A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Btw, I don’t think anyone here — especially the scientists — thinks that there is any such thing as “the” scientific method. Maybe it’s true (I don’t know) that (some?) textbooks teach that there is such a thing. But practicing scientists know better. Even the utter dogmatist naturalist.atheist (who I do not actually think is a scientist) rightly dismisses falsificationism, for example, as being a sine qua non for science. Strangely, your linked authors do not even specifically allude to the demarcation problem, around which there is a huge literature, or to Feyerabend’s Against Method, a landmark work. Of course, you, peacegirl, are completely ignorant of all this.

That said, no account of the suite of scientific methods includes “pulling stuff out of my ass” and “lying my ass off.”

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, do you agree with your source Douglas Allchin that "Photons from a nova, en route hundreds of millions of years, reach human retinal cells on Earth long after the star is extinguished?"

So, nothing about mirror images instantly at the retina, a closed system like a really long box with a supernova at one end and the observer at the other, or photons instantly at the eye but not the same photons? And this Allchin guy has the nerve to call himself a scientist!

[But]

Has peacegirl uploaded a photo of the Authentic Text yet? I forget.

[peacegirl]

Dutch Prison System: How it works (Introduction Video)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7765521.html

[Vivisectus]

PG, you are doing it wrong. We covered the "growing body of evidence" and "top scientist" tactic extensively in the past. You have loads of examples from your extensive library of anti-vaxxer propaganda files to copy from. It is so very easy to do. Why this lazy, half-assed approach?

You take a news clipping or any research that is even tangentially relevant to the idea you want to push. Then you write a little lead-in that talks about it in neutral-sounding tones, to create the impression that you are being even a little bit objective. Next comes the leap: you link the story to your idea by any means necessary. Quote anything they say that can be construed as support for your idea, even if it is completely out of context. Claim the results are evidence of your idea being correct, even if they are only very vaguely compatible (or just sound compatible), or even if the conclusions are almost completely opposed.

Anyone who takes the time to actually check if your claims are correct is not part of your target audience anyway. What you want is people who kind of want it to be true and who do not bother to look much deeper into whatever you are serving.

Then what you do is publish these pieces on your platform - a blog, a website, whatever. Make sure a new one of these is coming out every week or so. You can re-visit old ones and add a few more details to give the impression that this is an evolving story if you feel lazy or are stuck for material.

Make sure to inoculate your audience against any uncomfortable facts by hinting at conspiracies. I mean sure, the Dutch department of justice would say that these people are in fact being held accountable for their actions and that only difference between this system and others is that the emphasis is on the process of re-integration into society. They just want to appease public opinion or safeguard their jobs or something.

And hey presto! Suddenly a completely discredited idea is re-branded as a truth that is emerging. Your readers get the feeling that they are part of a small but growing group of people who are in the know. They are part of a movement of activists for truth, not a bunch of bored internet-dwellers endlessly re-reading whatever confirms their bias.

It is not just relatively easy once you have identified something that people want to believe: it can be quite profitable too! There is good money in clickbait, and it takes only a fraction of the effort that anything resembling journalism takes.

The only obstacles are your total unwillingness to put even very small amounts of work into it, and the basic lack of appeal of your product. However, neither are insurmountable: it would involve writing maybe a thousand words a week, and once you have grabbed your audience by the bias, they will simply read the book selectively and creatively re-interpret whatever they do not like.

And hey - if you are going to do it, now is the time. I am pretty sure that here has never been a more favorable environment for spreading even the most dubious of ideas and making it self-funding. There is an entire industry practically begging for the privilege of giving you money in exchange for anything that makes people look on their phones.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

PG, you are doing it wrong. We covered the "growing body of evidence" and "top scientist" tactic extensively in the past. You have loads of examples from your extensive library of anti-vaxxer propaganda files to copy from. It is so very easy to do. Why this lazy, half-assed approach?

You take a news clipping or any research that is even tangentially relevant to the idea you want to push. Then you write a little lead-in that talks about it in neutral-sounding tones, to create the impression that you are being even a little bit objective. Next comes the leap: you link the story to your idea by any means necessary. Quote anything they say that can be construed as support for your idea, even if it is completely out of context. Claim the results are evidence of your idea being correct, even if they are only very vaguely compatible (or just sound compatible), or even if the conclusions are almost completely opposed.

