A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

So far, we have seen that if we apply the standards that are required for the book to be considered plausible to other ideas, then the belief in a flat earth, the existence of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster are also plausible.

But now we have an important new piece of Lessanese science to consider: the description or demonstration as evidence. If I describe something, and do so correctly, then this description counts as evidence for the correctness if the description!

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

He provided evidence by correctly describing what he observed.

Now most people consider this problematic, because you end up in rather a loop: how do you determine if a description is correct? You look for evidence. But the description, if correct, IS the evidence? But there can also be incorrect descriptions... how can we tell the correct ones, which are evidence for themselves, from the incorrect ones, which are not evidence for themselves?

Peacegirl, of course, has the answer. She just checks if they are "spot on". Or "Astute".

The rest of us will just have to take her word for it that the description of the Loch Ness Monster as a large creature with a long neck and four flippers is incorrect and the description of sight as efferent is correct, and hereby also proven to be correct.

[Vivisectus]

Ah wait - let us not forget we have also established that unless you are conversant with all of the literature on a subject you are not capable of understanding any part of it as it has been explained to you, and you cannot have a reasonably informed opinion on it. This is important, as this means that because I am not up to speed on the latest works on werewolf-research means that my strong conviction that there is no such thing is completely out of left field.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Literacy isn't your strong point.

Read it again: The. First. Two. Chapters.



You remember how you told us that this was all we had to read in order to grok Lessans, correct? In that, at least, you were correct.

Actually, I put the first three chapters online but I narrowed it down to two because at least it would be a start. The words you used baffle me. You found the first two chapters appalling, torturous? Do you actually think I believe that you read these chapters? I don't. I think you are copying from the general consensus in here. There is nothing appalling in these chapters whatsoever. I compiled it and I think I did a darn good job.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Is this in the glorious new world which will begin to happen after everyone is dead?

You won't lose once the new world is here, but you are doing everything you can to prevent this possibility because we'll all be dead by the time the new world arrives.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But this is pretty-much exactly what Lessans has done. He clearly wanted to try to ride the coattails of the hard-earned respect that science and mathematics have earned, so he insisted on calling his work "scientific" -- even though it's the exact opposite of scientific by the word's actual definition.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

That's what happens when you try to be all things to all people. He plainly used the word "scientific" in an attempt to give himself cred with scientists. He described "God" in personal terms that would be comfortable to the Judeo-Christian mind, even though he apparently didn't believe in a personal God, to give himself cred with the religiously oriented.

That's not true. He didn't try to win cred with scientists and at the same time describe God in personal terms that would be comfortable with the Judeo-Christian mind. He saw how these two worlds, the religious and the scientific are reconciled. God is a mathematical reality (the laws that govern our universe); and there is design to this world, but this has nothing to do with religion or creationism. I like the fact that God is used metaphorically. It offers comfort just to know that these laws are real and are moving us toward an age of peace and brotherhood.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Thing is, any idiot could see Lessans was intentionally misusing the words at issue in a transparent ploy to gain support. His apparent refusal to recognize that readers would easily see through the ruse borders on outright contempt for those readers.

He had no contempt for anyone because he wasn't intentionally misusing words. There was no ploy. You're making it sound like a conspiracy theory. All there is is your misguided interpretation of what you think Lessans' intentions were. It's completely wrong Maturin.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

The funny part is Lessans' insistence that definitions which don't correspond to reality are useless. Lessans defined "scientific" as synonymous with "undeniable," which doesn't correspond to scientific reality in any way, shape or form. Thus, by his own criterion, Lessans' definition of "scientific" is useless.

I will say it one more time; he clarified what he meant by these words. He didn't want people to get confused just because he interchanged the words in the text. You are failing to understand that his observations are empirical and need to be recognized as part of the scientific process. You denounce everything he has written and you say it with such self-righteousness that it's difficult to listen to.

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.

Empirical evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's not a misrepresentation. First, I didn't say that Lessans "used" taxpayer money. You should stop intentionally misstating what other people say.

What I did write was that taxpayer funds got the case dismissed, which is accurate. Frivolous lawsuits don't dismiss themselves. Who do you think was paying the salaries of the assistant U.S. attorney who filed the motion to dismiss, the law clerk who prepared the dismissal order and/or the judge who signed the order?

It never got to that point Maturin. He never got a response, which didn't surprise him. They probably threw the letter out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it was not a frivolous lawsuit if you understood his reasons and the desperate position he was in.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Clearly, you haven't the first clue what "frivolous" means in this context. (Hint - it has nothing to do with motivations.)

I know what frivolous means, sir. It means a lawsuit that has no real basis. My question is why are you here? Why don't you find something better to do than to use this thread as a joke and waste my time and yours?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A frivolous lawsuit is one which lacks legal merit. Being granted an audience with the sitting President is not any kind of legal right, so suing for being refused an audience lacks legal merit. Therefore frivolous.

He understood that. He did this as a last ditch effort. He knew it wouldn't be taken seriously. It was an attempt to get the public's attention because he couldn't get it any other way.

