A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My "tone and brazenness" has not changed since day 1. You haven't said goodbye yet. Why do you keep whining about my style and my tone and blah blah when you come back for more again and again? I am not going to change, so you can stop expecting that to happen.

They may not have changed since day one. Doesn't matter. They are still brazen. So goodbye LadyShea. As much as your arguments are open-ended, you're brazeness by accusing Lessans of some modal fallacy is completely wrong, and until you see that this is part of your faulty imagination, I refuse to talk to you. I'm really sorry but I am doing my best to deal with your self-importance and rash brazenness, and it's difficult to say the least.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Contacted other people" meaning what? That can mean "I sent them an email" or "I left a voicemail". And are these "other people" somehow important? Can they verify Lessans claims or anything like that?

I'm in a better mood now so I'll answer you. I called a few people that are known in the academic world, and I'm sending them a book as soon as I get them.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You hold no degrees on how to market an important work, therefore, it doesn't matter what you think.

At last, peacegirl's educational standards are clarified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

At last, peacegirl's educational standards are clarified.

I'm doing what everyone has done to Lessans; judged him by a false standard. Can you see the absurdity here?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not matter what someone thinks if they are only using their credentials. Credentials mean nothing. They only state how many degrees someone has, but they don't prove that what they have to say is valid.

Peacegirl has been saying that credentials and degrees mean nothing but has then been begging for someone with credentials and degrees to verify the book, saying that if scientists and philosophers will look at the book they would agree with the principles. She even claims that if Einstein had endorsed the book we wouldn't question it, but what she does not understand is that thinkers will question every idea no matter who wrote it. In any of the sciences the work is written and peer reviewed before it is accepted, Lessans book should be pier reviewed, as in dumped off the end of one, then the fish could have their 'Goldfish Age".

To parephrase a popular native American saying,
"White girl speaks with forked tongue".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They may not have changed since day one. Doesn't matter. They are still brazen. So goodbye LadyShea. As much as your arguments are open-ended, you're brazeness by accusing Lessans of some modal fallacy is completely wrong, and until you see that this is part of your faulty imagination, I refuse to talk to you. I'm really sorry but I am doing my best to deal with your self-importance and rash brazenness, and it's difficult to say the least.

I wonder how many pages it will take for Peacegirl to finish saying 'goodbye'?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, you haven't been part of this conversation for a long time. What motivates you to suddenly respond unless it is to attack me.

The lulz! Every so often I try to think of more elegant disproofs of Lessans crackpottery, but I think we've exhausted all the intellectual and educational challenge there was. So now if you say something particularly funny or daft, I might comment.

Isn't it weird how you filter everything through this 'Lessans is right' filter? You can never, ever learn if you are wrong, and it doesn't worry you. It really should.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The lulz!

What's that supposed to mean other than you don't like this book for reasons that are not scientific.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Every so often I try to think of more elegant disproofs of Lessans crackpottery, but I think we've exhausted all the intellectual and educational challenge there was. So now if you say something particularly funny or daft, I might comment.

There have been no elegant disproofs. What are you talking about Dragar?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Isn't it weird how you filter everything through this 'Lessans is right' filter? You can never, ever learn if you are wrong, and it doesn't worry you. It really should.

There is no Lessans' filter, but there is a filter which has excluded most of the people in here because they are utterly biased, YOU included.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to work together Spacemonkey. I know this is not a tautology.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Who asked you to work together? Should we believe you when you say his satisfaction principle is not a tautology, or should we believe you when you say that it is a tautology?

I answered this so many times. It is tautological in the sense that whatever we choose is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but that does not mean it is meaningless. How many more times are you going to ask me the same question?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, you need to hear him, and you're not doing that. He spelled it out in the introduction so he would be on the same page, but you won't let this go. This is mathematical in terms of precise observation, which has nothing to do with theory, assertions, ideas, conjectures, hypotheses, or the like.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So we should all reject the commonly understood definitions of words and start using Lessans personal redefinitions instead?

