A revolution in thought

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish I could take back that statement. That was supposed to be funny because this girl (I forgot her name) was telling me that I was not giving Awareness credit for his intelligence. At least that is what I took from her post. I was actually making a joke that she must be his girlfriend. So much for my humor.

You know, you can go back through the thread and read what people wrote before. And it can't have been THAT long ago that Demi's post was made. Referring to her as "this girl" is rude and is an example of your lack of consideration for participants in this thread. You were also rather rude to her, iirc.

In any event, you have expressed before that Lessan's ideas need to be validated by science by the "top scientists." I would still be interested in hearing some examples you can give of who these people would be.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, stop being dense. Scientists have dissected eyes, they have examined the structures under microscopes, they have followed the path of the electrical signals in the brain, they have formed hypotheses and tested them and gotten replicable results. The scientific view of vision is not based on mere observation, all the evidence has been corroborated by others.

Lessans did no science with regards to vision.

You used an analogy of observing apples falling straight down and noting that as an "astute observation". It also happens to be the observation everyone else makes, so it is corroborated.

LadyShea, you cannot go by corroboration alone. There have been people who have corroborated and they were wrong. It was a group affirmation, but it was wrong. A corroboration means nothing at all unless there is science to confirm that corroboration.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What if you observed apples falling horizontally or straight up and you were the only person to do so? Everyone else observes apples falling down. Scientists formed a hypotheses and tested them and shared results and came up with the theory of gravity which explains this observation well.

Isn't that what Lessans was trying to do? He said his observations could be tested. Unfortunately, he didn't live long enough to see this happen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to your way of thinking, because you made a different observation, scientists should test that, because you might be right.

Do you really not see how absurd that is? This is EXACTLY what you are doing with Lessans ideas about sight, trying to get people to think that apples might fall up or sideways despite all the evidence to the contrary. And even more ludicrously calling for scientific tests, even though hundreds or even thousands have already been done.

But this is still a theory. It is not fact. That is why it can be disputed against all odds.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have stayed out of this thread for awhile, on account of the baby-seal clubbing like Sock said. But your willful obtuseness is getting ridiculous now. Lessans was wrong about how vision works, period.

I am not asking for blind faith. All I am asking for is patience, time, and the willingness to see this claim through to the end.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Awareness, I will not make the same mistake as before because you have your groupies,....

Learn something new every day!

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

You know, you can go back through the thread and read what people wrote before. And it can't have been THAT long ago that Demi's post was made. Referring to her as "this girl" is rude and is an example of your lack of consideration for participants in this thread. You were also rather rude to her, iirc.

I'm sorry, I have talked to so many people that I honestly forgot her name. Are you going to use this against Lessans, as if somehow this is evidence against him, which I really believe you are trying to do. I would call that grasping for the last straw. The one thing that stood out in my mind that you said to me is to treat everyone as an individual, yet no one is treating Lessans as an individual. They are classifying him as a crackpot without one ounce of proof.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

In any event, you have expressed before that Lessan's ideas need to be validated by science by the "top scientists." I would still be interested in hearing some examples you can give of who these people would be.

I really don't know at this point. I don't think Lessans knew either because so many people hide behind their titles. It really depends on the people involved and whether they not only hold degrees, but are willing to take the time to help me set up the experiments necessary to put an end to this back and forth ridiculousness once and for all.

[wildernesse]

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to those of you who are helping me reach my goal. If working in the corporate world or in other situations where nothing made much sense taught me anything, it was the value of setting attainable goals!

* wildernesse doing my part to get this thread to 100 pages

[thedoc]

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth in 240 BC though other astronomers before had suspected the Earth was round, he proved it. His measurement was widely accepted till more accurate means became avalable.

Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, I have talked to so many people that I honestly forgot her name.

Which is exactly the point of why you would need to go back a few pages and look it up. If you remembered her name, why would you need to go back? You were just rude.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you going to use this against Lessans, as if somehow this is evidence against him, which I really believe you are trying to do. I would call that grasping for the last straw.

