A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If anything, it will be the academic elitists (the scientists who are dictating and in control of what we think about) that will delay this discovery from coming to light, not the woos.

Could you identify some of these academic elitists who are controlling what we think? And which academic institutons are they associated with, I might want to avoid them in the future, or I might want to check out what I am supposed to be thinking, I haven't gotten any memos lately.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I too am bothered by the stifling dogmatism of modern scientific thought. The bias in favour of the ascendant paradigm means that absolutely no time, funding or thought goes into some of the alternate models that are being proposed, merely on the basis that they do not suit their narrow world-view.

The flat-earth model of the universe has been neglected for centuries now, for instance. It has a fair share of lay followers (they even have a little web-ring: look them up some time) and so far this model has not received any serious attention from relevant scholars. There is no funding available for flat-earth scholarship, and any astro-physicist who proposes a flat-earth model of the universe would probably be silenced by the derision of the followers of the round-earth theory, as it makes them uncomfortable to have their cosy little consensus challenged. But the theory that the earth is round is just that: a theory. And as Peacegirl so rightly said: a theory is a theory is a theory. It has never been conclusively proven that the earth is round: it is entirely possible that something else is going on. Rather than wait for the empirical data that proves that the earth is flat to come in, they simply jump to the conclusion that the earth is not flat.

Of course I am not saying that the round-earth theory is necessarily wrong, I am merely pointing out that since scientists are not giving the flat earth theory equal time to their precious round-earth paradigm, this proves that my own idea, namely that the world was created and is run by fairies, is plausible. You see, once you have proven that scientists do not see all theories as equally plausible, this proves that they are biased. Biased people are often wrong, so this strongly suggests that they are wrong about my own belief: the belief that the world is operated by fairies. After all, science is for the most part theoretical according to Peacegirl, and although I am not sure what she means by this, it sure sounds important.

Science ignores the evidence in favour of the existence of fairies, despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence for the non-existence of fairies! Do you call that objective? Not a penny is being spent of fairy research, and no-one takes fairyology seriously. This means that it is unreasonable to say that it is extremely unlikely that fairies exist, or that there is no reason to assume that they do. Indeed, the very lack of any scientific evidence in favour of fairies is no reason to assume they do not exist: it is merely proof of how biased scientists are.

Until science learns to treat all ideas as equally plausible, it will never be truly objective, and as long as it is not truly objective, this means that anything it says that makes my own idea less likely can be safely ignored.

Darwinism is a theory. Science has to allow room for opposing ideas, even if they appear far-fetched, or there is a danger of bullying people into submission just because they have an alternate plausible model. That is not good science.

Secondly, it's is not a theory that the earth is round. It's been proven conclusively.

Earth from Space : Image of the Day

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That was Spacemoneky, not me

Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right, so we can dispense with this 'Ooh, I can't afford it' bullshit. You did promise to send a copy so you should send it. And you promised to send me a copy knowing full well that I had no personal interest in it myself. The whole point was to help you get the book to be read by actual philosophers. For you to renege now, based on a reason which was never part of the agreement at all, is deeply dishonest. You are going back on your word.

What did I just say Spacemonkey? I said I would send it to you, so why are you giving me so much grief?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you're going to just donate it, it will probably sit and gather dust. I am under a lot of pressure as far as a marketing budget and I have to use it wisely. The professors who taught you will most likely use the same logic to pooh pooh this work?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's possible, but you will face that risk no matter how you go about marketing the book. You can't force people to agree with it. The best you can hope for is to get the material read by the most competent thinkers you can find and then let Lessans' arguments work their magic. As others are pointing out, that you feel the need to present his work only to those already predisposed to agree with his conclusions betrays a deep lack of confidence in the persuasive power of his arguments.

I agree with the first part of your post, but not the latter. Biased thinking is alive and well, and it's almost impossible to get people, who already have a worldview that they believe in, to consider an alternate point of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how to approach this. I may have to go to the woos for help.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What would be the point of that? The woos are those most credulous and least competent at critical and analytical thinking. You might persuade a few to take the book seriously, but then what? Are they in any position of intellectual authority to be able to give this book the kind of rubber stamp of approval which will lead others to consider it validated? The approval of the woos, if you even get it, is the one thing guaranteed to make real thinkers even less likely to take his work seriously.

