A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It depends what you define as sanity Cynthia. The medical profession has lost it's bearings.

There's plenty of things wrong with the medical industry, but the information on Natural News is not the solution to any of those problems.

[Adam]

I don't see what peacegirl's problem with Angelina Jolie's having moved in the direction of greater satisfaction could possibly be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

There's plenty of things wrong with the medical industry, but the information on Natural News is not the solution to any of those problems.

How do you know that? For starters, this guy may have helped prevent thousands of women from chopping off their healthy breasts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I don't see what peacegirl's problem with Angelina Jolie's having moved in the direction of greater satisfaction could possibly be.

Yes, she did move in the direction of greater satisfaction but it was based on the information she got from her doctors. If she found out the statistics regarding the risks were inflated, she may have moved in a different direction. Like LadyShea, I don't accept what someone says at face value, especially doctors who are making a profit off of me. Have you ever heard of "conflict of interest"? Imagine if every woman who had the braca1 gene mutation chopped off her breasts? The doctors performing this surgery would be on easy street. Disclaimer: I am not implying that all doctors are out to hurt their patients, but the reality is they need to earn a living which might cause some doctors to take advantage of their position by using fear tactics in order to get their patients to give in to questionable procedures.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, she did move in the direction of greater satisfaction but it was based on the information she got from her doctors. If she had not gotten misleading statistics on her risks, she might have moved in a different direction.

How do you know she got misleading statistics? Are an expert oncologist? Are you as good as an expert oncologist at calculating genetic risk factors?

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I know your position.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you know that unlike your own, mine is supported by evidence.

Evidence that supposedly supports a premise can be wrong. Observation can also be wrong. Just because some people have been wrong in their observations doesn't make Lessans wrong.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

p. 2 Down through history there has always been this skepticism before
certain events were proven true. It is only natural to be skeptical, but
this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the possibility of a scientific
miracle. You may reason that many people have been positive that
they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also
be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this
reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong
because I am positive. The first astronomer who observed the
mathematical laws inherent in the solar system that enabled him to
predict an eclipse was positive and right, as well as the space scientist
who foretold that one day man would land on the moon. Edison
when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right.
Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive
and right — and so were many other scientists — but they proved that
they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am
doing. If my demonstration doesn’t prove me right, then and then
only am I wrong. There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.


Again, the soundness of his demonstration is very obvious to me. If it isn't to you, then you need to have a little faith before throwing it out. If I was describing a celestial body that you have never seen because it's not visible to you, and you say prove that what you're describing is accurate and I'm describing it as carefully as I can and in very much detail, and you keep saying that's not enough for me to believe that what you're describing is real, and there's no other way for me to prove to you that my observations are spot on until others can come to where I am and see it for themselves, what am I supposed to do, especially when these astute observations have important implications for the betterment of our world?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you have no more interest in this non-discovery, as you call lit, and you have no more questions because you think you know it all, then leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Oh, I have plenty of questions. They're just not ones you're willing or able to answer.

You won't listen. You keep telling me that he presupposes a perfect conscience, and I keep telling you that he never presupposed a perfect conscience. A perfect conscience (i.e., a conscience that will not permit someone from striking a first blow when there is no justification) is what happens as a result of this knowledge. I can't make any progress with you because you're stuck on your epistomological idea that empirical proof is the only way to find a deeper truth, therefore you won't allow yourself to even listen to his observations and reasoning. If you would let your guard down (just a little bit), I believe you would change your tune.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that you're adding to the conversation. You're just making the same assertions you've made from day one. No progress whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are once again describing yourself.

Hmmm. Well, I guess it's a mirror image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

How do you know she got misleading statistics? Are an expert oncologist? Are you as good as an expert oncologist at calculating genetic risk factors?

No, but I do trust this guy who wrote the article. If I was in this position, I would absolutely check out those statistics to make sure they were accurate. I don't know if she did that or if she trusted her doctors and accepted those statistics right off the bat. I'm not speaking for her or saying her choice was wrong, but this does open a can of worms because of all the hoopla and her celebrity. It is an endorsement of removing parts of one's body when there is no disease in them just because of a gene that may never express itself as cancer. Because of her sex symbol status, it has become a badge of honor. For all the women who may get their breasts removed prematurely, that's a scary thought. It certainly would be a lucrative business if that actually happened. I'm just putting this out there as food for thought. This is a freethought forum, ya know.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If conscience works this way universally, then it does have the potential to control behavior under the conditions he delienates.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this knowledge can prevent war and crime, most people would consider this a very important discovery.

Those are some very big ifs.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but I do trust this guy who wrote the article.

Mike Adams, defender of the completely discredited Wakefield studies about autism caused by MMR vaccinations? (Now responsible for multiple cases of measles in Wales.)

Mike Adams that Wikipedia informs me is an AIDS denialist?

You really have a messed up sense of how to find reputable sources on science, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Those are some very big ifs.