After that our political leaders had two choices; to believe that I
was a genius or a crackpot. Did I really give them a choice? Is it any
wonder I am frustrated and exhausted?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you telling me that if this is a true discovery that will change the world, he can't use the term scientific discovery because he didn't use the right methodology?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, without scientific methodology being employed, or applicable, a claim cannot be said to be scientific. For example your math equation that .5 = .5 is not a scientific claim at all, it's not an observation, nor is it a testable or falsifiable proposition. The numbers are just symbols for quantity...so why do you keep using it as an analogy?

Because it's an observation that doesn't require logic to justify it.

[Vivisectus]

You won't lose once the new world is here, but you are doing everything you can to prevent this possibility because we'll all be dead by the time the new world arrives

Amazing... I am doing that because we will all be dead by the time the new world arrives?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You are failing to understand that his observations are empirical and need to be recognized as part of the scientific process.

So basically, anything your father says should be considered as scientifically underpinned facts?

I must say you are making real progress: you are barely trying to hide your religious belief anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazing... I am doing that because we will all be dead by the time the new world arrives?

Your smirks are very unbecoming. I refuse to answer this post.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your smirks are very unbecoming. I refuse to answer this post.

Thats a pity - it was almost as good as the description that is evidence for it's own correctness. Who knows what other little gems you would have produced.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It never got to that point Maturin. He never got a response, which didn't surprise him. They probably threw the letter out.

Of course it got to that point. By Lessans' own description the document wasn't a "letter" but a complaint. The word "complaint" is a term of art used to describe the document used to initiate a civil lawsuit. Lessans said that he filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They assigned it a case number and everything!

Was Lessans telling the truth when he described the document as a complaint? Was he telling the truth when he wrote that it was filed in a federal court and assigned a case number? If so, then it mos def got to that point, "that point" being the point at which formal dismissal was required. At taxpayer expense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what frivolous means, sir. It means a lawsuit that has no real basis.

You know now, after having looked it up. You didn't know before, else you wouldn't have written that frivolousness is tied to motives or "desperate positions."

The term "frivolous" describes Lessans' lawsuit perfectly. It was utterly bereft of legal merit. Here's a description of frivolousness that I've always found kinda amusing:

If you don’t read a lot of judicial opinions, you may not understand the full weight of what it means when a judge calls an argument “frivolous” or “ridiculous.” Perhaps an analogy will help explain the attitude of judges.

Imagine a group of professional scientists who have met to discuss important issues of physics and chemistry, and then someone comes into their meeting and challenges them to prove that the earth revolves around the sun. At first, they might be unable to believe that the challenger is serious. Eventually, they might be polite enough to explain the observations and calculations which lead inevitably to the conclusion that the earth does indeed revolve around the sun. Suppose the challenger is not convinced, but insists that there is actually no evidence that the earth revolves around the sun, and that all of the calculations of the scientists are deliberately misleading. At that point, they will be jaw-droppingly astounded, and will no longer be polite, but will evict the challenger/lunatic from their meeting because he is wasting their time.

That is the way judges view tax protesters. At first, they try to be civil and treat the claims as seriously as they can. However, after dismissing case after case with the same insane claims, sometimes by the same litigant, judges start pulling out the dictionary to see how many synonyms they can find for “absurd.”

. . .

So, when a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. It doesn’t mean that the case wasn’t well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were “wrong.” The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My question is why are you here?

Train wrecks, literal and figurative alike, engender morbid curiosity I reckon.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you find something better to do than to use this thread as a joke and waste my time and yours?

I don't know! Why are you always holding forth on subjects about which you know little or nothing, only to have your ass handed to you over and over? These are mysteries!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It never got to that point Maturin. He never got a response, which didn't surprise him. They probably threw the letter out.

He merely wrote a letter to President Nixon. He actually filed a lawsuit against Carter. Lawsuits can't just be thrown away as letters can be. They must be processed through the court system for review and dismissal.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, I put the first three chapters online but I narrowed it down to two because at least it would be a start. The words you used baffle me. You found the first two chapters appalling, torturous? Do you actually think I believe that you read these chapters? I don't. I think you are copying from the general consensus in here. There is nothing appalling in these chapters whatsoever. I compiled it and I think I did a darn good job.

There is plenty appalling in the first two chapters, and the introduction is astoundingly appalling. We find fallacies and leaps of logic and the very, very dreadful imaginary conversations with brainless sycophants..."Oh look, here comes a Rabbi!"

[LadyShea]

That's not true. He didn't try to win cred with scientists and at the same time describe God in personal terms that would be comfortable with the Judeo-Christian mind. He saw how these two worlds, the religious and the scientific are reconciled. God is a mathematical reality (the laws that govern our universe); and there is design to this world, but this has nothing to do with religion or creationism. I like the fact that God is used metaphorically. It offers comfort just to know that these laws are real and are moving us toward an age of peace and brotherhood.

