A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well, if it's written somewhere peacegirl assumes someone verified it, she doesn't verify anything herself ever.

If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Remember the Internet Checkers?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.

LOL, anyone can put up a website, we've been over this. You "trust" anonymous people who put shit on the Internet that you like and agree with.

Those of us who post actual scientific evidence and authoritative citations? We can't be trusted at all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully]. They could be wrong, but for the most part I haven't seen this. The things you are interested in checking out make no difference as far as the validity of the book is concerned, and that's my only focus.

You mean like the bit about checking out why, if real-time seeing is true, we use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to other worlds? That makes no difference to the validity of the book?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Provide one. Show me ONE reason he gave supporting any one of the presuppositions I listed.

All bluster was it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ahem...

Also...

Back to your weaselling ways already?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, his quote:

...Simply is not true.

It's true sometimes this happens, but not all the time, as he asserts. More, the converse is also the case: Just because something is ridiculed and/or violently opposed, doesn't make it true. Sure, people laughed at Copernicus, at first. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Which category do you think Lessans is in, peacegirl?

I wanted to add to this post. It is true that just because something is ridiculed, doesn't make it true. But the premise here is that the something that is being ridiculed is true, and the general response when the truth being spoken is the opposite of what most people believe or have been taught. I think that's what Shopenhauer meant. I agree that using the word all is extreme.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Back to your weaselling ways already?

You have not apologized to me. Do you think I'm going to forget that easily?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not apologized to me. Do you think I'm going to forget that easily?

Unlike you, I have nothing to apologize for. You are mentally ill and should be seeking help.

See how you're back to lying and weaselling already? Tell us again about how you're not here to restart discussion and are about to leave.

You are only here to assert your faith and feed your delusion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to add to this post. It is true that just because something is ridiculed, doesn't make it true. But the premise here is that the something that is being ridiculed is true, and the general response when the truth being spoken is the opposite of what most people believe or have been taught. I think that's what Shopenhauer meant. I agree that using the word all is extreme.

He didn't fucking even say it. Your book is a lie even before the text proper begins. And you also misspelled Schopenhauer's name.

[LadyShea]

It is and has been widely attributed to Schopenhauer for many years (without citation however, you'll notice), I don't think we can hold that against her.

Her refusal to even consider the idea of verification and citation when editing a non-fiction book for publication and sale while claiming it is a scientific and scholarly work ? Yeah, that can be ridiculed with impunity.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this knowledge is valid and can be verified. Therefore it is my belief that it's only a matter of time before scientists take a serious look at this discovery.

Hey everybody, peacegirl thinks Lessans "knowledge" is valid. Is there anybody here at FF that hasn't known this for at least six months?

peacegirl, have you returned to tell us something you have told us hundreds of times already? Is this the occupation of a healthy mind?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not apologized to me. Do you think I'm going to forget that easily?

peacegirl, I don't think anybody is bothered if you are upset at not getting an apology. If you were a child they might even find it kinda cute in a petulant little girl sort of way, but coming from a senior citizen it's just stupid.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had to verify every single quote, it would take me forever. I would never get the book finished. Yes, I have to have a certain amount of trust in the people who have done the research [hopefully].

So Peacegirl doesn't verify any of her quotes, she just takes them on faith. Just like she has made no attempt to verify Lessans claims, she just accepts it on faith, and in spite of considerable verified emperical evidence to the contrary. Seems like a bit of a double standard that testable emperical evidence is rejected, but a lot of unsurported conjecture is accepted at face falue. Someone is a few bricks shy of a load. Their elevator doesn't go all the way up. Their light bulb is a much lower wattage than everyone elses. Their soda has lost it's fizz.

[thedoc]

BTW, if anyone see's fit to bump one of my posts please feel free to do so, I would not want Peacegirl to miss out on the wit and wisdom of 'thedoc'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, anyone can put up a website, we've been over this. You "trust" anonymous people who put shit on the Internet that you like and agree with.

Those of us who post actual scientific evidence and authoritative citations? We can't be trusted at all.

When you're talking scientific evidence, then you must make sure that the studies are cited correctly. I don't know what to say. I cannot go off on tangents like this that actually have nothing to do with this man's discovery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is and has been widely attributed to Schopenhauer for many years (without citation however, you'll notice), I don't think we can hold that against her.

Her refusal to even consider the idea of verification and citation when editing a non-fiction book for publication and sale while claiming it is a scientific and scholarly work ? Yeah, that can be ridiculed with impunity.

There was no reason to think this quote was not accurate, and I certainly wanted to give credit to the person whose quotation it was. I could have left his name out, but that wouldn't have been right. Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.

[Spacemonkey]

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? WHY ARE YOU POSTING?

You've made it blatantly clear that you're not interested in rationally discussing the validity of Lessans' claims with anyone, and you've repeatedly stated that you know you're wasting your time with every post you make here.

So what on Earth are you doing? Do you even know? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're certifiable, to do nothing but make faith claims and refuse to engage in substantive discussion?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Notice how much energy this discussion is taking which is now distracting everyone from the main topic.

YOU said you weren't returning to discuss the main topic. YOU said that. If you don't believe me, or if you've forgotten already, just look back through your posting history.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He didn't fucking even say it. Your book is a lie even before the text proper begins. And you also misspelled Schopenhauer's name.

My book is not a lie David. Can't you separate unimportant details from the main theme of the book, or is that too difficult?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

YOU said you weren't returning to discuss the main topic. YOU said that. If you don't believe me, or if you've forgotten already, just look back through your posting history.

I'm actually not going to return to the main topic because there's too much confrontation. It would be hard for anyone (not just me) to share new knowledge in this kind of atmosphere. I just wanted to show how many times people have gotten distracted from the main purpose of this thread. The fact that we never got to Chapter Two shows me what little progress we actually made.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My book is not a lie David. Can't you separate unimportant details from the main theme of the book, or is that too difficult?

Unimportant details like the level of redundancy of his introduction?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to return to the main topic because of the cold responses. It would be hard for anyone (not just me) to share new knowledge in this kind of atmosphere. The fact that we never got to Chapter Two shows me what little progress we made.

So why on Earth are you criticizing others for not returning to a topic that you refuse to discuss? Do you have any idea how crazy that is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? WHY ARE YOU POSTING?

You've made it blatantly clear that you're not interested in rationally discussing the validity of Lessans' claims with anyone, and you've repeatedly stated that you know you're wasting your time with every post you make here.

So what on Earth are you doing? Do you even know? Why do you keep coming back to a forum where everyone thinks you're certifiable, to do nothing but make faith claims and refuse to engage in substantive discussion?

I'm answering people's questions Spacemonkey, but not the ones that are going to cause an uproar. I don't want to go back to photons traveling because this has nothing to do with efferent vision, no matter how you word it. Secondly, you have not given me a chance to even discuss chapter two. You think Lessans' observations are mere assertions, but you're wrong. You keep asking me where he supports his presuppositions. And I keep saying he made astute observations. Yes, certain things have to be true such as the way conscience works under the conditions he describes, but first you have to understand his reasoning, which you haven't done. If people want more empirical proof, that's fine, but to dismiss this knowledge as if it's nothing is a darn shame. I don't want to start this discussion again because I'm sick and tired of the lies and the name calling. It's sad that every other post are people condemning Lessans when they don't have a solid grasp of the material. How can they? They didn't read the book, but they are the loudest detractors.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My book is not a lie David. Can't you separate unimportant details from the main theme of the book, or is that too difficult?

We've already been over the "main theme" of the book hundreds of times, peacegirl. The books claim's have all been shown to be substantively wrong

What are you doing here, indeed?