To a person who doesn't understand the discovery, they are big IFs, but not to someone who sees the truth of this universal law and why, when this law is applied, it absolutely has the power to prevent what man, and all of his laws, cannot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Mike Adams, defender of the completely discredited Wakefield studies about autism caused by MMR vaccinations? (Now responsible for multiple cases of measles in Wales.)

Mike Adams that Wikipedia informs me is an AIDS denialist?

You really have a messed up sense of how to find reputable sources on science, peacegirl.

Maybe I have some bias because I'm a supporter of natural healing. I'm not saying he's perfect; no one is. But Adams is far from being the ogre this article made him out to be. For the most part, I do believe lifestyle plays a big part in whether a person gets cancer. Like Adams said, we don't catch cancer, as if there's nothing we can do to protect ourselves. That being said, if someone has a rare genetic predisposition to getting a certain form of cancer (and it's a familial trait that has had deadly consequences with close family members), prophylactic treatment may be a reasonable option.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, she did move in the direction of greater satisfaction but it was based on the information she got from her doctors. If she had not gotten misleading statistics on her risks, she might have moved in a different direction.

I'm not sure you understand the discovery. Have you read the first three chapters of Lessans' book?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know that? For starters, this guy may have helped prevent thousands of women from chopping off their healthy breasts.

I will not make a judgement call about Angelina Jolie's decision, even though I rather enjoy her breasts. I really doubt she made anything other than an informed opinion, especially when much of her own wealth is tied into her appearance.

I really, really doubt Mike Adams has an informed opinion on the matter.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I have some bias because I'm a supporter of natural healing. I'm not saying he's perfect; no one is. But Adams is far from being the ogre this article made him out to be. For the most part, I do believe lifestyle plays a big part in whether a person gets cancer. Like Adams said, we don't catch cancer, as if there's nothing we can do to protect ourselves. That being said, if someone has a rare genetic predisposition to getting a certain form of cancer (and it's a familial trait), prophylactic treatment may be a reasonable option.

Adams is an ogre that uses celebrity cancer deaths and medical news such as this to promote his views on "natural healing" - and to help sell those products on his site.

Whatever bad things about Mike Adams the article says, it's probably not bad enough.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To a person who doesn't understand the discovery, they are big IFs, but not to someone who sees the truth of this universal law and why, when this law is applied, it absolutely has the power to prevent what man, and all of his laws, cannot.

In other words, a true believer.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is the discovery Vivisectus?

Which one? That man’s will is not free and yet responsible, or that blame is what enables people to justify doing bad deeds that are not a retaliation? And what does this have to do with the complete lack of any reason to believe the book is correct about the latter?
You seem be back into guru-wannabe mode. I would suggest making sure that what you are trying to teach is correct before demanding that people recite the rote learning. And as we have seen, so far there is some work to be done… unless you can answer the objection that you should know by heart by now.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence does materialize, but you're placing the cart before the horse.

Does it? Where? I keep asking you to point it out, but you never do. And please note that I am not even asking for evidence per se: just some reason, any reason at all, to believe that it is correct. Considering that the book claims that it is *undeniable* that conscience works that way, I do not think it is a lot to ask.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He has to state the principles before we can test it; but you're not even giving him a chance.

Sure. And then you need to show why it is likely that the principle is true, or at least make some sort of case in its favour. The book itself goes a lot further than that: it claims that the proposed principle is *undeniably* true, which implies that the evidence is so overwhelming that it cannot be reasonably denied. However, the book contains none. Neither does it contain any other reason to believe it is correct. And you are dishonestly trying to ignore that… again.
If the book would clearly state “IF conscience works this way, THEN the rest would follow” I would have no problem with this part whatsoever. But it doesn’t. It flat-out states that it does, and that this cannot be denied.
And let us not forget what a key passage this is. If conscience does not work as the book says it does, then the whole rest of the book lacks all foundation. Everything else, except maybe efferent sight and the bits that were not in my version, are based on it.
What is your own explanation for its absence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're jumping to the conclusion that his observations can't be true, which is not something any serious investigator would do.

I am doing no such thing. What I am pointing out is that the writer expects people to accept his ideas as “undeniable” when he has not even taken the very first step towards making a case for it.

Sam Harris demonstrates that there is a continuum of well-being in different cultures and he defines "well-being" in a way that can be objectively measured. His ideas come from observation, and although his term is different than the term "greater satisfaction" it is similar in many respects. To reject Lessans' observations just because he can't prove it in the way you demand, is foolhardy.

Your appeal to authority is neither here nor there. I am not making any comment on the possibility of it being true: as you said yourself, that remains untested.
I am just saying that there is absolutely no reason to believe it is true, while the book claims it undeniably proves that it is. In fact, the writer seems to have forgotten to include even an attempt to make a case for it.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. You've rushed to judgment and you're going to regret it one day. This time could have been spent reading the book and asking relevant questions and you would have gotten so much more out of it. But you have no questions; just criticism for knowledge you have no grasp of.

