A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I was hoping that peacegirl would do this for herself, but I guess not.

Wow, thank you Ceptimus. I see exactly what you did and it looks right to me so I'm going to change it to $3,069. If anyone thinks that because of this typo that this discredits him, you really do not need to read the book. I can't be more serious. I'm going to save this proof. Thanks again for all your help!

DONE!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, thank you Ceptimus. I see exactly what you did and it looks right to me so I'm going to change it to $3,069. If anyone thinks that because of this typo that this discredits him, you really do not need to read the book. I can't be more serious. I'm going to save this proof. Thanks again for all your help!

DONE!

Dishonest Janis strikes again! Well done on stealing someone else's work and choosing to passing it off as Lessans'. If you had any shred of integrity you would add a footnote crediting Ceptimus rather than Lessans as having provided you with the answer. But apparently not everyone's conscience works the same as you amply demonstrate yourself.

[peacegirl]

added to previous post:

Originally Posted by koan

You've now admitted that you didn't take the helpful approach of a skeptic. What good do you do someone if you review their work with blind faith that there will be no mistakes? You are his bloody editor. Authors rely on peers and editors to catch their mistakes primarily for the reason that they don't want to make a public fool of themselves. If you are the only peer editor of your father's work and you failed to check his facts out of blind trust you have utterly and completely failed him.

If fact checking means all of his book is false you owe it to him to save his name from disgrace by not publishing his work as it stands. Authors pay editors for a reason. If you are unable to perform this function, you have failed.

I did not feel the need as a child to proofread his work. You are assuming I just took everything at face value because he was my father. That is not what I did. He was my mentor for years and years. I asked thousands upon thousands of questions growing up, which is why I felt confident that I could compile this work. Heck, there are many books that are reviewed by professional editors and they still have typos in them. When it came to a math problem I believed that he was right because he was exceptional in math, otherwise, the army would not have given him the excellent grade they did. If I had checked up on it, or reminded him to double check, he probably would have caught the typo and this attack on him would have been avoided. But I can't go back in time. No use crying over spilt milk.

[LadyShea]

I did not feel the need as a child to proofread his work.

That is why you are not objective, and shouldn't have been the editor

he was exceptional in math, otherwise, the army would not have given him the excellent grade they did.

How do you know that happened? Do you have the records? Did you fact check at all? Maybe he just claimed that. "Can do anything he sets his mind to" doesn't sound like a grade given on government aptitude tests to me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not feel the need as a child to proofread his work.

So you were indoctrinated as a child rather than introduced to the material as an adult.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming I just took everything at face value because he was my father. That is not what I did. He was my mentor for years and years. I asked thousands upon thousands of questions growing up, which is why I felt confident that I could compile this work.

Why weren't any of these thousands of questions the same ones we've been asking you? Or if they were, why do you still not have any satisfactory answers to them? Did you ask him for his actual observations from which he inferred his claims? Did you ask him what support he had for his ideas about conscience? Did you ask him whether his satisfaction principle was falsifiable? Did you ask him about the physics and physiology of light and vision? It seems that you must have asked thousands upon thousands of the wrong questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When it came to a math problem I believed that he was right because he was exceptional in math, otherwise, the army would not have given him the excellent grade they did. If I had checked up on it...

Did you check up on this claim that the Army allegedly gave him an excellent grade, or was this also another thing you've taken on faith without bothering to check?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Dishonest Janis strikes again! Well done on stealing someone else's work and choosing to passing it off as Lessans'. If you had any shred of integrity you would add a footnote crediting Ceptimus rather than Lessans as having provided you with the answer. But apparently not everyone's conscience works the same as you amply demonstrate yourself.

That would mean I would have to credit LadyShea and you as well, and the list could grow. I did give credit to the woman who created the cover. I think a thank you is quite enough. I don't feel like I'm being dishonest and my conscience is my guide, not your chastisement. If this book gets famous, Ceptimus, you and LadyShea can feel good inside that you helped Lessans in this endeavor. I may even send you three a copy as a thanks.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would mean I would have to credit LadyShea and you as well, and the list could grow. I did give credit to the woman who created the cover. I think a thank you is quite enough. I don't feel like I'm being dishonest and my conscience is my guide, not your chastisement. If this book gets famous, Ceptimus, you and LadyShea can feel good inside that you helped Lessans in this endeavor. I may even send you three a copy as a thanks.

