A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

My apologies. How silly of me to think that clear and accurate communication might have been a goal of yours.

This is the funniest of all as if you are equating my use of "I could care less" to discredit this book.

[The Lone Ranger]

Nah. I'm just pointing out that you can't convey a coherent thought to save your life. And what's more, you don't seem to be interested in doing so.

You don't need my help to discredit the book; you do a fabulous job on your own.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nah. I'm just pointing out that you can't convey a coherent thought to save your life. And what's more, you don't seem to be interested in doing so.

You don't need my help to discredit the book; you do a fabulous job on your own.

You are extremely unreflecting Lone Ranger. But believe what you want. I have no desire to discuss this book any further with you.

[The Lone Ranger]

You don't even know what that means, do you?


Anyway, this is where you go back to insisting that people should stop thinking so much and instead accept you at your word that the Holy Text (or rather, your rewritten version of it) is utterly free of contradiction and error. Yes?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm telling you right now, you will be banned in a moderated forum.

You'd better listen up, Chuck. Getting banned from moderated forums is the sole field in which peacegirl possesses actual expertise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You don't even know what that means, do you?


Anyway, this is where you go back to insisting that people should stop thinking so much and instead accept you at your word that the Holy Text (or rather, your rewritten version of it) is utterly free of contradiction and error. Yes?

There is no contradiction in his layout of determinism.

[thedoc]

I must say that Peacegirl is persistent, she continues in spite of continued resistance, believing that her father was infallible and everything he wrote was perfect and she then corrupted it to make it more perfect. I must admire her tenacity even though I can see where she is totally wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no contradiction in his layout of determinism.

Except that he was totally wrong, Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

So the claims were based on a hunch now? I thought they were based on "myriad" observations. Where does the hunch come in? Is there any reason to believe that the hunch is correct? What evidence supports the hunch? How is a hunch different from a hypothesis?

I'm sure they have slightly different meanings, but he did not start off having a hunch or a hypothesis which required data collection. He was a voracious reader of literature and philosophy and made the discovery unexpectedly. But it took many more years to understand its full significance and to put it into the kind of words that could be understood by others.

His claims can be tested in various ways. First off, you can observe how excuses and rationalization are created to mitigate a criminal action.

Originally Posted by chuck

Ok, peacegirl; who should be observed?

Everyone who is a participant.

Originally Posted by chuck

When should they be observed?

In the home, at work, etc. If he is right, behavior will remain the same as long as the principles are being applied.

Originally Posted by chuck

What data should be collected? Should they be observed once or more than once? Should they know that they are being observed? How should they be observed? How will the observation be controlled? How will we analyze the observations to determine whether or not the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is not correct?

What data other than to observe the changed behavior due to the changed environment. If they are participants they would agree to being observed, which is the whole point of the experiment. How can there be a control group when everyone in the experiment is part of the experiment? The control group are all those who are not part of the simulation.

Another way would be to simulate the type of environment that would bring about these incredible changes but on a smaller scale.

Originally Posted by chuck

Ok, peacegirl; what environment should be simulated?

The requirements of the new world.

Originally Posted by chuck

How will it be simulated?

By creating such an environment.

Originally Posted by chuck

What controls will be imposed on the simulation?

There need not be any controls because the principles should cause a change in behavior across the board. The only exception would be someone who is already mentally ill to the degree that his conscience has no control over his behavior. Once children grow up in this new environment, mental illness will be a thing of the past.

Originally Posted by chuck

Who should participate in the environment?

Anyone who wants to be a participant whether it's a simulated environment or the real thing.

Originally Posted by chuck

How will their participation be measured? What types of changes should be measured? How will they be measured? How will the measurements be analyzed to determine whether or not the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is correct? What outcome would tend to prove that the claim is not correct?

There is no need for measurement in the classical sense. The outcome will be plainly observed when crime, hatred, or cheating at the expense of others (in other words, striking a first blow) are no longer part of everyday life.

[Spacemonkey]

Lol, fuck off.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lol, fuck off.

You have no power here. Be gone!

[ChuckF]

So, peacegirl, there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Author ever made any observations, much less any astute observations. He never wrote them down, or analyzed them, or demonstrated an analysis of how those observations gave rise to a particular claim.

And yet, the expectation appears to be that leading scientists* investigate these claims to determine if they are correct. peacegirl, why should any leading scientist investigate a claim in the absence of any data to suggest that the claim may be true, or any evidence of some observation that such claim may be true? Indeed, even if a leading scientist desired to do so, no such investigation of these claims is possible, because it is impossible to test or replicate a claim with no knowledge or evidence of the observations and analysis that inform that claim. Since the Author did not record his observations or his analysis of them, there is no way to design an experiment to test the claim based on those observations.

