A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a direct lie. If it is not, produce the evidence.

I guess this just stands then.

[Vivisectus]

So, to recap:

The modal fallacy stands.
The charges of lying stand - personally I find these very serious.
The fact that the ideas about sight do not match reality remains.
The fact there is no reason to assume conscience works as the book describes remains.

These are just the major problems.

So what we have here is a book written by a rather dim person with a massive inferiority complex who desperately wanted to be a part of the academic establishment, but who never bothered to actually try and study something. Evidence for this: despite the fact that he was writing from the late 1950's until the 1990's, he failed to study:

- Basic physics
- Psychology
- Basic biology
- The scientific method

All this is evidenced by what he says in his books: he refers to "molecules of light" and was unaware that what he said was in direct contradiction to contemporary thought about physics. He does not mention any methodology as is applied in psychology. He seems to have felt it was not necessary to check the physiology of the eye. He calls his work "scientific" while he does not use the scientific method at all.

Finally, the lying charge: Peacegirl has been made aware of all of this, did not deal with any of it except by evasion, and still will not admit to even the slightest problem with the book.

Where Lessans is concerned, I just feel rather sad. There is a distinct chance he was a liar like his daughter is: observe the way he waffles about when it is time to show just why conscience must work as he says. But since I cannot ask him directly, I must give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mere oversight. It is tragic however that in stead of actually checking if his assertions where correct and using that opportunity to learn something, he never bothered.

Where peacegirl is concerned, it goes beyond sad into the realm of the objectionable. We can imagine that Lessans just did not know better. Peacegirl has been told, and explained at length. She chooses to hold views that she knows she cannot support.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So, to recap:

The modal fallacy stands.
The charges of lying stand - personally I find these very serious.
The fact that the ideas about sight do not match reality remains.
The fact there is no reason to assume conscience works as the book describes remains.

These are just the major problems.

So what we have here is a book written by a rather dim person with a massive inferiority complex who desperately wanted to be a part of the academic establishment, but who never bothered to actually try and study something. Evidence for this: despite the fact that he was writing from the late 1950's until the 1990's, he failed to study:

- Basic physics
- Psychology
- Basic biology
- The scientific method

All this is evidenced by what he says in his books: he refers to "molecules of light" and was unaware that what he said was in direct contradiction to contemporary thought about physics. He does not mention any methodology as is applied in psychology. He seems to have felt it was not necessary to check the physiology of the eye. He calls his work "scientific" while he does not use the scientific method at all.

Finally, the lying charge: Peacegirl has been made aware of all of this, did not deal with any of it except by evasion, and still will not admit to even the slightest problem with the book.

Where Lessans is concerned, I just feel rather sad. There is a distinct chance he was a liar like his daughter is: observe the way he waffles about when it is time to show just why conscience must work as he says. But since I cannot ask him directly, I must give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mere oversight. It is tragic however that in stead of actually checking if his assertions where correct and using that opportunity to learn something, he never bothered.

Where peacegirl is concerned, it goes beyond sad into the realm of the objectionable. We can imagine that Lessans just did not know better. Peacegirl has been told, and explained at length. She chooses to hold views that she knows she cannot support.

While I can appreciate your efforts to sumarize and clarify Lessans and Peacegirl, it is just more effort than I am willing to invest. I would point out the value in presenting this data for lurkers who may (very small chance) be influenced by Lessans or Peacegirl, but I would observe that the effore is wasted on Peacegirl, as I don't think there is anything that can get through to her, Unless this is all an act on her part, in an effort to attract attention to, and sell her book.

[But]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The modal fallacy stands.

The fact that the ideas about sight do not match reality remains.
The fact there is no reason to assume conscience works as the book describes remains.

These are just the major problems.

So what we have here is a book written by a rather dim person

Dim? Please elaborate.

What is a photon? Explain in your own words.

Explain how conscience works.

[peacegirl]

palosverdesblog: Scientific Orthodoxy

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

palosverdesblog: Scientific Orthodoxy

This sort of stifling orthodoxy is becoming pervasive in science. The most famous case, in the life sciences, is the orthodoxy of Darwinian Evolution.

(Emphasis in original) Pretty much disqualifies this blogger's opinion on science.

[Stephen Maturin]

Oh man, check out the All*Star list of favorites on that dude's Facebook page! Mercy sakes alive, it looks like we got us genuine, bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool young earth creationist wingnut.