You are flat out lying to take Ceptimus' answer and insert it as Lessans' own without including a footnote to indicate what you have done. It is incredibly dishonest and motivated only by your desire to cover up another of Lessans' mistakes. If everyone's conscience worked the same, you wouldn't be able to do what you are doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you were indoctrinated as a child rather than introduced to the material as an adult.

It was not indoctrination to learn what he had to say and, more importantly, his explanation for saying it. I asked him so many questions, that one day he said to me we'll definitely find out the answer when we're in the new world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming I just took everything at face value because he was my father. That is not what I did. He was my mentor for years and years. I asked thousands upon thousands of questions growing up, which is why I felt confident that I could compile this work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why weren't any of these thousands of questions the same ones we've been asking you? Or if they were, why do you still not have any satisfactory answers to them? Did you ask him for his actual observations from which he inferred his claims? Did you ask him what support he had for his ideas about conscience? Did you ask him whether his satisfaction principle was falsifiable? Did you ask him about the physics and physiology of light and vision? It seems that you asked thousands of the wrong questions.

I asked him the questions that came into my mind to ask him, and I got satisfactory answers. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be doing this. I wish he was here so I could ask him how these revelations came about. Maybe it would calm you all down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When it came to a math problem I believed that he was right because he was exceptional in math, otherwise, the army would not have given him the excellent grade they did. If I had checked up on it...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did you check up on this claim that the Army allegedly gave him an excellent grade, or was this also another thing you've taken on faith without bothering to check?

Oh my god, never would I do that to my father. He was an honest man. He would never lie to impress me or anyone for that matter. But I never forgot when he told me that. It's been a part of my memory all these years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are flat out lying to take Ceptimus' answer and insert it as Lessans' own without including a footnote to indicate what you have done. It is incredibly dishonest and motivated only by your desire to cover up another of Lessans' mistakes. If everyone's conscience worked the same, you wouldn't be able to do what you are doing.

I strongly believe it was a typo and I'm not taking credit away from my father for a dam typo. I'm sorry if you feel differently. I appreciate the answer Ceptimus gave and I thanked him. That is enough.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need you [koan] to bring logic and reasoning into my life. What arrogance!

In fairness, peacegirl has all but flat-out said -- repeatedly -- that she doesn't give a flying rat's backside about either logic or reason.

She has also directly stated -- again, repeatedly -- that she has no intention of educating herself on subjects such as the anatomy of the eye, despite her (and Lessans') profound ignorance of the relevant subject matter.

Because her one and only criterion of truth is: "If Lessans said it, it is so." Never mind the literally thousands of experiments disproving his "model" of sight, and demonstrating that the eye is -- in direct contradiction to Lessans' claim -- literally packed with afferent structures.


And then, to add to the heaping helping of hypocrisy, she insists that her belief in Lessans' infallibility is not a faith-based belief.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I strongly believe it was a typo and I'm not taking credit away from my father for a dam typo. I'm sorry if you feel differently. I appreciate the answer Ceptimus gave and I thanked him. That is enough.

It is lying. It is the very definition of plagiarism to take someone else's answer and pretend it is your own (or your father's). I don't care how strongly you believe it was a typo. You have no way at all of knowing this to be the case. And typo or not, it is lying to take someone else's work without credit.

[LadyShea]

Readers would probably be interested in seeing the problem worked out. You could easily add a reference notation in the text, then a reference section at the back of the book with the table and the caption "Thank you Ceptimus of Freethought-Forum.com for providing this clear proof of the correct answer"

That would also be a good way to credit all of the material you used that was not Lessans original research or work; The extensive quotes by Durant and Morrison (single lines need not be footnoted in my opinion, but whole paragraphs or pages should be), the page of doctor's quotes you lifted wholesale off the web.

