A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are totally out the door Spacemonkey. I have no idea why you are stuck on this thread. I'm laughing.

What on Earth was the point of a post like this, Peacegirl? I mean, other than to get more negative attention. What keeps bringing you back to a discussion where the only live topic is your own mental health?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about speculative theories that are being taken seriously by noted physicists and therefore the lay public.

Many things that we now know to be actual phenomena were once speculative theories. Black holes as Dragar pointed out, were once highly speculative, but possible and even predicted within the math.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What on Earth was the point of a post like this, Peacegirl? I mean, other than to get more negative attention. What keeps bringing you back to a discussion where the only live topic is your own mental health?

Spacemonkey, be honest here. You know you are the one with the problem and there is no denying it. Anyone with half a brain that reads this thread will conclude that I am not the one that has an issue unless they are as defensive in their worldview as you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Many things that we now know to be true were once speculative theories. Black holes as Dragar pointed out, were once highly speculative based on the math.

And they still are. And even if they do exist, to extrapolate conclusions that have no facts backing them up is bad science. Nothing is off limits when it comes to scientific scrutiny, or at least that's how it should be.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ace-astronomy/

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, be honest here. You know you are the one with the problem and there is no denying it. Anyone with half a brain that reads this thread will conclude that I am not the one that has an issue unless they are as defensive in their worldview as you are.

I've always been honest with you (sadly you cannot say the same), and I am being honest with you now when I tell you that you are not well. Everyone involved in this thread has told you the same. I'll ask you again: What keeps bringing you back to a discussion where the only live topic is your own mental health?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And they still are. And even if they do exist, to extrapolate conclusions that have no facts backing them up is bad science. Nothing is off limits when it comes to scientific scrutiny, or at least that's how it should be.

No Black Holes Exist, Says Stephen Hawking—At Least Not Like We Think

You don't even understand what you read. The existence of what are called black holes is not disputed. The exact nature and properties of black holes are not known and are under intense investigation, which is why you can find those ongoing scientific discussions.

Brian Koberlein disagrees with Hawking, as do and have others (Leonard Susskind for another example).

A recent paper by Stephen Hawking has created quite a stir, even leading Nature News to declare there are no black holes. As I wrote in an earlier post, that isn’t quite what Hawking claimed. But it is now clear that Hawking’s claim about black holes is wrong because the paradox he tries to address isn’t a paradox after all.

Read more: Why Hawking is Wrong About Black Holes

Who is "extrapolating conclusions that have no facts backing them up", BTW? I am asking you one more time, who are you arguing against?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Lone Ranger. You don't get to call the shots.

So a person who is knowledgeable on the topic doesn't have a say? Where are we, Washington DC where know nothing politicians vote on policy and the scientists are ushered out the back so they aren't heard by the public? Lessans, who knew nothing about the subject is now a better authority than an educated person who actually teaches the subject at the college level. That sounds like something from Lessans' brave new world, if you think you know something, you're an expert.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You really don't read what you link to, do you? At least this time you're right - 'quality' submissions can certainly be made by anyone to viXra!

Why on earth would she do that? She doesn't even read what she "replies" to. Gardasil? Giardia? What's the difference, they both start with 'G'!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've always been honest with you (sadly you cannot say the same), and I am being honest with you now when I tell you that you are not well. Everyone involved in this thread has told you the same. I'll ask you again: What keeps bringing you back to a discussion where the only live topic is your own mental health?

My guess is that her illness and obsessions have isolated her and that for peacegirl, the social interaction that she finds here is the best she can do. Not to denigrate the people here. The limited scope and repetitive character of the interactions with peacegirl is the best one can do given her illness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've always been honest with you (sadly you cannot say the same), and I am being honest with you now when I tell you that you are not well. Everyone involved in this thread has told you the same. I'll ask you again: What keeps bringing you back to a discussion where the only live topic is your own mental health?

You are such a phony Spacemonkey, I'm laughing. All you are trying to do is protect your worldview of compatibilism. You cannot stand the thought that some unknown person is telling you otherwise. Admit it. Be honest. You are the liar, not me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't even understand what you read. The existence of what are called black holes is not disputed. The exact nature and properties of black holes are not known and are under intense investigation, which is why you can find those ongoing scientific discussions.

Brian Koberlein disagrees with Hawking, as do and have others (Leonard Susskind for another example).

Who is "extrapolating conclusions that have no facts backing them up", BTW? I am asking you one more time, who are you arguing against?

YOU! The fact that you can't admit that observation could be better than the faulty evidence that comes from empiricism is very disturbing to me. Combined with your lack of respect for Lessans' claims offers me no outlet in which I can prove his case. It is a lost cause, not bacause Lessans' observations were wrong, but because you think you know better. You don't LadyShea, and neither do your cronies. This thread has gotten very maladaptive, to say the least. Again, not because of me, but because of you all and your false premises upon which you judge this knowledge. Argue all you want guys. It doesn't change what is, or what will be in the future based on this discovery. The only thing this will expose is your snobbery and lack of interest. This is not a scientific way to approach new thought. You are all fake.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you can't admit that observation could be better than the faulty evidence that comes from empiricism is very disturbing to me.