Real thinker? Least competent? I have not found that to be the case Spacemonkey. You are using the term "woo" to discredit anything someone other than a scientist may have to say, which is the worst kind of intellectual snobbery that I can think of. Don't you get that yet? If anything, it will be the academic elitists (the scientists who are dictating and in control of what we think about) that will delay this discovery from coming to light, not the woos.

Added: You're a competent thinker Spacemonkey, and look at the problem you're having? You have such a deeply ingrained belief that compatibilism is true that it is getting in the way of your understanding why man's will is not free. This has nothing to do with a lack of confidence in the persuasive power of his proof. For this reaason I want to try to reach people who already have an intuition that man's will is not free. Why should I struggle to convince people who won't be convinced (kinda like the flat earthers) when I can find people who will see the validity of Lessans' claims, and desire to help get this discovery recognized?

Derk Pereboom on Free Will - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Darwinism is a theory. Science has to allow room for opposing ideas, even if they appear far-fetched, or there is a danger of bullying people into submission just because they have an alternate plausible model. That is not good science.

Secondly, it's is not a theory that the earth is round. It's been proven conclusively.

Earth from Space : Image of the Day

Not so - and you will find many an opposing theory complete with explanations for why those images look that way on the different flat-earth sites that you can find on the internet. There is no conclusive proof for the earth being round, in the same way that there is no conclusive proof that sight works the way we normally understand it or that the theory of evolution is correct. It is only a theory.

And I could not agree with you more! Every time I propose my theory of how fairies cause obesity in the human male, I am bullied and ridiculed by the established academia. It may seem far-fetched, but it is entirely plausible. I sure hope you are not jumping to conclusions about the fairy theory, before the empirical evidence that proves it is correct has even come in?

[Vivisectus]

By the way, here is the link:

Flat Earth Society Wiki

More evidence of the bias, of the stifling orthodoxy of modern science. These people are not even getting a look-in: not a penny of research funds goes into their ideas, not ONE astro-physicist takes them seriously, all because people are afraid to upset the cosy old boys club atmosphere that reigns in modern academic circles. I ask you: do you call that objective? Do you call that a free and unfettered exploration of the facts as they are? Challenge their comfortable little consensus and they close ranks like the mafia, bullying all dissent into silence and silencing them with their ridicule. It is amazing we can get any science done at all, really.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not so - and you will find many an opposing theory complete with explanations for why those images look that way on the different flat-earth sites that you can find on the internet. There is no conclusive proof for the earth being round, in the same way that there is no conclusive proof that sight works the way we normally understand it or that the theory of evolution is correct. It is only a theory.

And I could not agree with you more! Every time I propose my theory of how fairies cause obesity in the human male, I am bullied and ridiculed by the established academia. It may seem far-fetched, but it is entirely plausible. I sure hope you are not jumping to conclusions about the fairy theory, before the empirical evidence that proves it is correct has even come in?

For the most part science has gotten it right Vivisectus. Sometimes theory becomes fact for good reason. That is the aim of science after all, to search for what is true. But there is always the danger that the long tenure of an accepted belief (based on what appears to be solid evidence) can be mistaken. This can be a problem for those rare times that scientists don't get it right. They can keep their accepted position as long as they don't ridicule others for offering a different way of seeing the same thing. The ultimate test is whether it can be backed up empirically.

Your implication that I am presenting knowledge with no evidence is unjustified. There is evidence (a lot of evidence) that man does not have free will, and there is evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. You might not consider his reasons for making these claims as supporting evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

"Indeed, the very lack of any scientific evidence in favour of fairies is no reason to assume they do not exist: it is merely proof of how biased scientists are"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, here is the link:

Flat Earth Society Wiki

More evidence of the bias, of the stifling orthodoxy of modern science. These people are not even getting a look-in: not a penny of research funds goes into their ideas, not ONE astro-physicist takes them seriously, all because people are afraid to upset the cosy old boys club atmosphere that reigns in modern academic circles. I ask you: do you call that objective? Do you call that a free and unfettered exploration of the facts as they are? Challenge their comfortable little consensus and they close ranks like the mafia, bullying all dissent into silence and silencing them with their ridicule. It is amazing we can get any science done at all, really.

