A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lassie or Flipper, being smart animals, would definitely be able to recognize a family member in a picture and respond in some way.
.

Peacegirl thinks Lassie, Flipper, and Skippy were real stories of real events, what does this tell you about her mental state?

Bulletin! for anyone who doesn't know, TV shows are made up fiction, they aren't really real, animals don't really talk, they respond to a traners signals to do certain trained responses. They are really just dumb animals.

Peacegirl definately needs profesional help.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have talked to him about it, but he isn't an eye doctor. Eye doctors wouldn't know any better than the general population either.

Eye Doctors don't have any indepth understanding of the human visual system? It just keeps getting better.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you do these things when you see a photograph of someone you know?

After reading her most recent posts, I would believe that she does. Especially the barking.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Eye Doctors don't have any indepth understanding of the human visual system? It just keeps getting better.

I didn't say he was an eye doctor. As a radiologist he uses optics in his work... medical imaging.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say he was an eye doctor. As a radiologist he uses optics in his work... medical imaging.

I was refering to Peacegirls comment that eye doctors don't understand how vision works.

Also 'radiology' does not use the visible part of the spectrum, that should be an easy 'out' for Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Good God. It's amazing she can feed herself.

We don't know that, that is an unsupported assumption.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1091593]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the meantime, we still don't know about these mysterious reasons that he had for thinking the eye works like that in the first place. All he mentions in the book is dog sight and infant sight - not nearly enough to jump to such a conclusion.

Why did he assume it?

Those examples were just that. He did not look at dog sight and infant sight and come to a conclusion.

Too much like empirical evidence for his taste huh?

He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words that have made people inferior productions of the human race due to their physiognomies.

Look, you are doing it again. You are using words you do not really understand, and it turns everything into a dreadful jumble.

His observations

: an observation can be either a remark, or it can be something someone observed. The first can be just about anything: I can make the observation to you that I thought yesterdays meatloaf was particularly fine. The second one requires something to observe: they are always observations of physical things.

He made his observations based on seeing how we become conditioned by words

That is an impossibility. You can see behaviours, or other physical phenomena. You cannot directly observe conditioning, as it is a psychological phenomenon. You can observe behaviour and then raise the hypothesis that conditioning occurs. You would have to test that hypothesis before you go on, thought.

He saw how this conditioning occurs.

To do this you would quite literally need to be a mind-reader. It cannot be done. What you can do is observe behaviour, especially if in this case you observed a lot of developing infants, and then see if the data you have collected matches your hypothesis that this is what occurs.

Descriptors are projected onto people with certain facial structures.

So the two of you claim. I see no evidence to suggest it is true. Worse: I do not even see any reason to assume it is plausible. All I see is your claim that it is so.

A child keeps hearing positive or negative inflections when that person is identified. This process begins at a very early age and it occurs over and over again, so by the time a child is 4 or 5 (or maybe even younger), he can see, with his very eyes, the difference between an "ugly" individual or a "pretty" individual. The truth is people ae not ugly or beautiful, just different, and these words which have hurt so many are going to become obsolete out of necessity. Why would anyone want to use words that not only are inaccurate symbols, but hurt so many of our youth because they don't feel they measure up? In the new world these words will never be used.

All of this is a repetition of the same claim. All you have done is repeated what it is you believe. I know perfectly well what it is you believe: I just pointed out that I cannot for the life of me spot any reason to believe it is true!

This is the problem with the book. At no point did he feel any need to fact-check, test, prove, or support his ideas. He can either have been ignorant of the fact that in any even remotely scientific work, this is an absolute requirement, or he can have simply felt that there was no need for it, and that his self-proclaimed authority as a genius should be enough.

Tell me - if you were asked to change the entire organisation of your countries society, would you be happy to do so on the say-so of someone, just because that person assures you he is a grade-a brainbox and has spent a lot of time on his system? That would just be silly, right? The guy could be dead wrong.

And yet that is exactly what your father expected the US to do. He even tried to sue the president to get this done. Despite the fact that the key part of this book - the assumption that conscience works the way he says it does - is completely unsupported.

[LadyShea]

Yes or no?

Photoreceptors are afferent nerve endings in the eyes?

[Vivisectus]

My approach to science does not dismiss anything it teaches if there is good reason to accept what it teaches. But if the empirical evidence is unreliable, I'm not going to accept it just because somebody, who calls himself a scientist, says it is.