You don't have to do anything you don't want to do, but if you want to understand why this definition is more useful (because it's more accurate), you're going to have to let go of the conventional definition for the time being since there is an assumption being made that is causing a great misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whoever said it wasn't worth discussing? I am discussing it over and over again with you. You can't have freedom of the will and determinism without there being a contradiction. The only way you can reconcile this is to fudge the definition to make it useful even though it's not accurate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we believe you, or should we instead listen to people who actually understand compatibilism?

You can do whatever you want Spacemonkey. I understand enough about compatibilism to refute it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He describes to a t how conscience functions, but you keep telling me it is a presupposition. It is not. This is exactly how conscience works. It is an accurate description.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So should we believe your claims that his descriptions of conscience are spot on and accurate, or should we remain skeptical until there is actual evidence to show that he was right?

His demonstration regarding conscience is so spot on that most people would see its validity. But you do whatever you want. If you want to remain skeptical, that's fine with me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your evidence for traveling light bringing the image through space/time is a logical theory. There is no absolute evidence to prove this, yet you're all about proof, aren't you? Appearances have fooled science this time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I haven't presented evidence for light bringing an image through space/time, nor was this what I just asked about. Should we not bother about trying to understand how efferent vision might work with respect to the known properties of the movement and location of photons?

Do whatever you have to do, although you won't find the answer by trying to grasp the movement of photons when the answer is found in how the brain and eyes work. Until you recognize this, this model will appear untenable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no contradictions, but the way you have analyzed this has made it appear as if there are contradictions. Major difference between the two.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is the latter apparent contradictions I was asking about. Do you think we should ignore them instead of trying to resolve them?

If you're talking about photons, I have no interest in trying to resolve what you believe is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying you should do anything of the sort if you don't personally see any reason to agree with him. So don't. I am not depending on you Spacemonkey. I've already contacted other people, and I'm going to move on shortly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should we believe you when you say you will be moving on shortly? Should anyone see any reason to agree with the things that Lessans said but didn't give supporting reasons for?

I don't expect people to accept his word for anything, but his observations and his demonstration regarding determinism and conscience are spot on. You won't allow yourself to even hear what he's saying. You have only skimmed part of the book, and you call that enough. Well it's not enough. I understand that the foundational premises have to be right in order for the rest of the book to be right, but the foundational premises are right. You won't give him a chance at all. You won't let your guard down for even a moment. Your stubborn resistance is preventing you from perceiving these relations. If you don't want to try to understand his explanation with an open mind, then there's nothing more I can say.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should people believe your claims that there are reasons to believe he was right, or should they expect you to be able to show us these reasons?

What are you talking about? He has reasons for what he said; and they're very good reasons. I am a skeptic at heart, and I question everything, but your skepticism has been misplaced. This is the cause of us getting nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not with your contempt for him. But he was the equivalent to Einstein in the sense that his observations are spot on. You don't know this yet, but in time you will. Hopefully, we'll still be here but even if we're not, this knowledge will be brought to light because he observed something that is part of the real world, not something he was conjuring up. That cannot be said for many philosophical theories based on words only.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should anyone believe you when you assert without evidence that he was the equivalent of Einstein and that his observations were spot on? Is this something people should believe just because you say so? Or should readers be skeptical of such claims from you?

In my opinion, his analytical mind was equivalent to Einstein's analytical mind, but in their respective domains. I don't expect you to believe anything on my say so, but he has demonstrated in a very detailed manner why the will of man is not free, and never was; and why we had to believe it was free in order for man to develop. Now that we're developed, we're able to learn the truth about our nature which has the power to prevent from coming back that for which blame and punishment were previously necessary. He also shares his astute observations as to how conscience functions, and how each individual can test it out for himself. At this point your skepticism is getting in the way because I can't make any progress whatsoever. There is a definite place for skepticism, but it can go too far. You're actually ruining it for yourself by not allowing me to progress, but it's too late for that anyway.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope. If that's how you feel, I encourage you to move on. This is not healthy for you or for me. In the end, it's not up to me to bring this knowledge to light. Only God can do that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Should everyone ignore you and move on? Which people should stay? Only those who are prepared to put aside all of their critical faculties and give Lessans the benefit of the doubt by accepting his descriptions and observations as spot on just because he states them?

