#26526  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:47 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
So you are still reneging on our deal and breaking your word? And for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the original offer you agreed to?
I will send it to you reluctantly. I'm still wondering why it even matters, if you're not going to read it? If you do give it to a university make sure Lessans gets a fair shake by not only giving it to libertarians and compatibilists (which puts him at a disadvantage because they're going to point out imaginary flaws like you have), but determinists as well.
Great, so we're back on then? When do your books arrive?
Bump.
I'm in the process of reading the proof. If everything is okay, I'll give the publisher permission to make the book live (to sell it online), and then I'll order 10 books to start. I wish I could get more, but I need to sell books in order to use that money to buy more books or I'll go broke. :(
Reply With Quote
  #26527  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I am curious as to the reason for this latest return after exiting, peacegirl.
I got sucked in again. Oh well. The only way to stay out of this thread is to make a clean break. :glare:
Reply With Quote
  #26528  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You have a very similar approach.
That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.
He didn't say Lessans, he said YOU. You are the Flat Earther-like person, not Lessans
If I'm a flat earther that would make Lessans a flat earther too. He is making an indirect accusation.
Reply With Quote
  #26529  
Old 05-31-2013, 12:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
"science"

"facts"

"scientific"
You keep using those words.

They don't mean what you think they mean.
You're going to have to accept the way Lessans used the terms "scientific", "undeniable", and "mathematical" or you're going to use this against him forever. His observations were undeniable just as undeniable as the observation that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. He was not using logic or syllogistic reasoning which can often be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #26530  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:02 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You have a very similar approach.
That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.
He didn't say Lessans, he said YOU. You are the Flat Earther-like person, not Lessans
If I'm a flat earther that would make Lessans a flat earther too. He is making an indirect accusation.
Not really. I am talking about the standards of evidence that you apply and expect other people to apply.

The book does not seem to feel it needs any evidence at all.
Reply With Quote
  #26531  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There has to be a scientific basis for what is believable, but the problem is the scientific method is too narrow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's too narrow in your opinion. Science needs to be focused and eliminate a lot of noise. There aren't all that many working scientists out there and they are all competing for research funds etc. or working on specific things for corporations.
All I meant is that there are other ways besides the scientific method to find answers. I don't expect scientists to turn their attention away from their research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Lessans should have spent some of that 30 years getting a science degree and conducting research on his ideas rather than burning his books. Then he could have published in a scientific journal like all other scientists do.
He would have never made this discovery had he done it your way. It would never have taken him to the path he was led to. It's so easy to tell someone what they should have done, which shows your ignorance when it comes to understanding what it took to make such a discovery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So, if a genuine discovery is indeed genuine, there is no reason at all it should have any trouble finding believers to promote it....certainly science is not stifling anyone's expression, nor is science preventing anyone from putting their discoveries into the public realm. Do you retract your statements?
Quote:
No I don't retract my statement because I already told you that the point I was making was not that people can't express themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Your statements are right there in black and white, and the first one says exactly the opposite of what you are saying now. So why won't you retract it?
This has turned into a power struggle. I clarified what I meant, okay? That should be enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's that this dividing line between woos and science is blurred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In some cases it is not apparent what is science and what is pseudoscience or what is bleeding edge science and therefore not yet widely known about but could get there.
That's why people should be skeptical but be careful not to throw out a claim just because it sounds impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Woo, on the other hand, is not hard to see. Woos offer zero evidence or methodology...just a lot of assertions, anecdotes, fallacious reasoning and butthurt. They have their script that they seems to adhere to across the board...many elements of which you use frequently. The red flags are well known by most skeptics.
But there's a danger here. Just because I say that people are treating him unfairly, and woos say that they also are treated unfairly, does not automatically put Lessans in the same category. Skeptics can go down the list and Lessans would meet all of the criteria of sounding like woo but not be woo at all. This is not a good test.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That the woos, as you call them, may end up being the best fit because they aren't using the same narrow criteria to evaluate this work is disheartening but true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, as I've told you for some time now. Lessans work isn't science as it doens't meet the criteria for the term science to be applied.
If you say this enough times you might actually convince yourself that because of that one word there's no discovery here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The problem is that those who hold strictly to one and only one methodology are leaving out other methods that can be just as valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
When talking about scientists they will of course "leave out" anything that wasn't come to by scientific methods and/or can't be evaluated with the tools of science. Maybe it is valuable spiritually, or philosophically, but that doesn't make it valuable scientifically.
No, that's why I brought up epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. There are people that would disagree with the narrow limits (namely empirical testing) which science uses to determine how a truth can be found.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Unfortunately, the very people who are respected for their work (the scientific community) could be throwing out a genuine discovery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Could be, but that is a problem for the presenter or discoverer to address and overcome, not for scientists. They can't do their work and spend time locating and evaluating all the millions of claims out there in the public realm. Why would they bother?
That's true, especially if these scientists have their own interests. But there are many scientists and philosophers who are interested in the free will/determinism debate. They just don't know how important this debate actually is.
Reply With Quote
  #26532  
Old 05-31-2013, 01:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You have a very similar approach.
That's not true. Lessans didn't start out with any assumptions which he then had to find support for.
He didn't say Lessans, he said YOU. You are the Flat Earther-like person, not Lessans
If I'm a flat earther that would make Lessans a flat earther too. He is making an indirect accusation.
Not really. I am talking about the standards of evidence that you apply and expect other people to apply.