Some things that have been studied have such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence (not just circumstantial) that they deserve to be called facts. The pictures that man has obtained of earth as a sphere, as well as all other celestial bodies, is enough to consider a round earth scientifically sound. I would not give equal time or funding to a flat earther because it contravenes everything that we can see visually, and because believing in a flat earth would do nothing to benefit our world. If it did, we might want to take another look, but as far as I know it wouldn't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Some things that have been studied have such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence (not just circumstantial) that they deserve to be called facts. The pictures that man has obtained of earth as a sphere, as well as all other celestial bodies, is enough to consider a round earth scientifically sound. I would not give equal time or funding to a flat earther because it contravenes everything that we can see visually, and because believing in a flat earth would do nothing to benefit our world. If it did, we might want to take another look, but as far as I know it wouldn't.

Just as with afferent vision and the workings of conscience there is an overwhelming preponderance of observation and evidence that they work just as science believes they do, and Lessans had no observation or evidence to offer.

[LadyShea]

Some things that have been studied have such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence (not just circumstantial) that they deserve to be called facts.

Such as evolution and the eyes as a sense organ

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just as with afferent vision and the workings of conscience there is an overwhelming preponderance of observation and evidence that they work just as science believes they do, and Lessans had no observation or evidence to offer.

You're wrong doc. Completely wrong, and you have no basis in which to even debate me. You haven't read the book, you don't know what his evidence or observations are, and you don't know what the discovery is. So please STFU!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Such as evolution and the eyes as a sense organ

Darwinism is a theory LadyShea. There are people (not all religious fundies either) who don't agree. As far as the eyes being a sense organ, it is taken for granted that everyone knows this is a fact, but there is a different take as to what's going on. Lessans has every right to demonstrate why he believed science got it wrong. Only time will tell.

Essay - Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live - NYTimes.com

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So please STFU!

No, and you can't make me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Darwinism is a theory LadyShea.

Are you totally brain dead, and have no concept what a 'scientific theory' really is?

[The Lone Ranger]

Sometimes theory becomes fact for good reason.

Theory NEVER becomes fact! Theories and facts are completely different things.

Anyone who knows anything at all about science understands this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Secondly, it's is not a theory that the earth is round. It's been proven conclusively.

No it hasn't. Something else could be going on there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What did I just say Spacemonkey? I said I would send it to you, so why are you giving me so much grief?

Because you didn't actually say that. You said only that you'd send it to me if I told you I want to read it, which I don't. I take it then that you have reversed your refusal to send the book, and will now be sending me a copy?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

For the most part science has gotten it right Vivisectus. Sometimes theory becomes fact for good reason. That is the aim of science after all, to search for what is true. But there is always the danger that the long tenure of an accepted belief (based on what appears to be solid evidence) can be mistaken. This can be a problem for those rare times that scientists don't get it right. They can keep their accepted position as long as they don't ridicule others for offering a different way of seeing the same thing. The ultimate test is whether it can be backed up empirically.

But can you not see that this is exactly what is happening here? You are so used to your round-world point of view that you are not even giving the flat-earth theory a chance, and dismiss it out of hand. I bet you did not even read the wiki, so you cannot even know what you are talking about. You are not even waiting for the empirical evidence to come in! I had expected more from someone who likes to claim they are in the exact same position, and unable to get their point of view across because of the bias towards the established consensus.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Your implication that I am presenting knowledge with no evidence is unjustified. There is evidence (a lot of evidence) that man does not have free will, and there is evidence that the eyes are not a sense organ. You might not consider his reasons for making these claims as supporting evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

I am more than willing; I would even go so far to say that I am all agog, to have a look at this evidence. Is it anywhere in the book? Can you point it out? I have asked for it again and again, but you seem unable to produce it. At least the flat-earth society maintains a wiki full of explanations for their point of view, complete with a clear case for their point of view. Not that you bothered to read it of course…

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Some things that have been studied have such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence (not just circumstantial) that they deserve to be called facts. The pictures that man has obtained of earth as a sphere, as well as all other celestial bodies, is enough to consider a round earth scientifically sound.

This just shows how unscientific the consensus that the earth is round really is. First off, no theory ever becomes a fact: that is the very basis of science. What happens is that a theory gets such a preponderance of evidence in its favour that it becomes hard to imagine what kind of evidence could disprove it. But even then it is only ever a theory – a way of looking at things. Thinking of matter in terms of atoms, for instance, is a useful theory. It works well at the molecular level. It is only once you start to look at matter on a smaller scale that its limitations become clear. Is the atomic theory “true”? That does not even seem to be a very useful question. It works at many levels, and it is a useful way of looking at things because it allows you to predict, for instance, chemical reactions.