Wonderful stuff once again!

My approach to science does not dismiss anything it teaches if there is good reason to accept what it teaches

...and I check to see if there is good reason to accept it by seeing if it agrees with what my father said!

But if the empirical evidence is unreliable,

By which I mean, if I have decided that some empirical evidence is unreliable on the grounds that I do not like the results...

I'm not going to accept it just because somebody, who calls himself a scientist, says it is

...because I find that rather unambitious. Why not stretch oneself a little, and accept bizarre theories about conscience, good and evil, the nature of sight and the usefulness of sexy jackets just because somebody, who calls himself a genius, says it is so?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Trying to pretend light carries images again? You think somehow Lessans' misunderstanding of how the scientific model of vision works vindicates his factually incorrect statements?

I don't know how many times I have told you that saying light carries images is not a strawman because light does not literally carry anything such as in a basket. But the pattern is thought to be traveling away from its source such that even when the object reflecting that light is no longer present, the light or pattern would continue on indefinitely throughout space/time. I don't have to keep making this long statement because I know you know (or at least should know by now) what I mean when I say "on the waves of light". If I was talking to someone new, that would be a different story.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Let me try to get this right:

The book claims there are no afferent "nerve endings" (whatever that is supposed to mean) in the eyes.

However, this is not wrong, because the fact that there clearly are does not prove that signals are sent to the brain to be interpreted as images?

Amazing. Even if your holy book says something that is very obviously wrong, you still are not able to admit this. And yet you spend all your time claiming everyone else is biased.

All I am saying is that the brain is not decoding impulses into an image. The brain is seeing the actual object, using the eyes as a window, in real time. This was not discovered by dissecting the eye because it is impossible to know what is actually going on by this alone. It appears that the eyes work the same way the other senses do, but they do not. Believing that the eyes were a sense organ, everything followed naturally in a logical order which has made it appear that this model of sight is airtight. This is where Lessans' perception of what is actually going on takes a sharp turn. To reject his claim outright is not good science.

[peacegirl]

Lie #1:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not evaded, weaseled, or ignored anything.

Not a lie. I answer your questions.

Lie #2:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never purposely ignored your questions.

I never purposely ignore your questions unless you start frustrating me by your better than thou attitude, which I'm starting to feel.

Question #1:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What support did Lessans provide for your claim that under his changed conditions, people will be unable to harm others without justification?

He was so clear in the book as to why this occurs under conditions of a no blame environment, and why we can't justify striking a first blow under these same conditions, that you either didn't read it, or you don't understand his demonstration.

Weaseling Evasion #1:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you have no clue as to what the two-sided equation is even about, yet you tell me you now more about this discovery than me, when I've been privy to it my entire life.

Where am I evading anything? You do not understand the two-sided equation whatsoever, yet you think you do. This poses a real stumbling block.

Question #2:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How could it be that NASA successfully uses delayed-time vision to calculate trajectories, when if Lessans were right about real-time seeing, they should then miss by thousands of miles?

Maybe in their calculations there was a correction made. I really don't know, but this is not how this knowledge is going to be confirmed. If this claim is confirmed valid, then we have to go back to the drawing board to understand what is really going on, and why the trajectories are on target.

Weaseling Evasion #2:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that I'm not getting into this because it is fueling the rage that is being directed at me. This is not airtight by any means, as far as I'm concerned. Only further testing will determine who is right.

This is not a weasel. I am evading nothing. Empirical testing will be the ultimate judge of who is right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You also owe me an apology for falsely accusing me of having "definitely 100%" contradicted myself, when the alleged contradiction (that we can have free will and no free will) is something that I have never once stated or implied.

Before I ever give you an apology, you are you going to have to get down on your hands and knees and ask for forgiveness for calling me insane, mentally ill, and all the other crazy nutty things you have called me and accused me of in the space of a very short time.

As far as your false indignation over my comment, explain to me how then can you reconcile the two opposite sides that compatibilists try to reconcile without it being a complete and utter contradiction? Are you saying that we don't have free will, or that we do have free will? And if you think we have both, show me how this works in a compatabilist framework.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I guess you must have overlooked this one too. You couldn't possibly have evaded, weaseled, or ignored it, right?