The book does not seem to feel it needs any evidence at all.
Again, you're using evidence in a very narrow way Vivisectus. You are throwing out his observations (remember the description of the unknown animal I gave as an analogy?) just because he didn't come to these conclusions your way. You are going to have to widen your criteria to allow his observations to be heard before assuming it is hogwash.
Reply With Quote
  #26533  
Old 05-31-2013, 03:02 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Again, you're using evidence in a very narrow way Vivisectus. You are throwing out his observations (remember the description of the unknown animal I gave as an analogy?) just because he didn't come to these conclusions your way. You are going to have to widen your criteria to allow his observations to be heard before assuming it is hogwash.
Indeed: if I want to see this book as anything but hogwash, I will have to seriously widen my criteria for what I do not consider hogwash. We have just seen how wide: slightly wider than I would have to widen them if I wanted to consider the idea that the earth is flat as not-hogwash!

I could consider your description, or demonstration, of a 90-foot long two headed pig with wings that breathes fire as enough reason to assume such a creature exists. But mostly it is just a good reason to assume that you think such a creature exists.

How is the evidence you were referring to coming along? Or are you simply going to say "it is in the book" and leave it at that? You are going to have to face up to it sooner or later, you know. Every single person who reads this book is going to have the same problem...
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (05-31-2013), The Lone Ranger (05-31-2013)
  #26534  
Old 05-31-2013, 04:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Again, you're using evidence in a very narrow way Vivisectus. You are throwing out his observations (remember the description of the unknown animal I gave as an analogy?) just because he didn't come to these conclusions your way. You are going to have to widen your criteria to allow his observations to be heard before assuming it is hogwash.
Indeed: if I want to see this book as anything but hogwash, I will have to seriously widen my criteria for what I do not consider hogwash.
No, you will have to expand your criteria to what epistomology claims is fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
We have just seen how wide: slightly wider than I would have to widen them if I wanted to consider the idea that the earth is flat as not-hogwash!

I could consider your description, or demonstration, of a 90-foot long two headed pig with wings that breathes fire as enough reason to assume such a creature exists. But mostly it is just a good reason to assume that you think such a creature exists.
This is getting old already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
How is the evidence you were referring to coming along? Or are you simply going to say "it is in the book" and leave it at that? You are going to have to face up to it sooner or later, you know. Every single person who reads this book is going to have the same problem...
That is absolutely false. How can you make these assumptions when you haven't read the book? You're are making unsupported assertions, the very thing you are accusing me of, but you're not objective enough to see it.
Reply With Quote
  #26535  
Old 05-31-2013, 05:34 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
No, you will have to expand your criteria to what epistomology claims is fair.
There is epistomological proof for efferent sight or the way conscience works? Amazing!