Did I say anything about Lessans in the above exchange? No. I was talking about you. I would use this against you, as an example of your lack of consideration and commitment to being a productive discussion participant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know at this point. I don't think Lessans knew either because so many people hide behind their titles. It really depends on the people involved and whether they not only hold degrees, but are willing to take the time to help me set up the experiments necessary to put an end to this back and forth ridiculousness once and for all.

What do you mean when you say [people hide behind their titles]? Can you give me an example of a scientist doing that?

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[LadyShea]

Yes, gravity is a theory, but the current theory works. If you have enough people making observations that don't fit the theory, you get further tests, and the theory is refined. This is how "theory" works in science. It doesn't mean "idea" or guess or anything like that. You know who argues that theories aren't facts a lot? Creationists. You are a zealot and no different than any religious apologist.

Lessans is the only person to claim that vision works some other way, why should any scientists take that at all seriously?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is a very good question, Wildy.

Peacegirl, exactly what do you mean when you say that Lessans was a mathematician? Was he, at sometime, employed in that capacity? Did he publish any work in the field?

I notice that his obituary makes no mention of his having been a mathematician, or a philosopher. Why the omission? Did you have any say about what information was included in his obituary?

While I've read half the thread, I'd be interested in an answer to this (not that I expect it to be forthcoming).

Peacegirl, did your father have any peer-reviewed mathematical publications? Where did he get his degrees in mathematics? I no longer have access to MathSciNet, but a quick Google Scholar search didn't reveal anything.

[LadyShea]

Goliath, she answered that and the answer is no. He held no degree nor published any papers. He did math as a hobby or something.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Goliath, she answered that and the answer is no. He held no degree nor published any papers. He did math as a hobby or something.

Okay, I must've missed the reply.

Carry on.

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by Goliath

While I've read half the thread, I'd be interested in an answer to this (not that I expect it to be forthcoming).

Peacegirl, did your father have any peer-reviewed mathematical publications? Where did he get his degrees in mathematics? I no longer have access to MathSciNet, but a quick Google Scholar search didn't reveal anything.

Oh, she replied, but you probably overlooked it because she screwed up the quote function.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means that he was very capable of figuring out all sorts of difficult math problems.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein knew he was right. Just because it was impossible for Einstein to be incorrect does translate to "if Einstein said it was so, then it must be so."

First of all, you're just displaying your abysmal ignorance of science.

Second, and more to the point, Einstein was hardly infallible. He made mistakes, like all of us do from time to time, and he admitted it. (Look up the history of the "cosmological constant," for instance.) No actual scientist would ever say anything so asinine and downright stupid as "if Einstein said it was so, then it must be so."

Third, and even more to the point. The reason that we accept Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity is because both have been thoroughly tested, and they hold up extremely well to the tests.

Only empirical testing will prove his observations true or false.

Many of his "observations" have been empirically tested. And found to be false. But by all means, don't let a few inconvenient facts deter you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... it wouldn't be normal not to doubt, but you need to give him the benefit of that doubt. That is how science should work. When science is most skeptical is the time they need to contain that skepticism so that further investigation can take place.

Now, see, that's not how science is done. The way you do science is that if you have a claim, you provide the evidence to back it up. Others can then attempt to replicate your experiments to see if they get the same results.

You do not say, "I have this 'undeniable truth' which I expect you to accept uncritically, even though it contradicts very well-tested explanations for how the world works. Furthermore, I'm not going to do the hard work of demonstrating its veracity -- that's up to you."

Indeed, what you're proposing is more or less the exact opposite of what science is and how it's done.

You can't throw out his observations because they have not been proven to be inaccurate. You can think they are inaccurate, guess they are inaccurate, believe they are inaccurate, but you cannot tell me that you proved they were inaccurate.

Many people have provided you with detailed demonstrations that Lessans' "observations" are indeed inaccurate. (And by "inaccurate," I'm being very, very charitable.) But you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you will categorically refuse to accept any evidence which contradicts his "observations."