Yes, because as you read the book in its entirety you get an understanding of how this new world can actually come about. This isn't pie in the sky thinking, but we'll never get there. It would be a miracle if I ever got past Chapter One, but because of all the taunting and mockery, I've actually lost the desire to go on.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: You won't look at bats in the same way.

Baby Bat Orphans (Video) | Care2 Healthy Living

[Vivisectus]

I love the way the book constantly contradicts itself. The book has a love-hate relationship with authority, for instance, and especially academic authority. It spends page after page laboriously denouncing it, goes on and on about how all professors are just fools that are blinded by their fixed world-view...

Only to cheerfully make such statements as "If you find yourself disagreeing, just study chapter two again, because it is undeniable." It is hard to imagine a more authoritarian statement, or one that is more closed-minded.

Which is funny, as chapter two is where the book rather amusingly fails to provide even a case for believing it is correct. It is not that there is merely insufficient proof, or a poorly argued logical reason to assume it might be so. There is - literally - nothing there, except for the statement that it works that way. Either the author was a bumbling idiot of enormous proportions who spent 15 years (thinking and reading, 8 hours a day) without ever noticing the massive gaping hole where the most important part of his idea should be, or he felt that simply saying that it is the case was enough.

When we then consider that the man who is going on and on about how all these academics are too blinded by their own imagined infallibility to see the brilliance of his ideas is actually just asking us to take his word for it that the lynchpin of his system - human conscience - works as advertised, you can start to suspect that the intent of the book is satirical.

In itself it would just be a bit tragic, but then there is the atmosphere of bad science-fiction movies from the 1950's that the book conjures up. You get the feeling that in Lessans world, everyone still wears hats when they go outdoors, and that smoking a pipe makes you look dashing and refined.

In Lessans imagination, you get the impression, he could almost hear that cinema new-reel voice announcing the Most Important Discovery of Our Times, as the book comes spinning from the background, followed by a scene of someone handing Lessans a big medal, or maybe just him staring sagely into the distance. The paternal Hero-Scientist offers a few kind words of advice, before going off to do Important Science in his Important Study lined with Important Books.

It is the combination that really makes it for me. The stuffy dated quaintness, the colossal arrogance, the bumbling mistakes, the humorous way it so very obviously do the very things it laboriously berates others for... it really goes above and beyond the average kooky screed. It is the Tristram Shandy of crackpot manifestos: a book so poorly written, it practically satirises itself.

[ceptimus]

Feynman's definition of 'The Key to Science' from 1964. It's still correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I love the way the book constantly contradicts itself. The book has a love-hate relationship with authority, for instance, and especially academic authority. It spends page after page laboriously denouncing it, goes on and on about how all professors are just fools that are blinded by their fixed world-view...

You don't know what you're talking about Vivisectus. He brings this up in the introduction only to let people know that this book is not an opinion, but a scientific revelation. The reason he could not bring this book to light was because, at that time, he could not reach those in authority who could have helped him. He wasn't calling anyone fools and he never said anything about their fixed worldview? You need a refresher course.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Only to cheerfully make such statements as "If you find yourself disagreeing, just study chapter two again, because it is undeniable." It is hard to imagine a more authoritarian statement, or one that is more closed-minded.