I answered it, but I am not answering your posts as if you're the only one asking questions. You have to keep your turn in line.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am saying is that the brain is not decoding impulses into an image. The brain is seeing the actual object, using the eyes as a window, in real time. This was not discovered by dissecting the eye because it is impossible to know what is actually going on by this alone. It appears that the eyes work the same way the other senses do, but they do not. Believing that the eyes were a sense organ, everything followed naturally in a logical order which has made it appear that this model of sight is airtight. This is where Lessans' perception of what is actually going on takes a sharp turn. To reject his claim outright is not good science.

Ok. So he was wrong about the nerve endings then.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how many times I have told you that saying light carries images is not a strawman because light does not literally carry anything such as in a basket. But the pattern is thought to be traveling away from its source such that even when the object reflecting that light is no longer present, the light or pattern would continue on indefinitely throughout space/time. I don't have to keep making this long statement because I know you know (or at least should know by now) what I mean when I say "on the waves of light". If I was talking to someone new, that would be a different story.

It's still a strawman, and a weasel, and an evasion because the discussion was not about images or patterns or traveling or any of that.

Let's make it simple.
Light makes direct contact with the photoreceptors on the retina. Yes or No?

[Vivisectus]

This was not discovered by dissecting the eye because it is impossible to know what is actually going on by this alone.

No, it is not: we can observe and test what is going on. And we have: stimulate the optic nerve directly and we can create simple images. This should not be possible if we see efferently. How do we see efferently, anyway? By what method does the information end up in the brain? You can just say "the brain looks out of the eyes", but how exactly does the brain do that?

Also - what do stars smell like, or feel like? What other sensory experience builds up that finally allows us to see them?

To reject his claim outright is not good science.

You really do not understand what science is.

If a hypothesis is tested and found to be wanting, it should be rejected, and that is what is happening here. You are working the other way around: you would have us keep all theoretical possibilities until it is absolutely proven that it is impossible. But we do not have absolute proof that fairies do not exist either, or that there is not a small teapot circling the moon.

If efferent sight was correct, then:

1: Light reflecting off a distant planet and the image should show up in different place, as the speed of light is finite, but we see without a time delay. This does not happen.
2: Cameras and the eyes should see different things over distances where the time it takes light to cross the intervening distance is significant. This is not the case. Cameras only work with incoming light. There is nothing in them to "look out".
3: There should be no variation in when we see the moons of Jupiter, as we would always see them exactly where they are. There IS a variation.
4: Our calculations regarding the exact position of distant planets should have large errors in them, as we currently calculate these positions based on the assumption that we see them where they were one minute per light minute distance ago. However, we keep managing to land our probes accurately.
5: Televisions would not work. They just emit light: they do not emit images. Really, they are just really sophisticated lamps. If all they do it emit light... how come we can use them to create images in our brains?

This is an overwhelming body of evidence against it. There is none in favour. The only rational conclusion is to reject it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, it is not: we can observe and test what is going on. And we have: stimulate the optic nerve directly and we can create simple images. This should not be possible if we see efferently. How do we see efferently, anyway? By what method does the information end up in the brain? You can just say "the brain looks out of the eyes", but how exactly does the brain do that? What kind of images are you talking about?

I am talking about any image that is interpreted by the brain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also - what do stars smell like, or feel like? What other sensory experience builds up that finally allows us to see them?[/qutoe]

You are so confused that I may have not explained this correctly. I recently said that focusing on an object happens as infants as they are stimulated. You are interpreting this incorrectly by saying that we smell stars. This is absolutely nuts, and I hope people don't take your interpretation of what I'm expressing, and what Lessans explained, seriously.

I never said that a distant planet should show up at a different place if it were true that the eyes are a sense organ. But if is not a sense organ, it changes all the rules of what determines true vision. You seem to be back in time, without giving any thought to where this thread has evolved in its understanding of how real time vision could be an actual possibility.

2: Cameras and the eyes should see different things over distances where the time it takes light to cross the intervening distance is significant. This is not the case. Cameras only work with incoming light. There is nothing in them to "look out".

Cameras cannot perform their function unless the object is within the lenses field of view.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

3: There should be no variation in when we see the moons of Jupiter, as we would always see them exactly where they are. There IS a variation.