To the extent that his observations overlap with established science, they are demonstrably wrong by an enormous weight of evidence - evidence the size of the moons of Jupiter, and indeed the universe itself.

peacegirl, didn't your father spend almost 30 years working on this? During that time, why didn't he ever write down his myriad observations to enable leading scientists to investigate his claims? Rather, an impossible demand is made: science must investigate a claim which no facts support, no data substantive, no observations have been made, and no analysis has been done.

That is, of course, an absurd position to advance.

However, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am able to save the Authentic Text from absurdity by my true exegesis. Your Corrupted Text I cannot save, but the Authentic Text I can salvage from your ruin.

*Not political scientists.

[ChuckF]

As an aside, it is nice to be back in my Revolution in Thought thread! Home, sweet home.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

So, peacegirl, there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Author ever made any observations, much less any astute observations. He never wrote them down, or analyzed them, or demonstrated an analysis of those observations gave rise to a particular claim.

He actually did write his observations down that gave rise to a particular claim chuck. If you had read the book you would have known that. You may pooh pooh his observations because he didn't use empirical testing (the gold standard of scientific research), but that's not the only way to truth. That being said, his claim can be empirically tested on a smaller scale. In the final analysis, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If he is right, these principles, once they become a permanent condition of the environment, will change our world for the better.

Originally Posted by chuck

And yet, the expectation appears to be that leading scientists* investigate these claims to determine if they are correct. peacegirl, why should any leading scientist investigate a claim in the absence of any data to suggest that the claim may be true, or any evidence of some observation that such claim may be true? How could a leading scientist replicate a claim with no knowledge of the observations and analysis that inform that claim? With no evidence of the observations, it is impossible to construct an experiment to test the claim.

What are you talking about chuck? The observations and the inferences that came from those observations are spelled out in detail. Replication won't be easy but it's not impossible especially if people want to see whether this knowledge is genuine. After all, if this knowledge is truly genuine, the stakes are high.

Originally Posted by chuck

peacegirl, didn't your father spend almost 30 years working on this? During that time, why didn't he ever write down his myriad observations to enable leading scientists to investigate his claims? Rather, an impossible demand is made: science must investigate a claim which no facts support, no data suubstantive, no observations have been made, and no analysis has been done.

*Not political scientists.

You are wrong as wrong can be. Do you even know what his observations were? Do you understand why he claimed man's will is not free? It's not because he didn't explain his findings or write them down.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

As an aside, it is nice to be back in my Revolution in Thought thread! Home, sweet home.

I don't mind talking to you if you have real questions. If you keep up with your shenanigans, being back to my (not your) Revolution in Thought thread will be short lived. I just saw that you started your shenanigans again. It didn't take long, did it? You're ruining it for anyone who may actually be interested.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He actually did write his observations down that gave rise to a particular claim chuck.

Fantastic! Whom did he observe? In which situations? During which events? Which behaviors did they exhibit? What were their ages? What were their backgrounds? What were their socio-economic conditions? When did he observe them? Where did he observe them? Under what conditions did he observe them? Did he observe them under many different conditions, or under the same conditions? For how long did he observe them? Did the behaviors he observed change over time? Did he observe them more than once? What controls were in place when he observed them? Did they know they were being observed? How did he record his observations?

Just a few minutes ago you said that he never recorded his observations. So is there any evidence to support your assertion that he made these observations?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had read the book you would have known that. You may pooh pooh his observations because he didn't use empirical testing (the gold standard of scientific research), but that's not the only way to finding truth. That being said, his claim can be empirically tested. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I cannot speak to your Corrupted Text. The Authentic Text makes a great number of claims. But it does not present any evidence or data to support those claims, or to give any reason to believe that those claims are true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about chuck? The observations and the inferences that came from those observations are spelled out in detail.

Great! What methods did he use to analyze his observations? What were the outcomes of that analysis? Which specific outcomes of those analyses inform the relationship between the observations and the claims?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong as wrong can be. Do you even know what his observations were? Do you understand why he claimed man's will is not free? It's not because he didn't explain his findings or write them down.

peacegirl, of course he claimed that; he simply omitted to include any reason that anyone should believe that his claim is actually true.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't mind talking to you if you have real questions. If you keep up with your shenanigans, being back to my (not your) Revolution in Thought thread will be short lived.

Oh, peacegirl, you lie constantly. This is my thread and it will continue as long as I want it to continue, for my own amusement and that of my associates here.

I just saw that you started your shenanigans again. It didn't take long, did it? You're ruining it for anyone who may actually be interested.

peacegirl, I cannot quite decide how to reply to this, so you can choose your own adventure:

(1) peacegirl, your Corrupted Text has ruined it for anyone who may actually be interested in the Authentic Text and its true exegesis. Fortunately, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am here to rescue it from the violence you have done for it through the years.