You wouldn't say this if Einstein was positive about a claim, or someone whom you trusted for their abilities. You wouldn't say the things you're saying here, and you know it. And don't tell me that Einstein wouldn't make a definite claim if he saw the inherent relations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is funny, as chapter two is where the book rather amusingly fails to provide even a case for believing it is correct. It is not that there is merely insufficient proof, or a poorly argued logical reason to assume it might be so. There is - literally - nothing there, except for the statement that it works that way. Either the author was a bumbling idiot of enormous proportions who spent 15 years (thinking and reading, 8 hours a day) without ever noticing the massive gaping hole where the most important part of his idea should be, or he felt that simply saying that it is the case was enough.

It definitely is enough. What is the discovery Vivisectus since you seem to know so much? I am waiting for an answer. Don't evade the question like you did last time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When we then consider that the man who is going on and on about how all these academics are too blinded by their own imagined infallibility to see the brilliance of his ideas is actually just asking us to take his word for it that the lynchpin of his system - human conscience - works as advertised, you can start to suspect that the intent of the book is satirical.

Where was this advertised? You are the one that is obsessed with what you call his arrogance and the brilliance of his ideas, when he never touted his brilliance. He wasn't like that, damn it. Do you ever consider what I say or do you just listen to your own voice?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In itself it would just be a bit tragic, but then there is the atmosphere of bad science-fiction movies from the 1950's that the book conjures up. You get the feeling that in Lessans world, everyone still wears hats when they go outdoors, and that smoking a pipe makes you look dashing and refined.

That is strictly coming from your wild imagination, although my father did wear a hat for a large portion of his adult life.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In Lessans imagination, you get the impression, he could almost hear that cinema new-reel voice announcing the Most Important Discovery of Our Times, as the book comes spinning from the background, followed by a scene of someone handing Lessans a big medal, or maybe just him staring sagely into the distance. The paternal Hero-Scientist offers a few kind words of advice, before going off to do Important Science in his Important Study lined with Important Books.

This is your stuff, not his. You really need to examine this because you've alluded to his pomposity too many times for it to be ignored. Maybe you have some kind of inferiority complex Vivisectus. You really should get it checked out. Do you ever get depressed?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is the combination that really makes it for me. The stuffy dated quaintness, the colossal arrogance, the bumbling mistakes, the humorous way it so very obviously do the very things it laboriously berates others for... it really goes above and beyond the average kooky screed. It is the Tristram Shandy of crackpot manifestos: a book so poorly written, it practically satirises itself.

There is no stuffy quaintness; just language that came from his time period. There is no colossal arrogance (this is your issue, not his). There are no mistakes when it comes to his observations and his detailed explanations. There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book. I don't know what you're talking about. Give me a sentence. And this is not a manifesto of any kind. If the book was poorly written, blame me. I put it together. If you can do better, I invite you to. But of course you can't which is why it's easy to criticize. If you can do a better job, then you'll have something to base your criticisms on, but as of now you're just a big bunch of hot air.

[Stephen Maturin]

Lessans wrote that if we line up 50 people, a dog won't be able to recognize which person is its master by sight alone, even from up close. I haven't been able to find in the book myself, so could someone (and by "someone" I mean anyone but peacegirl, of course) point me to where Lessans said how many times he conducted the subject experment, set forth the protocols, and described the results in detail?

I mean, clearly he conducted the experiment. Probably more than once, given the definitiveness of his conclusion. If he hadn't conducted the experiment, then he would have been talking out of his ass, and we are informed that he never, ever talked out his ass.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

15 years (thinking and reading, 8 hours a day)

Dude, I'm jelli! I wish I had eight hours a day for fifteen years to spend a-readin' and a-cogitatin'. That's a fuckton of leisure time right there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

the Tristram Shandy of crackpot manifestos:

[The Lone Ranger]

Sean Carroll has an excellent piece called, "The Alternative-Science Checklist." In it, he lays down three important pieces of advice for anyone who wants to revolutionize our understanding of the world.


Number 1 is: Acquire basic competency in whatever field of science your discovery belongs to. His point here is that if you can't explain what the current scientific consensus is, then you can't explain why it's wrong, and you just look like an arrogant fool. More to the point, if you don't have a good understanding of the field, you have exactly zero hope of demonstrating that everyone else has been doing it wrong for lo these many years.

