A revolution in thought

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true. We need to take everything with a grain of salt. That's what I was taught. But this is different than scientology, or new age nonsense.

Ahhh but why is it, that is what you have yet to prove?

Ahhhhhhh.

‪TMWRNJ - Sunday Heroes - Consider the...

You can't just bang on about a lilly any more. These are more sophisticated times. We don't just fall for parables. If there is a grain of salt that fits in everyone's eyes, then you have to accept that a grain of salt is what everyone's eye needs. Being skeptical is not a preserve for you, it is what everyone does. If you don't accept anything without an overwhelming amount of evidence, why do you expect everyone else to?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was too elementary LadyShea. Do you think I'm a first grader?

Considering the way you've ignored everything else, we need to start somewhere. BTW, are you saying that you accept what was presented in the link?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Ahhhh, so you derive fun from grouching about the same thing over and over.

And how is this relivant to the topic, or do I need to envoke my rule 'Don't feed the Trolls'.

[Doctor X]

That.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Ahhh but why is it, that is what you have yet to prove?

Ahhhhhhh.

Oh my god, that was tooo funny. I was guffawing all over the place.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

You can't just bang on about a lilly any more. These are more sophisticated times. We don't just fall for parables. If there is a grain of salt that fits in everyone's eyes, then you have to accept that a grain of salt is what everyone's eye needs. Being skeptical is not a preserve for you, it is what everyone does. If you don't accept anything without an overwhelming amount of evidence, why do you expect everyone else to?

But there is evidence. I'm not expecting you to be a lilly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is evidence.

Then show us.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I read the part of TLR essay that was relevant to the discussion.

You are not the judge of what is relevant.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Your father was peer reviewed found wanting and failed to make an impression.

Her father's work was never peer reviewed. The very notion of his work being subject to peer review is just fantastic, for the very simple reason that Lessans had no peers. He was peerless. He was the nonpareil of science and philosophy. Peer review? Don't make me laugh.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Ahhhh, so you derive fun from grouching about the same thing over and over.

Very much like you, apparently.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are not the judge of what is relevant.

Her father's work was never peer reviewed. The very notion of his work being subject to peer review is just fantastic, for the very simple reason that Lessans had no peers. He was peerless. He was the nonpareil of science and philosophy. Peer review? Don't make me laugh.

Yeah I know, but then what does peer mean? It wasn't peer reviewed by experts because he isn't one, it was trashed by amateurs like us. I guess that is a form of peer review. I was never suggesting (and I never thought) seriously that it was submitted to a philosophy or science journal though so don't worry, I was just showing how unforgiving peer review can be.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, that was tooo funny. I was guffawing all over the place.

But there is evidence. I'm not expecting you to be a lilly.

No there isn't you can't just say there is evidence and expect everyone to accept that, you have to show us it, it's not religion.

The lilly is an analogy as was my analogy to it obviously. A load of credulous people sitting around being spoon fed trite messages, until one man says hold on that's crap isn't it Jesus?

I think there's 8 in the series from Ian (who seems to have a problem with the metaphor of fishers of men, and is strictly not gay or anything.) to Satan, all of them are really funny. The parable of the Vineyard owner, Lazarus's disgust at being raised from the dead and The Last supper one's good too, "Well I'm not paying as much as everyone else as I didn't have any wine?"
"No wine Peter?"
"Well you said there was all blood in it."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhmen.

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are not the judge of what is relevant.

I am the judge of this work because I've read it many times and understand it; you haven't read this book even once. Your opinion isn't worth a can of beans.

Originally Posted by Sidhe

Your father was peer reviewed found wanting and failed to make an impression.

That's a lie.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Her father's work was never peer reviewed. The very notion of his work being subject to peer review is just fantastic, for the very simple reason that Lessans had no peers. He was peerless. He was the nonpareil of science and philosophy. Peer review? Don't make me laugh.

I'm sorry if he wasn't able to get it reviewed because of his circumstances. Why would you blame him for this? He did nothing wrong except make a discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Sidhe

I was trying to demonstrate why man's will is not free. It's not just a tautology, but no one is interested.

I know, it was such a great spoof on religion. I loved it.

I think there's 8 in the series from Ian (who seems to have a problem with the metaphor of fishers of men, and is strictly not gay or anything.) to Satan, all of them are really funny. The parable of the Vineyard owner, Lazarus's disgust at being raised from the dead and The Last supper one's good too, "Well I'm not paying as much as everyone else as I didn't have any wine?"
"No wine Peter?"
"Well you said there was all blood in it."

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhmen.

I've got to go to youtube. If they're as funny as this one, I'm going to be lmao all day.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

I don't know where you come up with all these wisecracks, but thanks for the comic relief.

[LadyShea]

I was trying to demonstrate why man's will is not free. It's not just a tautology, but no one is interested.

It is a tautology. That doesn't mean it's false, not all tautologies are false. It's not even false because of the modal fallacy employed, which yes, Lessans reasoning is fallacious.