In this case, we have all the proof we need: the book. In it, there is no case in favour of believing that conscience works this way.
The issue is not if it is possible that things work as you say. The issue is that there is no reason to assume it is so. And certainly it has not been “undeniably” shown to be true, as the book claims.
That would be a little embarrassing if it was just a minor point, but since the entire rest of the book hinges on it is a huge blunder.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by davidm

And the Lulz keep coming.

You really are a sad, pathetic, ignorant twit.

Oh, everyone be sure to check out that Web site's claims that the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag operation.

I think we already pointed out to you that this guy owns a slew of websites that all cater to medical conspiracy theorists. He also owns some of the quack medicine companies that flog woo-woo healing crystals and flower remedies. It is a brilliant setup: you create anti-medical science woo woo content, and clean up on advertizing and selling them snake-oil.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm not sure you understand the discovery. Have you read the first three chapters of Lessans' book?

I don't know how long you've been following this thread, but your posts seem rather sarcastic considering that you've never participated or indicated in any way what you understand about this discovery. I will not tolerate this from a newcomer, so my suggestion to you is to be careful what you say and how you say it or you'll be put on ignore before the day is out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To a person who doesn't understand the discovery, they are big IFs, but not to someone who sees the truth of this universal law and why, when this law is applied, it absolutely has the power to prevent what man, and all of his laws, cannot.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In other words, a true believer.

I know that this is God's law (God meaning the force that moves us in the direction of greater satisfaction). I believe in this law because it's true, if that's what you mean by being a true believer. God's law (I get comfort in personalizing the name of God; I hope that doesn't bother anyone in here) overrides anything man can possibly do to save our world from destruction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Adams is an ogre that uses celebrity cancer deaths and medical news such as this to promote his views on "natural healing" - and to help sell those products on his site.

Whatever bad things about Mike Adams the article says, it's probably not bad enough.

I don't believe for a second that Mike Adams is doing all this just for his own sake. No way. I have read enough of his articles to know he is a sincere guy; maybe he's not right all of the time but he is doing these websites out of a sincere desire to help. The same thing was said about me; that I'm selling my book as a meal ticket. That is so hurtful to me because that's not my intention and it makes me sick even thinking about some of the things people have accused me of. It's not fair that you or anyone else condemn him out of your own weak suspicions when you don't know his motivations at all.

[Vivisectus]

I notice that you are still avoiding the fact that a key argument in the book is completely unsupported in a very dishonest way. Did your father simply ignore what he did not like as well, or did he have a bit more integrity than that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we already pointed out to you that this guy owns a slew of websites that all cater to medical conspiracy theorists. He also owns some of the quack medicine companies that flog woo-woo healing crystals and flower remedies. It is a brilliant setup: you create anti-medical science woo woo content, and clean up on advertizing and selling them snake-oil.

Again, you're setting up a premise that making a profit is his sole motivation, and from there you are concluding that these websites are used for that purpose. Yes, it is an easy set up if that's what he's doing, but your premise is invalid so it makes your entire thought process invalid. He may make some money from his work in the natural field but that doesn't equate with selfish motives. Some alternative treatments have been studied and it has been determined that they do, in fact, support emotional and physical well-being. Many of these treatments have a number of positive effects (as expressed by the patients themselves) with no dangerous side effects. That's why alternative medicine is being seen as a legitimate form of treatment in many cancer clinics and hospitals. It is a fact that acupuncture has helped some people, maybe not all, but some. It also has helped some dogs to heal from certain types of disease states. I am not saying all therapies have benefit (I don't know and I admit when I don't know), but you can't rule anything out just because they don't fall under the auspices of "mainstream medicine". It's unfair to call everything in the natural field quackery or woo woo. I hope you can see the point I'm making and admit that you may have been a bit premature in your judgment.

[Vivisectus]

Let me put it this way: the guy who runs a pro-gun website ring, dispensing articles that tell you how owning guns is great and how gun restrictions are bad for freedom, the american way and apple-pie, who sells his own guns on his sites and makes a further killing selling advertising for gun-acessory salesmen is probably not the place to go for fair, unbiased news about the effects a new gun-law is going to have.

He probably really believes guns are great. But he is also likely to either spin stories to make guns look good, not to publish articles that present the anti-gun side of the story, and may indeed completely ignore evidence that says guns are bad. The mountain of evidence debunking the autism link to vaccines is an excellent example of this. This guy ignores it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I notice that you are still avoiding the fact that a key argument in the book is completely unsupported in a very dishonest way. Did your father simply ignore what he did not like as well, or did he have a bit more integrity than that?

I notice that you are still avoiding the fact that you don't know what the discovery is or you would have answered me by now. My father did not ignore anything. He made an astute observation and he described in detail what he observed. Conscience works in a very specific way and it cannot function at full capacity in a free will environment of blame and punishment.