This was not to support the discovery. Actually, I didn't get to read the whole thing. I just wanted to share something that looked interesting because it was different than what most people are use to seeing, and getting some results.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Anyone who takes the time to actually check if your claims are correct is not part of your target audience anyway. What you want is people who kind of want it to be true and who do not bother to look much deeper into whatever you are serving.

Then what you do is publish these pieces on your platform - a blog, a website, whatever. Make sure a new one of these is coming out every week or so. You can re-visit old ones and add a few more details to give the impression that this is an evolving story if you feel lazy or are stuck for material.

Make sure to inoculate your audience against any uncomfortable facts by hinting at conspiracies. I mean sure, the Dutch department of justice would say that these people are in fact being held accountable for their actions and that only difference between this system and others is that the emphasis is on the process of re-integration into society. They just want to appease public opinion or safeguard their jobs or something.

I don't know anything about the Dutch government, and I'm not even condoning or criticizing the article. It may be a conspiracy, who knows? That wasn't the point of my sharing it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And hey presto! Suddenly a completely discredited idea is re-branded as a truth that is emerging. Your readers get the feeling that they are part of a small but growing group of people who are in the know. They are part of a movement of activists for truth, not a bunch of bored internet-dwellers endlessly re-reading whatever confirms their bias.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. "Part of a small but growing group of people who are in the know because they want something to be true" could be you saying this just as well as the internet-dwellers who reread whatever confirms their bias. This was not meant to support my father's discovery. It was something that seemed interesting to read about and discuss. You are the one who is taking this whole thing out of context. I can't even say a word without a disagreement for no other reason than I posted it. And please don't tell me you are exempt from confirmation bias. We all have bias based on what we hold to be true, so we will tend to support our beliefs whether true or false. You and your clan are no better.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is not just relatively easy once you have identified something that people want to believe: it can be quite profitable too! There is good money in clickbait, and it takes only a fraction of the effort that anything resembling journalism takes.

Journalism is not science either. Journalism can be quite biased too. Clickbait is a marketing scheme. There is nothing wrong with getting people to click on your information by creating interest.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The only obstacles are your total unwillingness to put even very small amounts of work into it, and the basic lack of appeal of your product. However, neither are insurmountable: it would involve writing maybe a thousand words a week, and once you have grabbed your audience by the bias, they will simply read the book selectively and creatively re-interpret whatever they do not like.

I don't believe a blog would work for this book, but maybe I'm wrong. This type of book is hard to market because it's not a popular topic. Unfortunately, I have very little budget. This is a big hurdle for me to overcome. Would anyone want to donate?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And hey - if you are going to do it, now is the time. I am pretty sure that here has never been a more favorable environment for spreading even the most dubious of ideas and making it self-funding. There is an entire industry practically begging for the privilege of giving you money in exchange for anything that makes people look on their phones.

I wish it were that easy, but it's not. I am an honest person and I won't get involved in anything that is unscrupulous.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am an honest person

[peacegirl]

If anyone wants to read the first three chapters of Decline and Fall of All Evil, below is the link. Nothing in my version of my father's writing is misleading or unauthentic. Note that there will be attacks against me the minute I post this. Please don't pay attention to the people behind the curtain because they are spewing lies about me and my father. They believe this discovery couldn't be valid, so they continue to use this thread as lulz. Very sad indeed. All I did was compile my father's 7 books and added some of my own examples with my own feminine touch, but I left his own words intact regarding his demonstration of the discovery itself. After reading the first three chapters, if you find this knowledge interesting and would like to learn more about the discovery, you can join me at www.facebook.com/SafeworldPublishingCompany. I will answer any questions you may have there. The facebook page hasn't been active but I hope that will change, in time as more people join. I refuse to discuss the book here for obvious reasons.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.o...3-Chapters.pdf

[ChuckF]

Friends, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am compelled of my own free will to urge you to reject peacegirl's Corrupted Text, for it is corrupt.

Do not be deceived by her pleas to ratify her Corrupted Text, or her protestations that all of the Author's words that she deleted, suppressed, edited or distorted just weren't that important. Very simply, she corrupted the Authentic Text. And now she hawks it for lucre on the Internet (at $41.00 a pop!).