I agree that there is a variation and scientists have inferred from this variation what is happening is not what Lessans claims. I disagree with their results. I do not think they are conclusive, yet if they want to disagree, this is their right but it does not mean they ARE right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

4: Our calculations regarding the exact position of distant planets should have large errors in them, as we currently calculate these positions based on the assumption that we see them where they were one minute per light minute distance ago. However, we keep managing to land our probes accurately.

I told you that this is very misleading and is not the way to confirm the truth of what is happening. If you are threatened by this failed claim, then don't listen further, but if you do this, please don't come back and tell me that Lessans is wrong without adequate proof.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

5: Televisions would not work. They just emit light: they do not emit images. Really, they are just really sophisticated lamps. If all they do it emit light... how come we can use them to create images in our brains?

We can't. That's just it. We see the image in real time. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that you will eventually see that supports this view. There is none in your favour once you understand that the brain is not doing the interpreting. The only rational conclusion is to reject your view Vivisectus, unless you want to hold onto it because you can't deal with being wrong.

No, there is really no body of evidence that proves him wrong as you keep reiterating. How can you say that televisions wouldn't work, when he is not even talking about pictures being sent through cables. You are lost.

[Vivisectus]

What kind of images are you talking about?

Basic geometric shapes.

You are so confused that I may have not explained this correctly.

I recently said that focusing on an object happens as infants as they are stimulated. You are interpreting this incorrectly by saying that we smell stars. This is absolutely nuts, and I hope people don't take your interpretation of what I'm expressing, and what Lessans explained, seriously.

Oh right. So that is just to start them to focus out so they can project words unto some undeniable essence, then? And once they focus out, they stay that way?

To reject his claim outright is not good science.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You really do not understand what science is.

If a hypothesis is tested and found to be wanting, it should be rejected, and that is what is happening here. You are working the other way around: you would have us keep all theoretical possibilities until it is absolutely proven that it is impossible. But we do not have absolute proof that fairies do not exist either, or that there is not a small teapot circling the moon.

If efferent sight was correct, then:

The light needs to travel - the image does not. Hence the light should appear from where the object was, the image where it is. So this one stands.

Cameras cannot perform their function unless the object is within the lenses field of view.

No, a camera just detects light: we have built them that way. This one stands.

3: There should be no variation in when we see the moons of Jupiter, as we would always see them exactly where they are. There IS a variation.

I agree that there is a variation and scientists have inferred from this variation what is happening. I disagree with their results. I do not think they are conclusive at all.
[/QUOTE]

You think that on the basis of no rational reason at all. Please point out what they are doing wrong and what is causing the variation, or this one stands too.

[qutoe="Vivisectus"]4: Our calculations regarding the exact position of distant planets should have large errors in them, as we currently calculate these positions based on the assumption that we see them where they were one minute per light minute distance ago. However, we keep managing to land our probes accurately.

[/U]

I told you that this is very misleading and is not the way to confirm the truth of what is happening. If you are threatened by this failed claim, then don't listen further, but if you do this, please don't come back and tell me that Lessans is wrong without adequate proof.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you the claims about light are failed claims. You again are unable to do anything but make another unsubstantiated claim, so this one stands.

No, there is really no body of evidence that proves him wrong as you keep reiterating. How can you say that televisions wouldn't work, when he is not even talking about pictures being sent through cables. You are lost.

So you think a TV works because of "pictures being sent through cables"? You really never, ever disappoint!

All a TV does is emit light: they are really just very sophisticated lamps. They do not emit images. If efferent sight were correct, they should not work as there is no object to see: just light. This one stands too.

Meanwhile we still have no evidence in favour.

Anyone rational would reject it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say he was an eye doctor. As a radiologist he uses optics in his work... medical imaging.

LadyShea, this really so idiotic, I would laugh if it wasn't so sad. You are, once again, trying to make Lessans wrong unless he gets approval from someone in optics. This is seriously flawed, and unless and until you see this, we cannot converse because you will continue to think that this knowledge needs approval from other people. It does not. That is exactly why he wrote the following which you could care less about:

However, when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial?

This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that
brooks no opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude
the possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the
long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks
he qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity. In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how many times I have told you that saying light carries images is not a strawman because light does not literally carry anything such as in a basket. But the pattern is thought to be traveling away from its source such that even when the object reflecting that light is no longer present, the light or pattern would continue on indefinitely throughout space/time. I don't have to keep making this long statement because I know you know (or at least should know by now) what I mean when I say "on the waves of light". If I was talking to someone new, that would be a different story.