Or

(2) peacegirl, no one gives a fuck about your idiot father's nonsense babble.

Up to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Oh, peacegirl, you lie constantly. This is my thread and it will continue as long as I want it to continue, for my own amusement and that of my associates here.

peacegirl, I cannot quite decide how to reply to this, so you can choose your own adventure:

(1) peacegirl, your Corrupted Text has ruined it for anyone who may actually be interested in the Authentic Text and its true exegesis. Fortunately, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I am here to rescue it from the violence you have done for it through the years.

Or

(2) peacegirl, no one gives a fuck about your idiot father's nonsense babble.

Up to you.

I knew you didn't have it in you. You couldn't step out of your fake persona for a minute. Discussion over.

[ChuckF]

Goodbye again forever, peacegirl!

Friends, now that peacegirl has once again decided that her Corrupted Text cannot be defended in view of the Authentic Text, and ended the discussion, I am pleased to resume administering my thread as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

I am happy to welcome (back) all who reject the Corrupted Text to my thread

[Stephen Maturin]

This is a prescious, prescious thread. Some might even call it "juicy" and express an overpowering desire to bite it.

[Florence Jellem]

Goodbye forever again, peacegirl! Au revoir! Too-do-loo! See you soon!

How wonderful that this thrad has been revived, with peacegirl again leaving it forever only to return soon!

Unfortunately she is not privy to the private threads in which ChuckF, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, has expounded so brilliantly upon it.

On a down note, I noticed that ChuckF offered to hook peacegirl up with that nice Jerome. What is Flo, chopped liver? I had to kick my three husbands to the curb and now my only solace is whiskey. Can’t I be hooked up with Jerome? He seems like a bit of a cloaca, but then what man isn’t?

[ChuckF]

Oh Flo, you inveterate old floozy. Jerome is a cuddler. We know you're only in it for the dinner table rumpy-pumpy, and then it's off to sleep alone with Mr. Dickel!

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Oh Flo, you inveterate old floozy. Jerome is a cuddler. We know you're only in it for the dinner table rumpy-pumpy, and then it's off to sleep alone with Mr. Dickel!

It’s true, dear, Flo must confess. As I lie abed morning, noon and night, watching those dear boys on Fox News stoke white male grievance, a nice bottle of Irish whiskey is constantly at my side. If the truth be told, even when I was married, Flo preferred Mr. Dickel to Mr. Dick, pardon my French. That’s why I approve of all that stuff in the Authentic Text about how in the New World, it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed — you know, the stuff that peacegirl completely rewrote in the Corrupted Text. As by now we have all learned from intensive study of the Authentic Text, to forestall a first blow, it will not only be necessary for married couples to forego the same bed; they shall have to live in separate houses, on different continents, and eventually — when this becomes scientifically practicable — they shall be compelled of their own free will to dwell on different planets.

Has that little skank peacegirl explained yet why she rewrote the marriage-bed part of the Authentic Text to insert her own vile corruptions? Or — better still — has she explained why she rewrote the part where the author plainly states that if God turned on the sun at noon, it would take time for people on earth to see it because the light would need time to reach the eye, to saying the exact opposite: people on earth would see the sun instantly, because the light is at the eye even before it gets there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

It’s true, dear, Flo must confess. As I lie abed morning, noon and night, watching those dear boys on Fox News stoke white male grievance, a nice bottle of Irish whiskey is constantly at my side. If the truth be told, even when I was married, Flo preferred Mr. Dickel to Mr. Dick, pardon my French. That’s why I approve of all that stuff in the Authentic Text about how in the New World, it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed — you know, the stuff that peacegirl completely rewrote in the Corrupted Text. As by now we have all learned from intensive study of the Authentic Text, to forestall a first blow, it will not only be necessary for married couples to forego the same bed; they shall have to live in separate houses, on different continents, and eventually — when this becomes scientifically practicable — they shall be compelled of their own free will to dwell on different planets.

Has that little skank peacegirl explained yet why she rewrote the marriage-bed part of the Authentic Text to insert her own vile corruptions? Or — better still — has she explained why she rewrote the part where the author plainly states that if God turned on the sun at noon, it would take time for people on earth to see it because the light would need time to reach the eye, to saying the exact opposite: people on earth would see the sun instantly, because the light is at the eye even before it gets there?

He knew he was correct about the eyes. That being said, all of his discoveries were made after years of reading, studying, and analysis. He must have realized that if we saw the Sun turned on 8 minutes later, it would be delayed, which goes back to the afferent account. He must have realized his error and corrected it in his later books. So what! Are you going to throw out his entire life's work because of this? Of course you will!