"Now, you may object that steering clear of such pre-existing knowledge has played a crucial role in your unique brand of breakthrough research, and you would never have been able to make those dazzling conceptual leaps had you been weighed down by all of that established art. Let me break it down for you: no. There may have been a time, in the halcyon days of Archimedes or maybe even Galileo and Newton, when anyone with a can-do attitude and a passing interest in the fundamental mysteries could make an important contribution to our understanding of nature. Those days are long past. (And Galileo and Newton, let us note, understood the science of their time better than anybody.) We’ve learned a tremendous amount about how the universe works, most of which is “right” at least in some well-defined regime of applicability. If you haven’t mastered what we’ve already learned, you’re not going to be able to see beyond it."

"Put it this way: it’s a matter of respect. By asking scientists to take your work seriously, you are asking them to respect you enough to spend their time investigating your claims. The absolute least you can do is respect them enough to catch up on the stuff they’ve all made a great effort to master. There are a lot of smart people working as scientists these days; if a basic feature of your purported breakthrough (“the derivation of the Friedmann equation is wrong”; “length contraction is a logical contradiction”) is that it requires that a huge number of such people have been making the same elementary mistake over and over again for years, the fault is more likely to lie within yourself than in the stars. Do your homework, first, then get back to me."

[Emphasis mine.]


Piece of advice Number 2 is: Understand, and make a good-faith effort to confront, the fundamental objections to your claims within established science.

"Scientific claims — whether theoretical insights or experimental breakthroughs — don’t exist all by their lonesome. They are situated within a framework of pre-existing knowledge and expectations. If the claim you are making seems manifestly inconsistent with that framework, it’s your job to explain why anyone should nevertheless take you seriously. Whenever someone claims to build a perpetual-motion device, scientist solemnly reiterate that the law of conservation of energy is not to be trifled with lightly. Of course one must admit that it could be wrong — it’s only one law, after all. But when you actually build some machine that purportedly puts out more ergs than it consumes (in perpetuity), it does a lot more than violate the law of conservation of energy. That machine is made of atoms and electromagnetic fields, which obey the laws of atomic physics and Maxwell’s equations. And conservation of energy can be derived from those laws — so you’re violating those as well. If you claim that the position of Venus within the Zodiac affects your love life, you’re not only positing some spooky correlation between celestial bodies and human affairs; your theory also requires some sort of long-range force that acts between you and Venus, and there aren’t any such forces strong enough to be relevant. If you try to brush those issues under the rug, rather than confronting them straightforwardly, your credibility suffers greatly."

Piece of advice Number 3 is: Present your discovery in a way that is complete, transparent, and unambiguous.

"Also, one last thing. Don’t compare yourself to Galileo. You are not Galileo. Honestly, you’re not. Dude, seriously."

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really need to examine this because you've alluded to his pomposity too many times for it to be ignored.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is absolutely no berating of others in this entire book. I don't know what you're talking about. Give me a sentence.

I opened the book to a random page in the intro and found both pomposity and berating of academics

Just as long as these experts are permitted to
use fallacious standards with which to judge what is true and false,
that is how long it will take to launch our Golden Age. Have you
noticed the parallels between the Catholic Church in the middle ages
with its dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be — the
clergymen even refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and
see for themselves, because they were so arrogantly convinced that
they held the absolute truth in hands, and thus needed no
verification), and today’s self-righteous “church” of “scientificality”
with its dogmas? I am therefore offering this question of every reader
but especially of philosophers, professors and theologians because
pride may prevent them from going beyond the introduction. Is there
the slightest possibility that your head full of knowledge does not
contain as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you
gamble your life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or
is there just the remotest chance that you only think you know?