Quote:
This is getting old already.
But you have seen that if you apply the same standards to the book that you would apply to the idea that the earth is flat, you would not accept it. When I pointed this out, you even started talking about flat earth as if it was a viable idea...

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
How is the evidence you were referring to coming along? Or are you simply going to say "it is in the book" and leave it at that? You are going to have to face up to it sooner or later, you know. Every single person who reads this book is going to have the same problem...
That is absolutely false. How can you make these assumptions when you haven't read the book? You're are making unsupported assertions, the very thing you are accusing me of, but you're not objective enough to see it.
Talk about getting old! I have read the book several times. That is how I know it contains no evidence. You know it too: that is why you can STILL not produce it.

I also know that the book explicitly promises that it will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the eyes are not a sense organ... and then just keeps talking about how the eyes are not a sense organ without ever proving a thing.

The same happens with conscience.

So - why don't you produce the evidence you keep alluding to? The answer, as we both know, is that there is none, or you would have produced it a long time ago.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-02-2013), Spacemonkey (05-31-2013), The Lone Ranger (05-31-2013)
  #26536  
Old 05-31-2013, 05:42 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hey, but at least we have found a potential market for your book, Peacegirl! People who are dumb enough to buy the stuff the Health Ranger peddles will buy pretty much anything. They will be used to just believing whatever they want to believe without taking too much notice of reality, and they have already shown a distinct lack of critical reasoning. They do not like evidence-based medicine, so I doubt they will care about the lack of evidence in the book.

Really you could not ask for a better audience to start with. You know. Morons.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-02-2013)
  #26537  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:01 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that's why I brought up epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. There are people that would disagree with the narrow limits (namely empirical testing) which science uses to determine how a truth can be found.
It's purposefully narrow. Science only addresses propositions that are testable or falsifiable. Other fields, such as philosophy, address other types of propositions.

Quote:
Epistemology [2]

The scientific method is described in part as follows in a popular encyclopedia:

Definitions of scientific method use such concepts as objectivity of approach to and acceptability of the results of scientific study. Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are, without falsifying observations to accord with some preconceived world view. Acceptability is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentation can be reproduced. Scientific method also involves the interplay of inductive reasoning (reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general hypotheses and theories) and deductive reasoning (reasoning from theories to account for specific experimental results). By such reasoning processes, science attempts to develop the broad laws -- such as Isaac Newton's law of gravitation -- that become part of our understanding of the natural world. [3]

The critical words here are tested, verified and falsified. The fundamental distinction between a scientific model and a nonscientific model is that the former can in theory be disproved through prediction and observation whereas the latter cannot, even in theory, be disproved through observation. [4]

Science guards a certain realm. It does not claim to apply to all realms; it just focuses on a narrow range of human knowledge. Until religious thinkers can present testable propositions, those in the scientific community are unable to consider their questions. Essay
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-02-2013), The Lone Ranger (05-31-2013)
  #26538  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:12 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Also, how did he define "will"?
Who are you referring to? I missed the original post that you're responding to.
Lessans. How did Lessans define human will as in "humans do not have free will"? What is will?
Reply With Quote
  #26539  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Hey, but at least we have found a potential market for your book, Peacegirl! People who are dumb enough to buy the stuff the Health Ranger peddles will buy pretty much anything. They will be used to just believing whatever they want to believe without taking too much notice of reality, and they have already shown a distinct lack of critical reasoning. They do not like evidence-based medicine, so I doubt they will care about the lack of evidence in the book.