Which is why it's a waste of time to attempt to have a serious discussion with you. One might as well attempt to teach calculus to a butterfly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was thinking about the eye muscles in regard to focussing. The neck muscles are voluntary muscles that do require a bit more strength for an infant to be able to lift his head. But the eyes muscles are more reflexive and involuntary. Even if the eye muscles that could cause strabismis were causing a problem with focussing, this is also an involuntary muscle. I don't think you can compare neck muscles with eye muscles Lone Ranger. Sorry.

Wait, you're actually serious, aren't you? Just when I thought you'd gotten a sense of humor.


First of all, what planet do you live on in which the extrinsic eye muscles and the ciliary muscles are not voluntary?


Second, what makes you think that involuntary muscles aren't strengthened with exercise and use?


Third, strabismus [it's spelled with a "u"] is usually not a problem with focusing, per se. That's because accommodation of the lens to focus light on the retina is done by the ciliary muscles; strabismus is a problem with the extrinsic eye muscles. Though if the two eyes are not able to converge onto the same nearby object, you'll have difficulty focusing on it. (This is called convergence insufficiency.)

There are actually several different forms of strabismus. Sometimes it's due to weakness in one or more of the 6 extrinsic eye muscles that move the eye in the eye socket. Sometimes it's due to damage to one of the nerves that innervates the extrinsic eye muscles.

In fairness, since the third cranial nerve (the oculomotor) controls some of the extrinsic eye muscles and it innervates the ciliary muscles, damage to the oculomotor nerve can cause both focusing difficulties and strabismus as well.


Fourth, just for fun, I'll point out that some forms of strabismus can be treated by having the patient do exercises to strengthen the weak muscle(s) that are the source of the problem.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Oh, she replied, but you probably overlooked it because she screwed up the quote function.

Thanks for pointing out the reply.

Peacegirl, what kind of "difficult math problems" did your father solve?

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Second, and more to the point, Einstein was hardly infallible. He made mistakes, like all of us do from time to time, and he admitted it.

Indeed. Contrary to common belief, Einstein didn't have that much trouble learning mathematics as a child. However, I still like the humility expressed in the following quote.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I assure you that mine are greater.

[peacegirl]

[quote=wildernesse;937484]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, I have talked to so many people that I honestly forgot her name.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Which is exactly the point of why you would need to go back a few pages and look it up. If you remembered her name, why would you need to go back? You were just rude.

But I am telling you that it was not meant to be rude. I didn't think asking people to remind me of her name was a rude thing to do, or I wouldn't have done it. Going back pages and pages is difficult, especially when there are a lot of questions that I need to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you going to use this against Lessans, as if somehow this is evidence against him, which I really believe you are trying to do. I would call that grasping for the last straw.

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Did I say anything about Lessans in the above exchange? No. I was talking about you. I would use this against you, as an example of your lack of consideration and commitment to being a productive discussion participant.

No you didn't say anything about Lessans in a direct way. But you may have used it againt him in an indirect way. I am trying to be a productive and committed participant in this discussion. I don't even know why I'm answering you in defense, I swear.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not have to give specifics to state the obvious. You as well I know that people often use their titles to show authority, or to demand respect because of their title, or to disrespect anyone who opposes them by virtue of their title.

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No, we're trying very hard to show you problems with Lessans' book.

Sadly, Lessans might have had some insight into how we think about what we see, but he seems to have twisted that into a hypothesis on the anatomy of sight which is observably wrong. That was the tragic flaw I referred to earlier.

He took into consideration all of the possible flaws, and he found none. You really do need to consider the possibility that he could have been right, or you will have blinders on. I am, once again, not expecting anyone to accept his claims without the necessary evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh for crying out loud!

Many controlled studies have been done demonstrating that dogs (and birds) can recognize individuals based on visual cues only.

Careful, controlled, and replicated studies.

I've even given you the citations. It's simply dishonest to keep claiming that this isn't true.

That you cannot or will not accept the fact that these studies have been done, and that they've thoroughly demolished the notion that no non-human animals can recognize humans by facial features alone is further evidence of just how close-minded you are in this matter.