I have found it necessary
to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope
that I can break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and
reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated
relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic
explosion destroys millions of lives. Now be honest with yourselves;
do you really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there
is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with
the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things
despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves;

However, there is this difference between us. I have absolute proof
that cannot be denied by any reader; they did not. Mine can be
adequately communicated; theirs was never disentangled from the
illusion of reality borne out of abstract thought and imagination.
Mine is purely scientific; theirs an expression of dogmatic belief. In
view of the serious nature of this discovery, the effects of which will
beneficently ramify into every conceivable direction causing religious
minds to consider this the return of the expected Messiah; and since
it also contravenes a belief held true by nearly all of mankind, I am
once again asking the indulgence of every reader to please refrain from
jumping to any premature conclusions, to put aside if only for the
time being the unverified knowledge gathered from books and teachers
and heed only the truth reflected in my words. “But what is truth?”
you might ask. “Let us say it is that which cannot be denied by
anyone anywhere.” “But,” you might reply, “that’s just common
sense; everyone knows that.” Well it is just this common sense; that
sense common to us all that I am making the very foundation of this
book. It is for this reason that what I write will be understood not
only by those who can read the English language, but by the entire
literate world.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Feynman's definition of 'The Key to Science' from 1964. It's still correct.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/b240PGCMwV0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

From this it is easy to see why Feynman didn't think much of philosophers.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do whatever you have to do, although you won't find the answer by trying to grasp the movement of photons when the answer is found in how the brain and eyes work. Until you recognize this, this model will appear untenable.

Light is necessary condition of sight, correct? If that is the case then an understanding how light behaves (including the movement of photons) is necessary in order to understand how the eyes and the brain interact with that light. Do you disagree?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...smoking a pipe makes you look dashing and refined.

Quite true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quite true.

Actually, and only if you choose the right tobacco, it smells good. Cigars just stink.

[Angakuk]

I'm good then, because I only choose the right tobacco. I also used to chews the right tobacco, but that was neither dashing nor refined.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans wrote that if we line up 50 people, a dog won't be able to recognize which person is its master by sight alone, even from up close. I haven't been able to find in the book myself, so could someone (and by "someone" I mean anyone but peacegirl, of course) point me to where Lessans said how many times he conducted the subject experment, set forth the protocols, and described the results in detail?

I mean, clearly he conducted the experiment. Probably more than once, given the definitiveness of his conclusion. If he hadn't conducted the experiment, then he would have been talking out of his ass, and we are informed that he never, ever talked out his ass.

I have asked people to show me a dog that can recognize his master from a picture. They could set it up where the dog hasn't seen his master in quite awhile, so we would know he would definitely be excited to see him either in a picture, a video, or skype. I have never seen this. Experiments that have tried to prove that dogs have this ability have not been conclusive.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

15 years (thinking and reading, 8 hours a day)

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Dude, I'm jelli! I wish I had eight hours a day for fifteen years to spend a-readin' and a-cogitatin'. That's a fuckton of leisure time right there.

He would read on the bus going to work, coming home from work, and any free time he had. He used his time wisely, every chance he got. He was a hard worker, he supported his family, and he didn't shirk his responsibilities, so don't try to make him look like something he wasn't Maturin. Please don't start this joking at his expense all over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Sean Carroll has an excellent piece called, "The Alternative-Science Checklist." In it, he lays down three important pieces of advice for anyone who wants to revolutionize our understanding of the world.

Number 1 is: Acquire basic competency in whatever field of science your discovery belongs to. His point here is that if you can't explain what the current scientific consensus is, then you can't explain why it's wrong, and you just look like an arrogant fool. More to the point, if you don't have a good understanding of the field, you have exactly zero hope of demonstrating that everyone else has been doing it wrong for lo these many years.