[Angakuk]

I love how peacegirl keeps telling us that it doesn't matter how many people reject Lessans' ideas, that doesn't affect the truth value of those ideas (a true point, but usually irrelevant the discussion). Then she goes scouring cyberspace desperately looking for opinions that she can plausibly claim support her and Lessans' positions. As if, somehow, what other people think does matter, just so long as she can make a case for them agreeing with her.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Bill Lama, The Palos Verdes Blogger

Throughout the history of science, from Ptolemy’s Earth-centered universe through the Biblical creation story, orthodoxy has impeded the progress of science and the search for truth.

I like how he manages to capture the grand sweep of the history of science by bracketing it between Ptolemy and the Bible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

(Emphasis in original) Pretty much disqualifies this blogger's opinion on science.

No it does not automatically disqualify him. That's your slant, but to say this is an automatic disqualification is doing the very thing that this post was purposely written. You don't get to make this decision as to what qualifies and what doesn't, unless you have conclusive proof. Most of science (as defined) is theoretical (however true something may appear), which gives others the right to debate it. Isn't that what is so sacred in a place that prides itself on free thought? Can you see how disconcerting this is?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I like how he manages to capture the grand sweep of the history of science by bracketing it between Ptolemy and the Bible.

What's your point Angakuk? What are you trying to defend by your response to this guy who, I believe, made a legitimate argument?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I love how peacegirl keeps telling us that it doesn't matter how many people reject Lessans' ideas, that doesn't affect the truth value of those ideas (a true point, but usually irrelevant the discussion). Then she goes scouring cyberspace desperately looking for opinions for that she can plausibly claim support her and Lessans' positions. As if, somehow, what other people think does matter, just so long as she can make a case for them agreeing with her.

That's not what I'm doing. Could it be that's what you are doing, trying to make your worldview airtight so you can go your merry way and feel vindicated? Who determines whether someone's evaluation of another is correct? Your evaluation of me and my motives are completely fabricated, so we have to start again at square one, that is, if you are inclined to be truthful to yourself that your analysis may not be right. That's hard to do Angakuk, but it is necessary if you want to hear what you are unaccustomed to, and therefore reject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh man, check out the All*Star list of favorites on that dude's Facebook page! Mercy sakes alive, it looks like we got us genuine, bona fide, dyed-in-the-wool young earth creationist wingnut.

Maturin, of course you would come to this conclusion because that's your slant. That's why you never ever listened to the actual support of Lessans' claims. You were too out to defend your position to even hear what he had to say. This is very unfortunate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not automatically disqualify him. That's your slant, but to say this is an automatic disqualification is doing the very thing that this post was purposely written.

So, how do you think his claims should be evaluated? What is your critical thinking procedure?

You don't get to make this decision as to what qualifies and what doesn't, unless you have conclusive proof.

Science doesn't deal in conclusive proof, as you've been told many times. Evidence, yes.

The evidence found in that same blog is that the blogger doesn't know much of anything about evolution and his opinion can be disqualified, since he admits the extent of his knowledge comes from reading "a bit".

Most of science (as defined) is theoretical (however true something may appear), which gives others the right to debate it. Isn't that what is so sacred in a place that prides itself on free thought? Can you see how disconcerting this is?

What debate points did that blogger offer? He made an assertion and left it at that. Not one word as to why he thinks "Darwinian Evolution" is "stifling". No arguments against evolution laid out at all. So what convinced you he should be listened to?

[LadyShea]

From that same blogger

I have read a bit about Darwinian evolution and about the criticisms of the theory offered by the Intelligent Design community. I’ve found the criticisms to be compelling, but never have I read a more thorough deconstruction of Darwin's theory than in Ann Coulter’s new book Godless.

He's read "a bit" about evolution, and finds Ann Coulter believable, so why would I pay any attention to what he says about it over people who devote their entire lives to studying biology?

[LadyShea]

So you came back just to post some opinion piece written 7 years ago? I take it you haven't gotten your proof back yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, how do you think his claims should be evaluated? What is your critical thinking procedure?

Science doesn't deal in conclusive proof, as you've been told many times. Evidence, yes.

What debate points did that blogger offer? He made an assertion and left it at that. Not one word as to why he thinks "Darwinian Evolution" is "stifling". No arguments against evolution laid out at all. So what convinced you he should be listened to?

Did you not understand the point he was making?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you came back just to post some opinion piece written 7 years ago? I take it you haven't gotten your proof back yet?

Actually, I got it yesterday and there's no turning back even though they still goofed on the cover (I wanted a matt finish, not glossy; they can't get it right for some reason) and the interior (ie., the margins and paper quality). I'm going to give the okay to sell it online. I'm so done you have no idea. I feel I've done as good a job as anyone could given my situation.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, I got it yesterday and there's no turning back even though they still goofed on the cover (I wanted a matt finish, not glossy; they can't get it right for some reason) and the interior (ie., the margins and paper quality). I'm going to give the okay to sell it online. I'm so done you have no idea. I feel I've done as good a job as anyone could given my situation.

