A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe that Lessans claimed to have been 'inspired', do you dare to think that you are on the same level as the great pool hustler and part time savior of the world.

Not at all. My pool game is well below that of even the average pool hustler. On the other hand, I am probably at least as effective as Lessans at saving the world.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do have humility but I don't have to agree with you in order to prove it. That's why the only way to solve this is through unbiased empirical testing. If any of the results turn out to be in Lessans' favor, science needs to take a second look.

And when it turns out that the results are not in Lessans' favor, then the tests were obviously biased and unreliable and more testing needs to be done.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is another example of your delusional thinking, and a mistake (or deliberate lie) you repeat over and over. Nobody here convinced anyone else to dismiss Lessans. We all independently evaluated the work and arrived at the same conclusion. His claims are WRONG. They conflict decisively with reality. It is REALITY that convinced us. Everyone here knows this, and arrived at their conclusions about Lessans' claims independently, because everyone here is educated, unlike you and Lessans. Now, care to take another whack at explaining Mars and NASA? No, huh?

That's not true. Until there is further experimentation, your "independent" evaluation is anything but objective. What I am experiencing is a gang of people who have banded together in the name of science to look for and cast out anyone who dares to disagree with what they believe to be a scientific review. This is exactly what Richard Milton was referring to when he wrote this:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction pp. 8-9

"Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo
will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions
on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they
are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument
necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to
reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially
non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to
subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have
devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such
tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any
contribution to knowledge in terms of rational analysis, or resulting
from the different perspective of those outside the field in question, is
lost to the community.

In its most extreme form scientific tabooism
closely resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is perceived to be
the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that are the object
of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel themselves justified
by their religious calling and long training in adopting any measures
to repel and to discredit any member of the community who profanes
the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable. Perhaps
the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to have
a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is
ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is
permanently dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the
basis of its rejection on all future occasions.

It is a little like the court
of appeal rejecting the convicted man’s plea of innocence on the
grounds that he must be guilty or why else is he in jail? And why else
did the police arrest him in the first place? This ‘erring on the side of
caution’ means that in the long term the intellectual Devil’s Island
where convicted concepts are sent becomes more and more crowded
with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility of reprieve.
We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands of
important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of
intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one can see their own biases unless it is clearly pointed out, and they have the humility to listen.

Ah, now this you have repeatedly proven that you cannot see your own biases, but even when clearly pointed out you refuse to acknowledge them. So the second point is untrue in your case, and you certainly lack any humility. Your biases and errors have been pointed out for 10 years yet you continue to express the same faulty ideas and beliefs and make the same errors.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Until there is further experimentation, your independent evaluation is anything but objective. What I am experiencing is a gang of people who have banded together in the name of science, and to throw out any dissenters.

What further experimentation needs to be done? Delayed-time seeing, and all its implications, have been empirically demonstrated for hundreds of years. You have been told about the moons of Jupiter, about NASA and Mars, about lasers and the moon, about special relativity, about earth-bound experiments that establish both the speed of light and delayed-time seeing, about GPS devices, about the Hubble telescope, about gravitational lensing, about on and on and on and on. Every single one of these experiments refutes Lessans. The truth is that in your insane mind, even if an infinite number of experiments were done and all refuted Lessans, Lessans would still be right. Isn't that a fact?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, do you realize NASA lost a 135 million dollar Mars orbiter to a miscalculation cause by the difference between the English and Metric systems? They were expecting Metric, it was in English, the probe went only 60 miles off course and disintegrated in Mars' atmosphere.

Do you think a miscalculation of the distance when we're talking millions of miles, as would be the case with the speed of light delay, wouldn't spell disaster?

Bump

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction pp. 8-9

"Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo
will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions
on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they
are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument
necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to
reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially
non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to
subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have
devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such
tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any
contribution to knowledge in terms of rational analysis, or resulting
from the different perspective of those outside the field in question, is
lost to the community.

In its most extreme form scientific tabooism
closely resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is perceived to be
the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that are the object
of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel themselves justified
by their religious calling and long training in adopting any measures
to repel and to discredit any member of the community who profanes
the sacred places, words or rituals regarded as untouchable. Perhaps
the most worrying aspect of the taboo reaction is that it tends to have
a cumulative and permanent discriminatory effect: any idea that is
ideologically suspect or counter to the current paradigm is
permanently dismissed, and the very fact of its rejection forms the
basis of its rejection on all future occasions. It is a little like the court
of appeal rejecting the convicted man’s plea of innocence on the
grounds that he must be guilty or why else is he in jail? And why else
did the police arrest him in the first place? This ‘erring on the side of
caution’ means that in the long term the intellectual Devil’s Island
where convicted concepts are sent becomes more and more crowded
with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no possibility of reprieve.
We will never know how many tens or hundreds or thousands of
important discoveries were thrown in the scrap heap merely because of
intolerance and misplaced skepticism.”

