It sort of sounded like something Peacegirl would say. It sounds different when you say it.

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Sorry

Why are you apologising to LadyShea?

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who? Marx?

I had in mind Ayn Rand.

[LadyShea]

I think he was apologizing for the mis-attribution, after all peacegirl has taken quite a bit of flack for that this thread.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

I had in mind Ayn Rand.

Thankee

That was my first thought, but then I second guessed myself and wondered if it was somebody I hadn't read or something.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot tell me that his observations and reasoning count for nothing just because he didn't use your methodology. Google epistemology. There are other ways to have a valid observation.

No, they count for nothing because they are demonstrably wrong, as has been demonstrated countless times in this thread.

More than that: they cannot possibly be right.

Instantaneous seeing is not possible, because of the laws of physics, as has repeatedly been demonstrated.

It is not possible for the eye to see, the way that you claim, because of its anatomy and because of its observed behavior.


It's not possible for the reflected light of the moon to arrive instantaneously, while the (same) reflected light is reflected off your neighbor eight and a half minutes later. That you out of addressing this point reveals how dishonest you are, but your dishonesty has manifested itself in countless other ways as well.

Are their any (dick-free) mashed potatoes left?