Secondly, those pictures are by no means unambiguous, as I will show you a bit later in this post. And even if they were pretty unambiguous, just like our uncanny ability to hit distant planets with probes even though they are not where we think they are because of instant, efferent sight... something else could be going on!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I would not give equal time or funding to a flat earther because it contravenes everything that we can see visually, and because believing in a flat earth would do nothing to benefit our world. If it did, we might want to take another look, but as far as I know it wouldn't.

Really? You have seen that the earth is round “visually”? You have never been to space: the entire space-program could be a hoax by NASA to re-route funds for other purposes. This is one of the opposing theories. Another is a bit more elaborate: Look at the image below.



Here you can see, visually (as opposed to seeing audibly or olfactorily) a model of the earth as it would be if it was all lit up at the same time. Now imagine a satellite hovering over the bottom left part, only being able to see a circular portion of this flat disc… you would get the exact same picture as you linked to earlier. This, in an oversimplified nutshell for brevities sake, is another opposing theory.

You see? Round-earth theory is just that – a theory. There are people who have different theories. The fact that this theory is not taken just as seriously, and is not receiving the same kind of funding and attention, as the commonly accepted one is evidence of the way the scientific community stifles viewpoints other than its own. There is a conspiracy of silence and ridicule keeping these people down, though I am unsure how you can silently ridicule someone. Maybe gestures are involved somehow.

I must say I am saddened to see that you have joined these bullies, these stubborn block-headed dogmatists, in dismissing these ideas out of hand. Your tragic argument from consequences is transparent in the extreme and utterly unconvincing. Surely you must see how much good could be achieved if all those billions wasted on research into astro-physics and space programs would be spent on worthwhile programs? We could simply buy all Americans free health-care, just by stopping them from wasting their money on NASA. Think of all the lives this would save, of all the misery this would prevent! Do you support a system that creates the finest healthcare facilities, but only allows an affluent minority to avail of them?

On top of this, how much better care of the earth would we take if only we knew and accepted that there will never, ever be another planet for us to go to! So there are two significant benefits to all mankind to believing in this theory, just off the top of my head.

So you can see – both your arguments against believing in a flat earth theory are mere quibbles that are easily refuted. The evidence in favour of a round earth that you proposed is not so strong as to be undeniable, and there are ample benefits to mankind to be gained from believing in the opposing theory. And the feebleness of your arguments really drives home the point that you just hold those ideas because they are part of your world-view, and even considering a different one makes you uncomfortable and elicits a knee-jerk reaction. You are not even waiting for the empirical evidence to come in! How can I possibly make my case clear in the face of all this negativity!
Because while the case for a round earth seems strong, something else could be going on, and a lot of the evidence in favour of the round earth theory is really “circumstantial” – in your personal idiomatic use of the term, anyway. Afterall, a theory is a theory is a theory, and round earth remains just that - a theory.

This means that you are now duty-bound to not only consider the flat earth theory as a viable theory, but you must also do what you are asking me as a reader of your book: to simply accept their theory as true while you wait for corroborating empirical evidence to materialize. And all the evidence that favours the old theory and contradicts the new one simply does not count: something else could be going on. To do anything else is to be a narrow-minded bully, a flunky of the dogmatic old-boys club that is the established consensus.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Darwinism is a theory LadyShea. There are people (not all religious fundies either) who don't agree. As far as the eyes being a sense organ, it is taken for granted that everyone knows this is a fact, but there is a different take as to what's going on. Lessans has every right to demonstrate why he believed science got it wrong. Only time will tell.

Essay - Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live - NYTimes.com

Did you read and understand the essay?

(hint: you did not read and understand the essay)

[Vivisectus]

Mr Safina is not arguing against evolution, or saying that we should consider different theories. He is protesting against labelling it “Darwinism”. This is rather odd in my point of view, as very few people (in my experience) use the term “Darwinism”: they already use the term “Evolution” instead. There are lots of differences between Darwins theory and the way we look at evolution today, and he argues that thinking of the theory in historical terms could limit the way we perceive it today. Personally I do not see what his problem is: our thinking about Evolution has certainly not stagnated, as far as I know.

It is absolutely true that what we know about evolution today would have astonished Darwin. One thing that I expect would have astonished him is how much of his theory is still standing today despite more than a century of research. Another thing that would have astonished (and, I have no doubt, delighted) him would be the parts where he did not quite see what was going on.