Nothing new here, either. Do you know who Paul Feyerabend is? No, I'm sure you don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

And when it turns out that the results are not in Lessans' favor, then the tests were obviously biased and unreliable and more testing needs to be done.

That's not true Angakuk. No one has tested these claims because there isn't a person, other than Lessans, who has made a counterclaim that the eyes are not a sense organ, at least that I know of.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Coming from a man who's grasp of English was tenuous at best that is pretty funny.
.

I'm sorry but I must disagree, anyone who becomes a champion 'Pool Hustler' must have a very good understanding of 'English'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Not at all. My pool game is well below that of even the average pool hustler. On the other hand, I am probably at least as effective as Lessans at saving the world.

Yes, but you are doing it 'Full Time' and not as a joke.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true Angakuk. No one has tested these claims because there isn't a person, other than Lessans, who has made a counterclaim that the eyes are not a sense organ, at least that I know of.

Laugh Out Loud, no one needs to make a counterclaim that they eyes are not a sense organ, for the counterclaim to be tested. It has been tested for centuries! They eye is dissected, we observe how it works, just like we observe how light works. There are no efferent nerve endings in the optic system. This has been pointed out to you again and again. What possible test would you accept that invalidates Lessans? None, of course! Every conceivable test DOES invalidate his claims, but you deny reality and logic itself to sustain your pathetic delusion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And the only defense I have is that Lessans came along and saw this from a completely different angle. If he or someone else didn't, we might never know how the brain actually works in relation to the eyes. Lessans had compelling reasons to believe that we don't see the way science believes.

Yes, he was doing a bank shot instead of straight on.

Would you be so kind as to provide us with some of those compelling reasons?

[davidm]

Paul Feyerabend

Epistemological anarchism

It should be noted that peacegirl is so off her rocker that when it is pointed out to her that she has at least two allies in Lessans' claims about "germinal substance" et al, Tom Clark and Wayne Stewart, she rejects these alliances, showing that her megalomania is so far gone that she wants not only for Lessans to be right (even though he is wrong), she wants for it to be that his "observations" are absolutely unique, and shared by no one else on earth, ever.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is exactly what Richard Milton was referring to when he wrote this:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction pp. 8-9

"Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo
will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions
on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they
are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument
necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to
reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially
non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to
subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have
devoted long painful years to acquiring.

This just demonstrates Richard Milton's total lack of understanding of the scientific comunity and how it works. Amatures have always had a role in new discoveries and the advance of knowledge. Astronomy, especially, relies on Amatures to provide a large amount of information that the profesionals just do not have the time to gather. It would be akin to pro's telling Amatures that they wer not allowed to use telescopes to do astronomy, nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, at least that I know of.

And there-in lies the problem, if you don't know about it, it dosen't exist or can't be right.

[LadyShea]

LOL, Milton again. Appealing to crackpots is a great idea , you should do it a lot more

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Of course a miscalculation of millions of miles would spell disaster, but whether the time-light delay would be the cause of such a disaster is still in question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, Milton again. Appealing to crackpots is a great idea , you should do it a lot more

You don't realize how you sound LadyShea. What he wrote in that excerpt has nothing to do with your opinion of him. The idea that you label someone a crackpot is in itself crackpot thinking because it's a blanket statement that has no validity unless it's used in context.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course a calculation of millions of miles would spell disaster, but whether the time-light delay would be the cause of such a disaster is still in question.

How do you figure it's in question? If they miscalculated by using the light travel delay, it would be by millions of miles (or thousands of miles, or hundreds of miles depending on where Mars and Earth are in their orbits) Because Mars is millions of miles away (49 million miles away on average).

Do you even understand the problem you are handwaving away as "maybe some correction somehow fixes it without anyone knowing about it"?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, but whether the time-light delay would be the cause of such a disaster is still in question.

Only to Peacegirl, everyone else understands the problems involved.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't realize how you sound LadyShea. What he wrote in that excerpt has nothing to do with your opinion of him. The idea that you label someone a crackpot is in itself crackpot thinking because it's a blanket statement that has no validity unless it's used in context.

The context is, he is spouting 'WOO', which makes him a 'crackpot'.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, but you are doing it 'Full Time' and not as a joke.

What? I'm a preacher. Don't you know that we only work one day week? You call that full time?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't realize how you sound LadyShea. What he wrote in that excerpt has nothing to do with your opinion of him. The idea that you label someone a crackpot is in itself crackpot thinking because it's a blanket statement that has no validity unless it's used in context.

I realize exactly how I sound, because I purposefully chose my written tone by using the cheesy wink.

The guy is a crank.

[davidm]

On Cranks and Demarcation

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you figure it's in question?

She doesn't "figure" it's in question, or reason about it in any way at all. Since Lessans was right, obviously something about reality and logic is amiss! This is how she "figures" and "reasons."