Whether or not anyone can be convinced of his findings depends on their ability to see the perceptions that caused Lessans to come to a different conclusion than present day thinking. If scientists don't see it, or they don't want to see it, does not in and of itself make his results inaccurate. I stand by his observations and I'm not afraid that you don't. Again, only time will tell whether he was spot on or not. Remember, he wasn't in the field but you cannot separate fields into boxes where there is no possibilty that he could be right. His thinking was indirect, which means he saw something that someone in the field would not be capable of seeing, so his findings could be very well accurate but never be found within the field itself.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Now, you may object that steering clear of such pre-existing knowledge has played a crucial role in your unique brand of breakthrough research, and you would never have been able to make those dazzling conceptual leaps had you been weighed down by all of that established art. Let me break it down for you: no. There may have been a time, in the halcyon days of Archimedes or maybe even Galileo and Newton, when anyone with a can-do attitude and a passing interest in the fundamental mysteries could make an important contribution to our understanding of nature. Those days are long past. (And Galileo and Newton, let us note, understood the science of their time better than anybody.) We’ve learned a tremendous amount about how the universe works, most of which is “right” at least in some well-defined regime of applicability. If you haven’t mastered what we’ve already learned, you’re not going to be able to see beyond it."

I disagree. Just because Lessans was not a physicist does not mean he could not see beyond what was already established as true. It does not mean he was necessarily wrong in his observation as to how the eyes work just because he didn't know the ins and outs (the details) of what science has already established (some taken for granted facts which are the very "facts" that are being questioned). He knew enough to recognize that there is a flaw in their analysis. It's true that science has gotten it right the majority of the time, but you cannot preclude the possibility that they could have been wrong (even if the odds are in their favor) in this case.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Put it this way: it’s a matter of respect. By asking scientists to take your work seriously, you are asking them to respect you enough to spend their time investigating your claims. The absolute least you can do is respect them enough to catch up on the stuff they’ve all made a great effort to master. There are a lot of smart people working as scientists these days; if a basic feature of your purported breakthrough (“the derivation of the Friedmann equation is wrong”; “length contraction is a logical contradiction”) is that it requires that a huge number of such people have been making the same elementary mistake over and over again for years, the fault is more likely to lie within yourself than in the stars. Do your homework, first, then get back to me."

I have done more than enough to at least get scientists interested. It may take a long time for them to even consider the possibility that a fundamental mistake was made. In the case of light, it was an easy mistake to make, which is why it would not be found within the field, in light of the fact that this purported truth has graduated into an established fact where it now becomes extremely difficult to be taken seriously. Don't you see why this knowledge had to be found by someone whose thinking came from outside of the scientific establishment?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Piece of advice Number 2 is: Understand, and make a good-faith effort to confront, the fundamental objections to your claims within established science.

"Scientific claims — whether theoretical insights or experimental breakthroughs — don’t exist all by their lonesome. They are situated within a framework of pre-existing knowledge and expectations. If the claim you are making seems manifestly inconsistent with that framework, it’s your job to explain why anyone should nevertheless take you seriously. Whenever someone claims to build a perpetual-motion device, scientist solemnly reiterate that the law of conservation of energy is not to be trifled with lightly. Of course one must admit that it could be wrong — it’s only one law, after all. But when you actually build some machine that purportedly puts out more ergs than it consumes (in perpetuity), it does a lot more than violate the law of conservation of energy. That machine is made of atoms and electromagnetic fields, which obey the laws of atomic physics and Maxwell’s equations. And conservation of energy can be derived from those laws — so you’re violating those as well. If you claim that the position of Venus within the Zodiac affects your love life, you’re not only positing some spooky correlation between celestial bodies and human affairs; your theory also requires some sort of long-range force that acts between you and Venus, and there aren’t any such forces strong enough to be relevant. If you try to brush those issues under the rug, rather than confronting them straightforwardly, your credibility suffers greatly."

Very true, but there are no laws being broken here. He even writes:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

p. 1 Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in
the 20th century. Though we are well into the 21st century, this
discovery has yet to be given a thorough investigation by leading
scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy, shortly after Hitler had
slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing
appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years
(8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction
with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the mind
compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest analysis
and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took me two
years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all mankind
and three additional years to put it into the kind of language others
could comprehend.