You could also include a blanket thank you to all the forums you visited, as you made changes after each one based on those discussions "Thank you to the participants of ILovePhilosphy and IIDB and x, y, z for their contributions" or whatever. It need not be detailed

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not indoctrination to learn what he had to say and, more importantly, his explanation for saying it. I asked him so many questions, that one day he said to me we'll definitely find out the answer when we're in the new world.

So not only were you indoctrinated, but Lessans brushed off your questions with the same bullshit appeal to future evidence that you have also adopted from him.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked him the questions that came into my mind to ask him, and I got satisfactory answers. If I hadn't, I wouldn't be doing this. I wish he was here so I could ask him how these revelations came about. Maybe it would calm you all down.

Again, whatever questions you asked him have not furnished you with adequate answers to the questions the rest of us have been asking. So you clearly asked thousands upon thousands of the wrong questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, never would I do that to my father. He was an honest man. He would never lie to impress me or anyone for that matter. But I never forgot when he told me that. It's been a part of my memory all these years.

So you didn't bother to check up on his claim about receiving an excellent grade from the Army either. Yet this is the very grounds you are appealing to for believing he probably knew the right answer to another passage you didn't bother to check! You didn't check his shopping example, for which it turns out he gave the wrong answer. Yet you believe he probably knew the correct answer because he was good at math, which you know because he claimed to have received an excellent grade from the Army, yet this is just another claim you didn't bother to check! Faith upon faith upon faith. What a joke.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I may even send you three a copy as a thanks.

You're already meant to be sending me a copy, or had you forgotten?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What great risk koan? To have the world leaders sign an agreement to not build anymore weapons of mass destruction, and to convert the rest? The math problem has nothing whatever to do with the blueprint?

The risk is to scrap our entire social structure for an unproven 'Pie-in-the-sky' Idea that probably won't work, and the creator was demonstrably wrong on many points. Wrong on small items, probably wrong on the big ones. If it didn't work we would have total chaos with no checks and ballances. World leaders are very proficient at lying now, and everyone would be signing with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is why you are not objective, and shouldn't have been the editor

No one else could have put the book together the way that I was able to, just for the fact that I knew what my father was trying to get across. I definitely could have used someone to help me with sentence structure and proof reading. I probably spent more money resubmitting the book because of stupid typos than if I had hired someone, but it's water under the bridge now. Time to move on.

he was exceptional in math, otherwise, the army would not have given him the excellent grade they did.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do you know that happened? Do you have the records? Did you fact check at all? Maybe he just claimed that. "Can do anything he sets his mind to" doesn't sound like a grade given on government aptitude tests to me.

Well, the army is part of the government. Whatever the test comprised, they felt that his aptitude was very high.

LadyShea, you are way too suspicious for your own good. I would never have questioned my father's integrity because I trusted him. I had no reason not to. He would not just make a claim like this without it being true. That's called lying and he wasn't a liar. He was the kind of person that would pay you back a nickel if he owed it to you. What child would go behind her own father's back and check up on his honesty if he never showed an ounce of dishonesty. The thought to check up on him never entered my mind. You can't be serious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're already meant to be sending me a copy, or had you forgotten?

I haven't forgotten, but I wasn't sure if it was worth it. The things you say tell me tell me that you really think this work is a piece of junk, so what's the point? Anyway, I am resubmitting it and if I do decide to send it I would like you to have the most updated copy, so you might have to wait a little while longer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In fairness, peacegirl has all but flat-out said -- repeatedly -- that she doesn't give a flying rat's backside about either logic or reason.

She has also directly stated -- again, repeatedly -- that she has no intention of educating herself on subjects such as the anatomy of the eye, despite her (and Lessans') profound ignorance of the relevant subject matter.

Because her one and only criterion of truth is: "If Lessans said it, it is so." Never mind the literally thousands of experiments disproving his "model" of sight, and demonstrating that the eye is -- in direct contradiction to Lessans' claim -- literally packed with afferent structures.


And then, to add to the heaping helping of hypocrisy, she insists that her belief in Lessans' infallibility is not a faith-based belief.

He didn't say there were no afferent structures; he said there was no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't forgotten, but I wasn't sure if it was worth it.