I'm sorry, you can't be trusted to accurately remember and describe the scientific model for vision, so I can't simply ignore when you make an incorrect statement.

Even the above is not exactly correct because light doesn't form patterns.

If you wanted to be accurate without being too wordy, you could just say, "the scientific model for vision" or simply "the scientific model".

Because you are rejecting the current scientific model.

And science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Guess I will respond to this now

A) disservice to mankind
B) What am I claiming ownership to? As far as I can tell I took "ownership" of my own conclusions. Who else could possibly "own" my conclusions?
What does "not being privy to" mean, even? I am not privy to my own thoughts?

Your own conclusions, if wrong, could ruin it for others. Look what has happened all over the world with wrong beliefs and wrong conclusions based on false premises and syllogistic reasoning?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where in the world Lady do you come off being God?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where and how am I "being God"? What?

Don't act like Miss Innocent. It is a serious problem because you think you are right. Why are you here if you don't want your words to mean something?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm being serious.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are serious that I am being God? You are serious that I am not being privy to my own conclusions? What?

You know that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that I have been privy to a discovery. You have not. You can't believe this is a major discovery so you continue to argue with me without really understanding what this is all about. This is exemplified when you say who agrees with me? What you are saying, in so many words, is that other people of greater authority than my father, must stamp this knowledge with authenticity before it is accepted as true. This is faulty thinking Ladyshea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me Ladyshea where your scientific investigation usurps the claim that God is in charge

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean? Why was God brought into the discussion?

But, since you bring it up, define and describe God, and explain "in charge, and I will tell you my conclusions about the particular deity you define and describe.

You're not going to trip me up, okay? You're not going to use false reasoning to laugh in my face. Won't happen. God, which I have already defined, only means the laws of our nature that push us in a certain direction. That is true, and we have no control over the direction our lives take.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

or the claim that completely obliterates the proof that God does not exist (which He does), not in the usual sense but in the sense of there being a divine order to this world.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What claim are you talking about that obliterates what proof that God does not exist?

You seem to be claiming that God does not exist. From what I have gathered in your posts, you are an unapolgetic atheist, which is fine with me. The claim that there is no such thing as a higher power brings us to this major crossroads, for you are insisting that everything happens by chance. I disagree.

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

Did you think this sentence through? I do not believe in the divine or deities.

I don't either, so don't put words in my moutn. But I do know that this world is not here by chance, which is not the same thing as believing in a personal deity, which you are basically accusing me of.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Explain it to me, would you Lady, since you are the Queen of all truth?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain what? Your questions make no sense. Perhaps you were in a sputtering rage and that caused the word salad.

No, I said what I said because of your arrogance. You believe that you are right, and I am wrong, and you have no idea whether I'm right or wrong except for your belief that I couldn't be right because the claims are too unbelievable for them to be right. You have presupposed that I am wrong because of the claims, which is a no no in philosophy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm sorry, you can't be trusted to accurately remember and describe the scientific model for vision, so I can't simply ignore when you make an incorrect statement.

Even the above is not exactly correct because light doesn't form patterns.

If you wanted to be accurate without being too wordy, you could just say, "the scientific model for vision" or simply "the scientific model".

Because you are rejecting the current scientific model.

And science.

That's fine with me specious. I will try to remember to replace "carried on the waves of light" with "the scientific model." Thanks for the suggestion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I refuse to believe that LadyShea is God.


If she'd designed the place, the Universe would make a lot more sense, and would be a much nicer and fairer place.

That's giving her too much credit.

[Vivisectus]

So according to you, either there is no God and everything happens by chance, whereas if there is one it does not.

What exactly do you mean when you say this? What does "by chance" mean in this instance?

It sounds like you feel things either happen by chance or for a reason... but that is by definition an attribute that can only apply to a personal God. God as the totality of natural laws can never have any reason to do anything, cause anything, or make anything happen. Only a God that has an intention, and is therefore a personal God, can do that.