It is the purpose of this book to reveal this finding
— a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life, as a direct
consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be completely
revolutionized in every way for his benefit bringing about a transition
so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the changes soon to
unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why these must come
about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently to consider this
a work of science fiction for who would believe it possible that all evil
(every bit of hurt that exists in human relation) must decline and fall
the very moment this discovery is thoroughly understood. This
natural law, which reveals a fantastic mankind system, was hidden so
successfully behind a camouflage of ostensible truths that it is no
wonder the development of our present age was required to find it.

By discovering this well concealed law and demonstrating its power a
catalyst, so to speak, is introduced into human relations that compels
a fantastic change in the direction our nature has been traveling
performing what will be called miracles though they do not transcend
the laws of nature. The same nature that permits the most heinous
crimes, and all the other evils of human relation, is going to veer so
sharply in a different direction that all nations on this planet, once the
leaders and their subordinates understand the principles involved, will
unite in such a way that no more wars will ever again be possible. If
this is difficult to conceive, does it mean you have a desire to dismiss
what I have to say as nonsense? If it does, then you have done what
I tried to prevent, that is, jumped to a premature conclusion. And the
reason must be that you judged such a permanent solution as
impossible and therefore not deserving of further consideration, which
is a normal reaction, if anything, when my claims are analyzed and
compared to our present understanding of human nature. War seems
to be an inescapable feature of the human condition which can only
be subdued, not eradicated. But we must insert a question mark
between the empirical fact that a feature is characteristic of human life
as we know it, and the empirical claim that this feature is a
sociological inevitability. Another reason that war is viewed as an
unfortunate and intractable aspect of human existence is due to
suffering itself, which sadly robs its victims of the ability to dream or
have the breadth of vision to even contemplate the possibility of peace.
The evil in the world has so constricted man’s imagination that his
mind has become hardened, and he shows contempt for anyone who
dares to offer a solution because such claims appear ludicrous and
unfounded.

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.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Piece of advice Number 3 is: Present your discovery in a way that is complete, transparent, and unambiguous.

What do you think I've been doing this whole time? Playing tiddly winks?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Also, one last thing. Don’t compare yourself to Galileo. You are not Galileo. Honestly, you’re not. Dude, seriously."

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Lessans never compared himself to Galileo. You're in the wrong field, dude.

p. 10 Skepticism is not the primary problem that is preventing this
knowledge from coming to light, as everyone who hears of my
discovery would be skeptical. The main problem is the pride of those
people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very
top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in
who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even
consent to listen you must qualify not by what you are prepared to
prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank. Do
you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give
me the time even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all
mankind. This pride is the first half of the primary problem; that the
very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the
knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if
proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it
any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do,
could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and
knowledge is at stake? Have you noticed the parallels between the
Catholic Church in the middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot
be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look
through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves, because they were
so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in hands and
thus needed no verification), and today’s self-righteous “church” of
“scientificality” with its dogmas?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you noticed the parallels between the
Catholic Church in the middle ages with its dogmatism (that it cannot
be what must not be — the clergymen even refused to simply look
through Galileo’s telescope and see for themselves, because they were
so arrogantly convinced that they held the absolute truth in hands and
thus needed no verification), and today’s self-righteous “church” of
“scientificality” with its dogmas?

Has anyone noticed the parallels between Lessan's claims in the book, and the church and scientists that he is criticising. Even considering that his demand that "experts" validate his claims (which is, in reality, just a request for them to 'rubber stamp' the book), he claims to have absolute truth that is self evident and needs no actual verification by the establishment, only acceptance.

"The old white guy writes with a forked pen."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I opened the book to a random page in the intro and found both pomposity and berating of academics

All of what he said was absolutely correct. This was not berating academics unless it was justified. AND IT WAS JUSTIFIED LADYSHEA. You are so off target, and you are so arrogant, you posit things before you even know what you're talking about. That's why I can't stomach talking to you much longer.