If you hadn't forgotten, then why say you may do what you were already going to do?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The things you say tell me tell me that you really think this work is a piece of junk, so what's the point?

You weren't sending me a copy for my benefit. Have you forgotten why you were sending me a copy?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anyway, I am resubmitting it and if I do decide to send it I would like you to have the most updated copy, so you might have to wait a little while longer.

You've been updating and resubmitting for years now. You're kidding yourself if you think you're ever going to actually get it published.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say there were no afferent structures; he said there was no direct contact with an afferent nerve ending.

No contact between what and an afferent nerve ending?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is lying. It is the very definition of plagiarism to take someone else's answer and pretend it is your own (or your father's). I don't care how strongly you believe it was a typo. You have no way at all of knowing this to be the case. And typo or not, it is lying to take someone else's work without credit.

I'm sorry but you're going to have to let go of this idea of plagiarism. I changed the word molecule to photon so do I have to mention that too? No. I know in my heart of hearts that he gave the right answer. Do you actually think a mathematician (and he was a mathemetician in his own right) would make this kind of mistake when he purposely put it in his own book? Don't you think he would have figured out the right answer? It wasn't a difficult problem to figure out. He solved math problems that were much more difficult than this one. Be logical Spacemonkey. I'm not going to satisfy all of you no matter what I do, so I'm going to use my own judgment. I did not take someone else's work. I thanked Ceptimus for picking up this typo, and that should be enough.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No contact between what and an afferent nerve ending?

I'm not getting into this again. Here is an excerpt. Take it for what it's worth.

p. 114 What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation.

This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not taking it without giving credit.

Lol. You typed these words before editing them out of your post. You removed them because you know they are not true. You are taking Ceptimus' answer and inserting it into the book as Lessans' answer without giving credit in the book to indicate where the answer came from. It did NOT come from Lessans, but you're going to go right ahead and make it look like it did. That is plagiarism. It is incredibly dishonest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry Spacemonkey but you're going to have to let go of this idea of plagiarism.

Why should I let go of it? You are openly plagiarizing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think a mathematician (and he was a mathemetician in his own right) would make this kind of mistake when he purposely put it in his own book? Don't you think he knew the answer?

No, I don't. I don't think he had any mathematical ability.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not take someone else's work.

That's exactly what you're doing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thanked Ceptimus for picking up this typo, and that should be enough.

It's not about gratitude to Ceptimus, but about honesty towards your readers in not lying to them about where the answer came from.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not getting into this again.

See? You don't even know what you think Lessans said that you agree with. You are again weaseling out of answering a simple direct question. If Lessans said there was no direct contact between light and an afferent nerve ending in the eye then he was dead wrong. If he was denying direct contact between anything else and an afferent nerve ending then he was denying something that the afferent model has never claimed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one else could have put the book together the way that I was able to, just for the fact that I knew what my father was trying to get across. I definitely could have used someone to help me with sentence structure and proof reading. I probably spent more money resubmitting the book because of stupid typos than if I had hired someone, but it's water under the bridge now. Time to move on.

Well, the army is part of the government. Whatever the test comprised, they felt that his aptitude was very high.

LadyShea, you are way too suspicious for your own good. I would never have questioned my father's integrity because I trusted him. I had no reason not to. He would not just make a claim like this without it being true. That's called lying and he wasn't a liar. He was the kind of person that would pay you back a nickel if he owed it to you. What child would go behind her own father's back and check up on his honesty if he never showed an ounce of dishonesty. The thought to check up on him never entered my mind. You can't be serious.

You can't be serious in thinking you are an objective representative of his work when you talk about your blind faith like this, yet you think you are.

You demonstrate a complete lack of skepticism when it comes to anything he had to say to the point of blanket denying any evidence against it, and worse you expect others to share your credulity where he was concerned...asking readers to trust and accept his conclusions without any evidence. You also have made changes to cover his mistakes and refuse to note them...so we know for a fact he wasn't always 100% correct and that you've tried to hide that.

And once again I must point out that publishing software exists and probably costs less than what you've spent and will spend on professional formatting etc.


PS: I and many others here scored high on all kinds of aptitude and intelligence tests. It's not terribly meaningful.