When you then include what is in the book and your remarks about it, then this points not just to a Divine entity that has intention, but has a specific plan in which humanity has a central role. An entity that cares about what happens to humans as well, apparently, whereas it does not show any particular care regarding the welfare of animals of bacteria. We have apparently been equipped with conscience, and this is not simply an extension of social instincts allowing us to cooperate but a specific mechanism intended to allow humans to reach a state of universal happiness.

I would put it to you that your God is not impersonal at all. He or she shows preference, intent, and cares about humans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, this is a particularly weak and annoying way of arguing.

"Sight has something to do with the brain. The brain is not fully understood. There for, my idea about sight is not implausible!"

Just because we do not know everything about a mountain does not mean that it is now plausible that giants live in it.

No it doesn't, but you can't use this analogy to conclude that because we don't understand the complete workings of the brain, that the possibility that Lessans is right should now be compared to a fairy tale.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is the same annoying, weak, liver-lipped, mealy-mouthed, flabby, cringe-inducingly awful excuse for a rational argument that goes "Scientists don't know everything, there for *insert silly belief* is just as valid as your opinion!"

No, that is not what I said. I said that scientists don't know everything, so that should give you pause before jumping to premature conclusions that Lessans is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am always surprised when people say that, because it means that any silly statement must be given equal weight: we never know, some evidence may surface! We don't know everything about anything yet, so I guess that must mean anything is equally possible now!

No, there are many things that are not possible, but this discovery is within the realm of possibility because it is based on immutable laws that control the mankind system.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But these people who seem to treasure their ignorance so much they elevate it to the status of eternal truth do not mean that, of course. They feel it only applies to something they already believe. Few young earth creationists feel that this rationale applies equally strongly to the Hindu creation story, or that of the Mayans or the ancient Greeks. No, invariably the argument runs "We do not know everything, and one of the things we do not know yet is the reason to assume my belief is correct."

Again, that's not what they are saying. They are saying that their beliefs are valid until proven otherwise. It's amazing to think that the faith of those people who trusted in God; who believed that one day we would be delivered from evil, was not in vain.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I hate it. Not just because it is irrational, but because it is such a lazy, defeatist statement. It wants to pretend that careful, rational enquiry into the nature of the world around us is essentially pointless, and that assuming something on the basis of no evidence whatever is the same as assuming something because after careful study the balance of evidence points that way. All of that because they are either too lazy to actually learn anything, too proud to admit they just don't understand something or worse, because they don't want to let go of a belief and will happily take a dump on five centuries of enlightenment to hold on to it.

You are so completely off base, it disturbs me. This man did more reading and studying than you'll ever do on one pinky. This is not about an assumption Vivisectus, just because he didn't start off with a hypothesis. How dare you conclude that he was lazy or didn't actually learn anything, or was too proud to admit he didn't understand something, or that this was just a belief that he couldn't part with. Five centuries of enlightenment has not given us the answers we've been searching for. So who is dumping on whom Vivisectus? Could it be that you, in your pride, cannot even begin to entertain the possibility that a discovery was made without your approval?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

People who, as a rule, are now better fed, in better health, have access to more knowledge, who can travel more and see more of the world, and generally have a far superior life because of people who did not think that way, and in stead worked very hard to learn just a little bit more about the world around us.

Who is taking credit away from those who have made our world better? You are making a total fool of yourself by implying that in order to appreciate where we have come, that somehow we can't appreciate this discovery, which, by the way, will move us further along than ever thought possible. Again, this does not deny that we, as a species, haven't grown by leaps and bounds. This law of our nature, once understood and applied globally, will just take us to a whole new level.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Just because there is a lot more to learn does not mean that anything goes. There is no excuse for such a feckless attitude.

Feckless attitude? You just can't stand that this could be a genuine discovery so you are trying to find anything that can negate this knowledge, which is impossible if it's a true discovery. You will continue to argue with what you don't understand, which is the only reason you are saying these things.

[Rogue Pineapple]

Well, if the 'new vision' part is correct, then it most certainly should include the fact that rainbows are complete orbs.

I had an optomitrist argue that one with me.

Basic science: all things began as perfect orbs, became distorted because of energy, constantly try to return to perfect orb. FACT

That what we consider a rainbow, the half arc,,, is infact only half of the whole. Get out into the ocean and wait around for a rainbow,,, go diving, and you'll get to see the whole rainbow orb.

But all this other stuff,,,,,,,, you might as well try teaching us how to braid rainbows and call them pewter puff balls