Really you could not ask for a better audience to start with. You know. Morons.
It is you who will lose, not them. Now how ironic is that?
Reply With Quote
  #26540  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:15 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

There are quite a few people I would love to contact, Adams included. I only wish I could get the book to him. :(
They accept article submissions, could you write a brief essay? That might interest some people enough to go the website and read more.
Reply With Quote
  #26541  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Also, how did he define "will"?
Who are you referring to? I missed the original post that you're responding to.
Lessans. How did Lessans define human will as in "humans do not have free will"? What is will?
Here is the definition I found, which is perfectly applicable.

will/wil/

Verb 1. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination.
2.Intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen.Eg: "he was doing what the saint willed".

Noun

The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates
action.Eg: "she has an iron will".

Synonyms

verb

want - wish - desire - choose

noun

testament - volition - wish - desire
Reply With Quote
  #26542  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

There are quite a few people I would love to contact, Adams included. I only wish I could get the book to him. :(
They accept article submissions, could you write a brief essay? That might interest some people enough to go the website and read more.
I wrote a short email explaining my background and what the book is about. I contacted a few philosophers. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be working. Do you see the problem I have? It must sound too unbelievable for anyone to take it seriously. No one has contacted me (except for one person; beginners luck I guess lol) to get the website address so I know they didn't read anything. The only other way is to call and talk to someone personally. I'm going to try this approach next.

As far as Adams, I will try to call him or talk to his secretary. I'll let you know what happens.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-31-2013 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26543  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:28 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

There are quite a few people I would love to contact, Adams included. I only wish I could get the book to him. :(
They accept article submissions, could you write a brief essay? That might interest some people enough to go the website and read more.
I have found that this doesn't work from the few times I've tried it. It just sounds too unbelievable for anyone to take an email of this sort seriously. They won't contact me to get the website so I know they didn't go there. It must sound crazy to them. The only other way is to call and talk to someone personally. I'm going to try this approach.
First of all, I suggested an article for publication in Natural News. They accept article submissions. His site has lots of categories, perhaps you can get it published.

Also, they shouldn't need to contact you to get the website. Why haven't you included the link right in the essay, article, synopsis, email, or letter? People will click links that wouldn't consider contacting someone to get the web address. That's how digital marketing works...you push the information to people, not try to pull people to you.
Reply With Quote
  #26544  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:33 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I wrote a short synopsis explaining my situation and what the book is about and contacted quite a few philosophers.
Explaining your "situation"? What does that mean?

Quote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be working. Do you see the problem I have? It must sound too unbelievable for anyone to take it seriously.
Yep, it sounds unbelievable, and not at all unlike any number of crackpot ideas various professionals get every day. I tried to warn you that all the woo red flags and expressions of butthurt in the introduction would turn people off really quickly, but you wouldn't listen. I truly hope you took out the part about suing Jimmy Carter.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Vivisectus (05-31-2013)
  #26545  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that's why I brought up epistemology which is the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. There are people that would disagree with the narrow limits (namely empirical testing) which science uses to determine how a truth can be found.
It's purposefully narrow. Science only addresses propositions that are testable or falsifiable. Other fields, such as philosophy, address other types of propositions.

Quote:
Epistemology [2]

The scientific method is described in part as follows in a popular encyclopedia:

Definitions of scientific method use such concepts as objectivity of approach to and acceptability of the results of scientific study. Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are, without falsifying observations to accord with some preconceived world view. Acceptability is judged in terms of the degree to which observations and experimentation can be reproduced. Scientific method also involves the interplay of inductive reasoning (reasoning from specific observations and experiments to more general hypotheses and theories) and deductive reasoning (reasoning from theories to account for specific experimental results). By such reasoning processes, science attempts to develop the broad laws -- such as Isaac Newton's law of gravitation -- that become part of our understanding of the natural world. [3]

The critical words here are tested, verified and falsified. The fundamental distinction between a scientific model and a nonscientific model is that the former can in theory be disproved through prediction and observation whereas the latter cannot, even in theory, be disproved through observation. [4]