Who said that animals cannot recognize individuals through visual cues? That does not replicate the studies necessary to PROVE that animals can recognize their master's features through vision alone. Why are you clumping these very different set of premises together, as if they are one and the same thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You are a dishonest, lying little shit, and have a special place in your heart for nothing.

Don't make me put you on ignore, but I will if you keep testing me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, you are a fund of laughs. Arrogant, self-assured imbeciles always are.

Hey, Peacegirl, explain how it is possible for someone on Rigel to see in real time what is happening right now on earth.

Now, here is the experiment. You and I are talking. We are talking in person right now, on April 19, 2011, and someone on Rigel is pointing a very powerful telescope at earth, a telescope that can make out fine details, like two people talking to each other.

What will that observer see, Peacegirl? And more important, why will that observer see, what he sees?

He will see us talking in real time, because the telescope is magnifying us to where we are big enough to be seen and the light is bright enough for us to be seen through a telescope. Now you better be careful what you say back to me, or I will hit that ignore button as quickly as it takes to see you in real time.

[Goliath]

Wow...so in PeaceGirlLand, the speed of light is infinite. I'm no scientist, but wouldn't that mean that light would have an infinite amount of relativistic energy (E=mc^2 and all that)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Have you yet found time to read the essay on how we see that The Lone Ranger wrote, an essay that you have not yet read but described as "sketchy" and "detailed"?

Asshat.

I was just going to answer you until I saw that last word. You are really trying to egg me on, aren't you? Yguy warned me about this.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;937339][quote=The Lone Ranger;937318]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's interesting to note that the evidence is not even close to being confirmed regarding dogs being able to recognize their masters by sight alone, even though everyone is trying to confirm their assertions that this is absolutely the case. I guess we're all bias to a degree which is dangerous in any scientific endeavor. I am very afraid of bias at this point because all it will take is for one experiment that is in no way foolproof, to ruin it for Lessans. Very carefully measured experiments have to be performed for there to be any conclusive evidence either way.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

Oh for crying out loud!

Many controlled studies have been done demonstrating that dogs (and birds) can recognize individuals based on visual cues only.

Careful, controlled, and replicated studies.

I've even given you the citations. It's simply dishonest to keep claiming that this isn't true.

I think I already answered you, but I will repeat, we are not discussing visual cues. It is true that animals get visual cues to help identify another animal or person, but they cannot identify a person through his facial features alone.

Originally Posted by TheLoneRanger

That you cannot or will not accept the fact that these studies have been done, and that they've thoroughly demolished the notion that no non-human animals can recognize humans by facial features alone is further evidence of just how close-minded you are in this matter.

Ranger, are you telling me that no non-human animals can recognize humans by facial features alone? You mean all this time we've been in agreement?

Originally Posted by davidm

She doesn't care about science, fact or truth at all, Michael. Here is what she thinks:

Daddy said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

Pathetic. And the reason for the anger that I've displayed in this thread is that this is the way vast numbers of people think in the country in which I live.

Global warming is a fraud. That's what Rush Limbaugh said.

The earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago. That's what the Bible says.

The eye isn't a sense organ. That's what Daddy says.

David, and you don't think you are at all close minded? Your picture could be in the dictionary next to that word. Lessans was an individual, mind you, so please don't give me your sob story about him ruining the country. What a crock.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He took into consideration all of the possible flaws, and he found none. You really do need to consider the possibility that he could have been right, or you will have blinders on. I am, once again, not expecting anyone to accept his claims without the necessary evidence.

The person making a claim is expected to provide the evidence. So where is it?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He took into consideration all of the possible flaws, and he found none. You really do need to consider the possibility that he could have been right, or you will have blinders on. I am, once again, not expecting anyone to accept his claims without the necessary evidence.

(Emphasis mine)
No, I don't. I have learned enough about Lessans "theory of sight" to know that it does not concur with observed reality. Since it's not consistent with observed reality, it is clearly inferior to the current theory. Only and until there is some problem - some observation that is not consistent with the scientific understanding - will I be even remotely interested in an alternate theory.