It may be that Safina is reacting to the tendency of anti-evolutionists such as creationists to label it all “Darwinism” and then proceed to attack it as if the theory of evolution has not significantly developed beyond Darwin's book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Darwinism is a theory LadyShea. There are people (not all religious fundies either) who don't agree.

Essay - Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live - NYTimes.com

Darwinism isn't even a real thing in science, it's a made made up word. The scientific theory is the Theory of Evolution or simply evolution. Darwin offered the original basis of that theory, but science has continued to improve upon his ideas and added mountains of evidence (as your article points out) as well as added things he didn't know about to the theory. No scientists or scientifically minded person calls it Darwinism or limits what is known about evolution to what Darwin had to say.

Name someone who has studied the evidence yet disagrees with evolution on other than religious grounds.

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as the eyes being a sense organ, it is taken for granted that everyone knows this is a fact, but there is a different take as to what's going on. Lessans has every right to demonstrate why he believed science got it wrong. Only time will tell.

The eyes "have been studied" and "have such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" that they are sense organs (not just circumstantial) that the eyes being a sense organ deserves to be called a fact.

Sure anyone has the right to try to demonstrate why they think science is wrong about anything, hence the Flat Earthers

[LadyShea]

Dupe

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added to this post: LadyShea, the fact that he can express himself was not the point I was making when I posted his blog entry. In fact, this had nothing to do with the fact that he can express himself.

Then why did you say "no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject" if that's not what you meant?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all can express ourselves in this society.

Yes, that was my point. Your original post indicated you felt that was not the case, because you said so explicitly when you said "no one gets a chance to express their thoughts on a subject".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What disturbs me is the fact that science has turned some theories (however true they may appear) into concrete facts, which then makes anyone who dares to oppose these "facts" as being ignorant woos.

There is nobody stopping them from doing studies and experiments and working up the math and/or offering evidence and argument against a theory. This happens in science all the time. Google the Susskind-Hawking battle for an example of this.

Opposition without evidence is worthless however. Statements of disagreement without evidential support are just assertions. Ignorant woos don't have evidence, they have assertions. If they brought hard evidence or math or compelling arguments to the table, they wouldn't be ignorant woos, they would be valid scientists doing valid science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This prevents different points of view on a theory from ever entering the public realm because it's not considered "scientific", and science has the monopoly.

Differing points of view are all over the public realm in the form of books, essays, magazines, blogs, live lectures, videos, discussion forums, podcasts, radio programs, websites, conventions and expos. Surveys indicate a large percentage of Americans (close to half) agree with various "different views" over scientific views when it comes to topics like evolution and the existence of ghosts.

So, I ask again, what are you talking about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you didn't actually say that. You said only that you'd send it to me if I told you I want to read it, which I don't. I take it then that you have reversed your refusal to send the book, and will now be sending me a copy?

Call me a liar. You blew it big time. I'm not sending you the book. Don't ever ask me for a copy of the book again. Blame me all you want. This has everything to do with your game playing and your manipulation. I am done talking about this, so don't post anything related to this issue. I hope you hear me, or I will take it upon myself to delete your posts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Darwinism isn't even a real thing in science, it's a made made up word. The scientific theory is the Theory of Evolution or simply evolution. Darwin offered the original basis of that theory, but science has continued to improve upon his ideas and added mountains of evidence (as your article points out) as well as added things he didn't know about to the theory. No scientists or scientifically minded person calls it Darwinism or limits what is known about evolution to what Darwin had to say.

Name someone who has studied the evidence yet disagrees with evolution on other than religious grounds.

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The eyes "have been studied" and "have such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence" that they are sense organs (not just circumstantial) that the eyes being a sense organ deserves to be called a fact.

Sure anyone has the right to try to demonstrate why they think science is wrong about anything, hence the Flat Earthers

I am not going to get into this again to prove that your analysis is better than Lessans. It is so inferior that it makes me disgusted that someone like you could come off like such a big shot that she could actually shut this thread down by people joining her bandwagon. There is something misguided by the idea that the eyes work like the other four. You will continue to use your knowledge of what determines truth to dispell what Lessans has observed. You're not being objective LadyShea. You hold the view of science, and everything you purport is true you believe has been proven, although Lone Ranger has already admitted that everything science purports is true is not set in stone by any stretch of the imagination. So how is it that YOU, by all accounts, can prove Lessans wrong unless you want him to be wrong in the worst way possible?