Science guards a certain realm. It does not claim to apply to all realms; it just focuses on a narrow range of human knowledge. Until religious thinkers can present testable propositions, those in the scientific community are unable to consider their questions. Essay
I told you that this knowledge can, in theory, be falsified but in order to test it we have create the conditions of the new world, whether it's the real thing or a simulation, or it won't be a valid test.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Two: The Two-Sided Equation

p. 79 In other
words, the knowledge that there will be no consequences presents
consequences that are still worse making it impossible to consider this
as a preferable alternative, for how is it possible to derive satisfaction
knowing there will be no consequences for the pain you willfully
choose to inflict on others? The reaction of no blame would be worse
than any type of punishment society could offer. It is important to
remember that punishment and retaliation are natural reactions of a
free will environment that permit the consideration of striking a first
blow because it is the price man is willing to risk or pay for the
satisfaction of certain desires. But when they are removed so the
knowledge that they no longer exist becomes a condition of the
environment, then the price one must consider to strike the first blow
of hurt — all others are justified — is completely out of his reach
because to do so he must move in the direction of conscious
dissatisfaction, which is mathematically impossible. If will was free we
could not accomplish this simply because we would be able to choose
what is worse for ourselves when something better is available, but this
law of our nature will give us no alternative when we are forced to obey
it in order to derive greater satisfaction.


Reply With Quote
  #26546  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I wrote a short synopsis explaining my situation and what the book is about and contacted quite a few philosophers.
Explaining your "situation"? What does that mean?

Quote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be working. Do you see the problem I have? It must sound too unbelievable for anyone to take it seriously.
Yep, it sounds unbelievable, and not at all unlike any number of crackpot ideas various professionals get every day. I tried to warn you that all the woo red flags and expressions of butthurt in the introduction would turn people off really quickly, but you wouldn't listen. I truly hope you took out the part about suing Jimmy Carter.
First of all these people I contacted didn't have the website address, so they did not read the introduction LadyShea. I feel the introduction was important. As far as writing an email, I'm finding there is just too much skepticism. I did not take out the part about Jimmy Carter. If someone goes to the end of the book and they want to make fun of it like Davidm did, that's an easy thing to do. But I don't think they will laugh if they read the book from beginning to end. Lessans discussed the part about Jimmy Carter in his audio also. I guess he wasn't worried about it either.
Reply With Quote
  #26547  
Old 05-31-2013, 06:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

There are quite a few people I would love to contact, Adams included. I only wish I could get the book to him. :(
They accept article submissions, could you write a brief essay? That might interest some people enough to go the website and read more.
I have found that this doesn't work from the few times I've tried it. It just sounds too unbelievable for anyone to take an email of this sort seriously. They won't contact me to get the website so I know they didn't go there. It must sound crazy to them. The only other way is to call and talk to someone personally. I'm going to try this approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
First of all, I suggested an article for publication in Natural News. They accept article submissions. His site has lots of categories, perhaps you can get it published.
It's farfetched to consider this as one of the categories, although I do believe he would like this book. I hope to get it him, but I have to do it in a way that doesn't backfire, otherwise, I may not get another chance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Also, they shouldn't need to contact you to get the website. Why haven't you included the link right in the essay, article, synopsis, email, or letter? People will click links that wouldn't consider contacting someone to get the web address. That's how digital marketing works...you push the information to people, not try to pull people to you.
I realize that but it was a test of sorts. I wanted to see if people would contact me so I wouldn't be left hanging whether they went to the website or not. Maybe my asking them to contact me worked to my detriment. Nevertheless, I know they didn't go to the website because they didn't have the address or the name of the book. They did have my name. I guess they could have found it but I doubt if they tried.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-31-2013 at 10:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26548  
Old 05-31-2013, 07:08 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
"science"

"facts"

"scientific"
You keep using those words.