There is a very simple way to avoid being led astray by peacegirl's Corrupted Text. There is no need to waste time comparing her Corrupted Text to the Authentic Text, and wading through all of her Corruptions. Join me, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, in embracing the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. Refuse to accept peacegirl's blame.

[Stephen Maturin]

By "my own feminine touch," peacegirl means inter alia that she corrupted, defiled and gang-raped the work of her father (who isn't even here to defend himself ) by adding material about how the big problem with marriage is that women are money-grubbing whores who insist upon receiving increasingly more valuable gifts from their poor hapless husbands.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am an honest person

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I did was compile my father's 7 books and added some of my own examples with my own feminine touch, but I left his own words intact regarding his demonstration of the discovery itself.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am an honest person and I won't get involved in anything that is unscrupulous.

Thank you for that! What with the sort of day I've been having, I needed a good belly-laugh.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to discuss the book here for obvious reasons.

#mentalfog

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to discuss the book here for obvious reasons.

The obvious reason is that I, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, am here to defend the Authentic Text from peacegirl's vile depredations. peacegirl's Corrupted Text is a malignant cancer, parasitically eating away at the Authentic Text in service of peacegirl's pursuit of lucre. But not here, obviously - because I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text. Here, we interpret the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime, and we do so without blame from peacegirl.

Seeing that there is no lucre to be squeezed from her Corruptions here, and fearful of the Authentic Text she hates and attempts to assign to obscurity, peacegirl confines herself to hawking her Corrupted Text elsewhere.

[peacegirl]

So unfortunate that the loudest gets heard. To counteract this type of deception requires a person to actually delve into the problem. It is not good enough to take someone’s word for it. Hear what Chuck is saying to see if there is a problem with his interpretation. But this can only be done after reading Lessans first three chapters. He keeps reiterating that my version is unauthentic to get people to disregard anything I have written. This is a manipulation. I hope there are smart enough people to know the difference.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.o...3-Chapters.pdf

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So unfortunate that the loudest gets heard.

Don't worry. The stupidest also gets heard. You remain free to post all the stupid you want.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To counteract this type of deception requires a person to actually delve into the problem.

You mean like how you've been so keen to delve into the photon problem in order to discover the truth?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Don't worry. The stupidest also gets heard. You remain free to post all the stupid you want.

You mean like how you've been so keen to delve into the photon problem in order to discover the truth?

You are so myopic there is no discussion with you. Your rebuttals have done nothing to prove Lessans was wrong. I hope the people who think of themselves as free thinkers will think for themselves. That is what this website promotes yet they do the very opposite by purposely cutting off any new thought. Very very unfortunate!

[But]

What's going on with the moons of Jupiter? Found out anything new?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So unfortunate that the loudest gets heard.

This, dear lurkers/newcomers, is why peacegirl has spent over 7 years shrieking and stomping her feet here at . (Her disgraceful behavior has regularly gotten her banned on the many other discussion forums where she's tried to peddle her corrupted text for lucre over the past 16 or so years).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To counteract this type of deception requires a person to actually delve into the problem. It is not good enough to take someone’s word for it.

This, friends, is an unintentional truth on peacegirl's part. Please keep in mind that peacegirl is an admitted liar. When caught prevaricating, she'll downplay her appalling misconduct as a "little white lie" and insist that she was "justified" in intentionally purveying falsehoods.

So yes, good people, when peacegirl makes claims about the content of her fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt, you cannot take her at her word (which is worthless).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hear what Chuck is saying to see if there is a problem with his interpretation.

By all means! Many have heard what ChuckF is saying, and have thereby concluded that he is the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy. Be advised, though, peacegirl will blame and resent you vociferously if you reach that conclusion and announce it publicly. (peacegirl is all about trying to squelch the free exchange of ideas.) Join us in our private forums, where we discuss the Authentic Text penned by Seymour Lessans and published during his lifetime, free of peacegirl bellowing blame-laden invective while standing in a puddle of her own flop sweat and anger-pee.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this can only be done after reading Lessans [sic] first three chapters.

And keep in mind, o beloved lurkers, that the "first three chapters" on peacegirl's website are from the Corrupted Text; they are most certainly not the work of Seymour Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He keeps reiterating that my version is unauthentic to get people to disregard anything I have written.