Lessans conclusion about mans will not being free may be absolutely true, but A)he did not present a falsifiable scientific hypothesis that can be tested and B) it is not a mathematical formula that can be proved.

It's an assertion, an opinion, for which he gave his personal reasons only. So, people can and will disagree based on the poor fallacious reasoning, or on the fact that they have different ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is a tautology. That doesn't mean it's false, not all tautologies are false. It's not even false because of the modal fallacy employed, which yes, Lessans reasoning is fallacious.

No, it's not a tautology. You made it into one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans conclusion about mans will not being free may be absolutely true, but A)he did not present a falsifiable scientific hypothesis that can be tested and B) it is not a mathematical formula that can be proved.

You keep going back to epistomology, and according to you the only way to prove something is to set up a hypothesis. THAT IS NOT HOW HE CAME TO HIS CONCLUSIONS, YET THEY ARE UNDENIABLE.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's an assertion, an opinion, for which he gave his personal reasons only. So, people can and will disagree based on the poor fallacious reasoning, or on the fact that they have different ideas.

You're all washed up LadyShea. Sorry bout that.

[LadyShea]

No, it's not a tautology. You made it into one.

You obviously don't understand what a tautology is, because yes, it is one. It's a textbook example as a matter of fact.

Of course you know this, which is why you refuse to lay out the argument syllogistically.

You keep going back to epistomology, and according to you the only way to prove something is to set up a hypothesis.

Epistomology is a branch of philosophy. Are you saying Lessans employed philosophy? If so, then lets see the very sound reasoning.

The only ways to provide evidence for a "universal law" (such as the laws of physics) is through scientific methodology or mathematical proof. If you don't have either of those, what are you left with?

THAT IS NOT HOW HE CAME TO HIS CONCLUSIONS, YET THEY ARE UNDENIABLE.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so.

[LadyShea]

You're all washed up LadyShea. Sorry bout that.

If you/Lessans can't argue well enough to convince me, how can you hope to convince real scientists or world leaders?

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am the judge of this work because I've read it many times and understand it; you haven't read this book even once. Your opinion isn't worth a can of beans.

That's a lie.

I'm sorry if he wasn't able to get it reviewed because of his circumstances. Why would you blame him for this? He did nothing wrong except make a discovery.

A discovery implies he actually was right and not just as the comic sketch puts it full of shit. And no its not a lie some people reviewed his book, us mostly at the moment and they didn't buy it for one second. That's peer review I believe.

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you/Lessans can't argue well enough to convince me, how can you hope to convince real scientists or world leaders?

Yeah let's face it most cult leaders don't convince people by being right, they have some charisma thing going on. Perhaps he was not as approchable as the usual cult head, David Koresh or that guy who was wating for the mother ship in South America.

Of course if you are right you don't need to have a winning personality, I'm told Newton was a complete asshole and few people liked him. Gravity did happen to work according to his inverse square law and its effect was although not instantaneous as he argued, as fast as light, inventing calculus simultaneously with Liebniz was pretty cool too and the other stuff with prisms and so on.

[thedoc]

I believe that it is also important to have an idea that is based on evidence, sound reasoning, or some other demonstratable line of argument. That Lessans reasoning was unsound, there was no evidence, and all he presented were assertions from authority, which he also failed to establish. In the final analysis the book has very little to recomend it, and Peacegirl has provided nothing to support it, except "It's so because Daddy says so." .

[Sidhe]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe that it is also important to have an idea that is based on evidence, sound reasoning, or some other demonstratable line of argument. That Lessans reasoning was unsound, there was no evidence, and all he presented were assertions from authority, which he also failed to establish. In the final analysis the book has very little to recomend it, and Peacegirl has provided nothing to support it, except "It's so because Daddy says so." .

I shall hence forth name this the Santa effect, believing preposterous hog wash just because your parents tell you to and you love them, and why would they lie or like how can they be wrong?

By the way kiddies by Santa I mean the fact that he dressed up like a Coca Cola advert, obviously.

[Henry Quirk]

...this thread is a (sad) example of 'irresistible force versus immovable object'.


"Well, PG won't stop!"

Then, why don't 'you' stop?

"Hell no! The Honor of Science, Logic, and all things Good is at stake! Besides, I'm bored and got nuthin' better to do..."

[liminus]

Hello, hello, hello.

PG, in regards to this real-time sight business.

One light-minute (18 million km) away from me is a light which can shine either red or blue.

The light switches on shining red. According to you, I will instantly see it as red even though no red light has reached me yet.

After one minute, the red light reaches me, and I will definitely see it as red whether in your real-time sight scenario or in the standard sight scenario. There is now an 18 million km-long beam of red light between me and the light source.

Now, the light switches to shine blue. What do I see? According to you, I instantly see the light shining blue. However the blue light will not reach me for one minute and for that whole minute, the beam of still-travelling red light will still be streaming into my eyes. So do I see red light? Do I see blue light?

Do I see purple light?

Thanks.

[LadyShea]

Hello liminus, what brings you here to ?