They don't mean what you think they mean.
You're going to have to accept the way Lessans used the terms "scientific", "undeniable", and "mathematical" or you're going to use this against him forever. His observations were undeniable just as undeniable as the observation that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. He was not using logic or syllogistic reasoning which can often be wrong.
I wasn't talking about Lessans' dishonesty and hypocrisy, nor his made-up definitions. I was talking about the fact that you display exactly zero understanding of what words like "science," "scientific," "logic," "facts," "evidence," and "theory" mean when anyone other than yourself uses them.

And that's a big part of the reason why it's apparently impossible for you to make a coherent argument. You're in the position of someone trying to carry on a conversation in French -- and adamantly insisting that she's doing just that -- when she doesn't even know what "Je ne comprends pas" means.




But since you brought up Lessans' dishonesty and hypocrisy.

It's fundamentally dishonest of him to redefine words to mean almost exactly the opposite of what they actually mean and then try to pretend that he hasn't redefined any terms at all. And it's hypocritical of him to insist that anyone else's failure to understand what he means is their fault when he is refusing to use standard, well-understood definitions -- and isn't even consistent in his own definitions.


For comparison, I could go around insisting that I'm 8 feet* tall. And while I could argue that it's a technically true statement, it would be very dishonest of me to continually go around insisting that I'm 8 feet tall. And it would be very hypocritical of me to get angry and start calling people names anytime they dared point out that I'm not 8 feet tall by the definition that everyone else in the world uses.



But this is pretty-much exactly what Lessans has done. He clearly wanted to try to ride the coattails of the hard-earned respect that science and mathematics have earned, so he insisted on calling his work "scientific" -- even though it's the exact opposite of scientific by the word's actual definition.

He wanted people to think of his work as actually being scientific, but he was too lazy and/or too incompetent to do the hard work of actual science. So he simply called his claims scientific and hoped that his readers would be too stupid to notice that he was lying.





__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates

Last edited by The Lone Ranger; 05-31-2013 at 07:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (06-02-2013), Stephen Maturin (05-31-2013)
  #26549  
Old 05-31-2013, 07:22 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCXLVII
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But I don't think they will laugh if they read the book from beginning to end. Lessans discussed the part about Jimmy Carter in his audio also. I guess he wasn't worried about it either.
Your optimism in the face of reality is impressive. I don't think anyone who has read the book (or the first 2 chapters) has done anything but laugh at the book.

Quote:
I wanted to see if people would contact me so I wouldn't be left hanging whether they went to the website or not.
Most hosting sites have statistics as part of their services. At its most basic, the service provider should tell you how many unique visitors accessed your site in a given timeframe. The person who set up your website should know this.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-31-2013)
  #26550  
Old 05-31-2013, 07:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I wrote a short synopsis explaining my situation and what the book is about and contacted quite a few philosophers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Explaining your "situation"? What does that mean?
My situation meaning being left with this discovery.

Quote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be working. Do you see the problem I have? It must sound too unbelievable for anyone to take it seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yep, it sounds unbelievable, and not at all unlike any number of crackpot ideas various professionals get every day. I tried to warn you that all the woo red flags and expressions of butthurt in the introduction would turn people off really quickly, but you wouldn't listen. I truly hope you took out the part about suing Jimmy Carter.
First of all these people I contacted didn't have the website address, so they did not read the introduction LadyShea. I feel the introduction was important to let people know what he went through and to try and preclude people from using fallacious standards to judge this work. Unsolicited emails are considered spam, which is why they were more than likely deleted. I did not take out the part about Jimmy Carter. If someone goes to the end of the book and they want to make fun of it like Davidm did, that's an easy thing to do. But I don't think they will laugh if they read the book from beginning to end. Lessans discussed the part about Jimmy Carter in his audio also. I guess he wasn't worried about it either.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-31-2013 at 07:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.01181 seconds with 15 queries