There is, of course, no such thing as too much truth-telling. But notice, dearest darling newcomers, that peacegirl's references to "my version" and material "I have written" convey yet an other unintentional truth, namely that the Corrupted Text is by no means the work of Seymour Lessans.

Is it possible that after all these years peacegirl is developing the tiny seed of an actual conscience that is seeking expression through peacegirl's subconscious mind? We hope so! Otherwise, she will have to spend the Golden Age locked up in a psychiatric hospital (humanely and for her own good, of course).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope there are smart enough people to know the difference.

And fortunately, dear lurkers, nearly 97% of people are indeed smart enough to know the difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What's going on with the moons of Jupiter? Found out anything new?

That is not the way to determine whether Lessans was right. It can only come from analyzing whether his observations have merit. In a court of law it may look like the preponderance of circumstantial evidence points to a person's guilt. The cops stop looking for other possibilities because they have convinced themselves they have their answer and they need go no further. But they are sometimes wrong (after a person has been in jail for 20 years. ). Even when there is factual proof that they were wrong, they cannot bring themselves to admit that they made such a terrible mistake, so they stick with the belief that the person is guilty. This is why it is so difficult to change perception about anything that would threaten the current state of things. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt (when there is a lot at stake) is hard to do, but it is important nevertheless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

This, dear lurkers/newcomers, is why peacegirl has spent over 7 years shrieking and stomping her feet here at . (Her disgraceful behavior has regularly gotten her banned on the many other discussion forums where she's tried to peddle her corrupted text for lucre over the past 16 or so years).

This, friends, is an unintentional truth on peacegirl's part. Please keep in mind that peacegirl is an admitted liar. When caught prevaricating, she'll downplay her appalling misconduct as a "little white lie" and insist that she was "justified" in intentionally purveying falsehoods.

So yes, good people, when peacegirl makes claims about the content of her fraudulent Corrupted Text, which is fraudulent and corrupt, you cannot take her at her word (which is worthless).

By all means! Many have heard what ChuckF is saying, and have thereby concluded that he is the True Steward of Seymour Lessans' intellectual legacy. Be advised, though, peacegirl will blame and resent you vociferously if you reach that conclusion and announce it publicly. (peacegirl is all about trying to squelch the free exchange of ideas.) Join us in our private forums, where we discuss the Authentic Text penned by Seymour Lessans and published during his lifetime, free of peacegirl bellowing blame-laden invective while standing in a puddle of her own flop sweat and anger-pee.

And keep in mind, o beloved lurkers, that the "first three chapters" on peacegirl's website are from the Corrupted Text; they are most certainly not the work of Seymour Lessans.

There is, of course, no such thing as too much truth-telling. But notice, dearest darling newcomers, that peacegirl's references to "my version" and material "I have written" convey yet an other unintentional truth, namely that the Corrupted Text is by no means the work of Seymour Lessans.

Is it possible that after all these years peacegirl is developing the tiny seed of an actual conscience that is seeking expression through peacegirl's subconscious mind? We hope so! Otherwise, she will have to spend the Golden Age locked up in a psychiatric hospital (humanely and for her own good, of course).

And fortunately, dear lurkers, nearly 97% of people are indeed smart enough to know the difference.

These are the same old lies given by the same old people. Nothing has changed. I compiled my father's 7 books into one so that none of his writing would be lost. The reference to "my version" was due to the fact that I added some examples to clarify certain points. I did nothing to change his wording regarding the discovery. I took great care to make sure his words remained intact. I am the true steward and there's nothing Chuck can do about it!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even when there is factual proof that they were wrong

Like what?

What's going on with the moons of Jupiter?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did nothing to change his wording regarding the discovery. I took great care to make sure his words remained intact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No But, you're wrong. I did not change his wording when it came to his observations and his reasoning. The part where I wrote we would see the Sun explode instantly rather than 8 minutes later was a change that he made, not me. That's what you're referring to, I'm pretty sure. You won't be able to find anything in my version that contradicted anything that he wrote because I did not change anything other than with grammar/sentence structure and adding some examples to clarify the points HE MADE. You're all just trying to find me guilty when I'm guilty of nothing.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not change his wording

I did not change anything other than with grammar/sentence structure and adding some examples