Great, so you'll be sending my copy soon then, right?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you not understand the point he was making?

Yes, I did. He simply stated his opinion that a stifling orthodoxy exists in science, but offered no arguments to be debated.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not automatically disqualify him. That's your slant, but to say this is an automatic disqualification is doing the very thing that this post was purposely written. You don't get to make this decision as to what qualifies and what doesn't, unless you have conclusive proof. Most of science (as defined) is theoretical (however true something may appear), which gives others the right to debate it. Isn't that what is so sacred in a place that prides itself on free thought? Can you see how disconcerting this is?

Yes, I figured you'd say that. Darwinian Evolution is orthodoxy in science, but only because it is such a well established fact, it requires much more than angry conservatives upset at the moral implications of evolution to overturn it.

Far from being stifling, Darwinian evolution (variation + natural selection) has in recent decades been shown to be only the primary mechanism to the origin of species. "Horizontal" evolution (gene transfer between species) has been proven among microbes and is now an accepted part of evolution, and symbiosis has also been proven to be a part of the evolution of eukaryotes.

To say that a proven fact like Darwinian evolution is a stifling orthodoxy is pretty much revealing your ignorance of both science and evolution. This is not surprising coming from you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

palosverdesblog: Scientific Orthodoxy

This sort of stifling orthodoxy is becoming pervasive in science. The most famous case, in the life sciences, is the orthodoxy of Darwinian Evolution.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Most of science (as defined) is theoretical (however true something may appear), which gives others the right to debate it. Isn't that what is so sacred in a place that prides itself on free thought? Can you see how disconcerting this is?

This seems like a contradiction, your boy says orthodoxy is stifling scientific inquiry, but then turns around and claims that since science is theory, others have the right to debate scientific ideas. It seems to me that debating ideas is not stifiling progress.
And this forum does entertain free thought, we have been tolerating your ideas for over 2 years without moderating this thread, and considerating all the nonsense you have posted, It seems that is very free thought indeed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's your point Angakuk? What are you trying to defend by your response to this guy who, I believe, made a legitimate argument?

The point was very clear, the guy referenced "the history of science" as existing between Ptolemy (who lived in the first century) and the Bible, as if no history of science exists after that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I love how peacegirl keeps telling us that it doesn't matter how many people reject Lessans' ideas, that doesn't affect the truth value of those ideas (a true point, but usually irrelevant the discussion).

It is not irrelevant to the discussion because people are persuaded by the group, sometimes unconsciously.

Originally Posted by Angagkuk

Then she goes scouring cyberspace desperately looking for opinions for that she can plausibly claim support her and Lessans' positions. As if, somehow, what other people think does matter, just so long as she can make a case for them agreeing with her.

I'm not looking desperately for anything Angakuk. I'm trying to show that there is a different perspective out there than just this group of individuals (other forums included) who have been smearing his name for reasons that are not scientific.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not automatically disqualify him. That's your slant, but to say this is an automatic disqualification is doing the very thing that this post was purposely written.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, how do you think his claims should be evaluated? What is your critical thinking procedure?

He didn't make any claims. He was showing how theory can graduate into fact through a psychological acceptance that is not based on established proof, but on how long the theory has been in existence.

You don't get to make this decision as to what qualifies and what doesn't, unless you have conclusive proof.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Science doesn't deal in conclusive proof, as you've been told many times. Evidence, yes.

Bingo. Evidence can be misleading. If it is not conclusive, it remains a theory however convinced someone is as to its validity, which should leave some room for other points of view. Logical empiricism is one model of exploration in the search for truth, not the only one.

Most of science (as defined) is theoretical (however true something may appear), which gives others the right to debate it. Isn't that what is so sacred in a place that prides itself on free thought? Can you see how disconcerting this is?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What debate points did that blogger offer? He made an assertion and left it at that. Not one word as to why he thinks "Darwinian Evolution" is "stifling". No arguments against evolution laid out at all. So what convinced you he should be listened to?

Did you not understand the point he was making?

That wasn't his purpose. He was just showing how a theory can graduate into fact (sound familiar?), where thinking outside of that box, or challenging that ideology, makes you a heretic worthy of the worst form of ostracism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, I did. He simply stated his opinion that a stifling orthodoxy exists in science, but offered no arguments to be debated.

I think he made his point quite clear. Not everything has to be debated and dissected to appreciate someone's thoughts on a subject.