LOL, I can't "admit" that because I don't think it is true at all. You are disturbed because the life's work of your father, and now you, is dependent on one man's "astute observations" being considered authoritative and accepted by the whole world. That won't happen, because most people do require some kind of hard evidence to accept claims, unless we are talking about religion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are such a phony Spacemonkey, I'm laughing. All you are trying to do is protect your worldview of compatibilism. You cannot stand the thought that some unknown person is telling you otherwise. Admit it. Be honest. You are the liar, not me.

I am being honest. Your avoidance and projection is completely transparent. I'll ask a third time: What keeps bringing you back to a discussion where the only live topic is your own mental health?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

Gardasil? Giardia?

It's Gardia, Cynthia, GARDIA. Jeez, you guys don't know anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, I can't "admit" that because I don't think it is true at all. You are disturbed because the life's work of your father, and now you, is dependent on one man's "astute observations" being considered authoritative and accepted by the whole world. That won't happen, because most people do require some kind of hard evidence to accept claims, unless we are talking about religion.

Yes, his observations will eventually be confirmed by the whole world (and it will happen; whether he brings it, or someone else) but until then, the least you could do is keep an open mind. This has nothing to do with religion. Empirical testing (your gold standard) is only one way to truth, not the only way.

ii Well, would you like to see what happens when science, the
perception and extension of undeniable observations, takes over the
problems of human conflict as the result of a fantastic discovery?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Combined with your lack of respect for Lessans' claims ....

The claim that saying yes to a date is automatically saying yes to fucking doesn't warrant any respect. It warrants derision. And that claim is but the tip of a much larger wretch-berg.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... offers me no outlet in which I can prove his case.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing this will expose is your snobbery and lack of interest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a scientific way to approach new thought.

You think "scientific" and "undeniable" are synonymous, which makes you a moron who's completely unqualified to assess whether or not any approach qualifies as scientific.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are all fake.

Sez the jerkoff who's taking public funds under false pretenses, thereby keeping those funds from people who actually need them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, his observations will eventually be confirmed by the whole world

Ahh, Spring Hopes Eternal.

[Stephen Maturin]

Damn, I am not an astute observer at all! I only just noticed that Lessans had kind of a Col. Kurtz thing going on in that photo from peacegirl's idiot website.



So then ...

show spoiler

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Damn, I am not an astute observer at all! I only just noticed that Lessans had kind of a Col. Kurtz thing going on in that photo from peacegirl's idiot website.



So then ...

show spoiler

[davidm]

'The horror … the horror'




Anti-vaccination convert Col. Walter E. Kurtz, top, and anti-vaccination crackpot Seymour Lessans, above. The fact that Kurtz and Lessans look alike: coincidence? I think not.

Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz

I remember when I was with Special Forces... seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate some children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn't see. We went back there, and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried, I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out; I didn't know what I wanted to do! And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it... I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought, my God... the genius of that! The genius! The will to do that! Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow! Those anti-vax missionaries are really serious about it, aren't they?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they haven't produced the results because they aren't looking in the same direction as my father did. What is so hard for you to get?

I have to agree with Peacegirl here, very few scientists, or anyone else for that matter, are looking up her fathers ass.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have to agree with Peacegirl here, very few scientists, or anyone else for that matter, are looking up her fathers ass.

To a hammer everything looks like a nail.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU! The fact that you can't admit that observation could be better than the faulty evidence that comes from empiricism is very disturbing to me. Combined with your lack of respect for Lessans' claims offers me no outlet in which I can prove his case. It is a lost cause, not bacause Lessans' observations were wrong, but because you think you know better.

I don't believe there is anyone on this forum who would not admit this or agree. Good, sound, verified observation is certainly better than FAULTY EVIDENCE. However your argument falls apart at that point because the evidence on which scientists base their conclusions has been verified by other scientists. But you are correct that observation can yield sound data, but only if those observations are well documented so that others can make the same observations and verify the data. In fact there are some areas of science where observation is the only tool. I should clarify that here I am using the term "observation" to indicate that which can be seen visually as opposed to objects and materials that can be handled and manipulated in a lab or the outside world. Astronomy is one field of science where observation is the only way to gather data for any object that is some distance away, but those observations are carefully documented so that others can make those same observations. And here is where Lessans fails, he doesn't document any of his "astute observations" only the claims drawn from the conclusions based on those observations. There is nothing that others can repeat and verify.

An observation could also refer to a statement about an event or situation, and this may be the sense in which Lessans used the term. But again he has failed to document those events or situations for others to try and repeat his observations. In the end what science claims has been verified by many others over a very long time, but Lessans claims stand alone on his word, without any possibility for anyone else to verify his claims.

[thedoc]

L.O.L. what is it when you try the same thing over and over again, and expect different results?

(peacegirl
#17Re: A revolution in thoughtJan 31st, 2014
Quote: Originally Posted by T********w Post
Wow.

I skimmed the first chapter. Pass. But thanks.

Skim? There is no way you could understand the first chapter by a quick skim. I guarantee you.)