? So in chapter one when he tells a Rabbi that he knows God is real, so he doesn't need to attend synagogue, he wasn't trying to comfort the Rabbi's "Judeo/Christian" mind? When he further discussed it with a priest and alluded to his discovery being "God's miracle", he wasn't trying to make the priest more comfortable and therefore more likely to listen?

He made zero mention of God in his reported discussion with Eric Johnson, and stuck to the "scientific changes" Johnson had written about. Again, tailoring his message to make the listener more comfortable.

You are so full of shit. He was a salesman for fuckssake...tailoring language and reference points to the listeners comfort zone is like breathing to a good salesperson.

The book switches from God as a personal being as in a companion when Lessans states "Man does not stand alone", to a metaphor for physical laws. This has been pointed out to you before. The metaphoric use is not consistent.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but the all things to all people tactic is absolutely used throughout the book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's an observation that doesn't require logic to justify it.

Mathematical equations are not observations nor are they logical constructs. You told me to read up on epistemology, so I did. Didn't you do the same? Maybe you should

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Of course it got to that point. By Lessans' own description the document wasn't a "letter" but a complaint. The word "complaint" is a term of art used to describe the document used to initiate a civil lawsuit. Lessans said that he filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They assigned it a case number and everything!

Was Lessans telling the truth when he described the document as a complaint? Was he telling the truth when he wrote that it was filed in a federal court and assigned a case number? If so, then it mos def got to that point, "that point" being the point at which formal dismissal was required. At taxpayer expense.

They never responded, and, yes, my father would have probably agreed that it was not the best idea. As I stated, he did this out of desperation. I'm asking you to be honest as to whether you would have this kind of reaction if you knew this was a genuine discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what frivolous means, sir. It means a lawsuit that has no real basis.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

You know now, after having looked it up. You didn't know before, else you wouldn't have written that frivolousness is tied to motives or "desperate positions."

Nope, I did not look it up.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

The term "frivolous" describes Lessans' lawsuit perfectly. It was utterly bereft of legal merit. Here's a description of frivolousness that I've always found kinda amusing:

. . .

So, when a judge calls an argument “ridiculous” or “frivolous,” it is absolutely the worst thing the judge could say. It means that the person arguing the case has absolutely no idea of what he is doing, and has completely wasted everyone’s time. It doesn’t mean that the case wasn’t well argued, or that judge simply decided for the other side, it means that there was no other side. The argument was absolutely, positively, incompetent. The judge is not telling you that you that you were “wrong.” The judge is telling you that you are out of your mind.

It probably was a frivolous lawsuit, according to the definition, but Lessans was using anything he could to get someone to listen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My question is why are you here?

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

Train wrecks, literal and figurative alike, engender morbid curiosity I reckon.

But it's a long trainwreck. Think of all the hours that you're wasting that could be used for more satisfying endeavors.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you find something better to do than to use this thread as a joke and waste my time and yours?

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

I don't know! Why are you always holding forth on subjects about which you know little or nothing, only to have your ass handed to you over and over? These are mysteries!

You've tried your best, now go do something constructive. I know you can't leave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mathematical equations are not observations nor are they logical constructs. You told me to read up on epistemology, so I did. Didn't you do the same? Maybe you should

It can be seen with direct perception that two plus two equals four. You don't need a logical construct to figure this out.

[LadyShea]

You can't leave either peacegirl, so why are you any better in that regard than the rest of us?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't leave either peacegirl, so why are you any better in that regard than the rest of us?

I didn't say I was. It's just that Maturin has no questions, just criticism and ridicule. If the only reason he's here is to enjoy the trainwreck, it's a pretty long trainwreck. I would think it would get old by now and he could do more contructive things.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

? So in chapter one when he tells a Rabbi that he knows God is real, so he doesn't need to attend synagogue, he wasn't trying to comfort the Rabbi's "Judeo/Christian" mind?

Of course it's better to speak in someone's language. He wasn't trying to deceive the Rabbi which is what you are falsely accusing him of.

p. 23 The theologians I contacted, though they
admit they pray to God for deliverance from evil also believe it is
impossible for man to accomplish this apparent miracle. In a sense
they are right because the law that was discovered is equivalent to the
law that inheres in the solar system, over which we have no control.
Any system of established dogma which shackles man’s mind and
prevents scientific investigation needs to be exposed, so that the truth
can be revealed. This is much easier said than done because the
knowledge of what it means that man’s will is not free was buried
deeper than atomic energy, and presents problems that are almost
insurmountable. Convincing a few people of this truth is one thing;
convincing the entire world is something else. Supposing the very
people whose understanding it is necessary to reach refuse to examine
the facts on the grounds that the discovery could not be valid because
it starts out with the premise that man’s will is not free.

To show you
how confused are those who have been guiding us, a rabbi was told
that the author of the book “Decline and Fall of All Evil” has the
permanent solution to every problem of human relation, and he
replied, “How do we know that God wants us to remove all evil?”
Now you tell me, if he is doubtful of this why do all theologians ask
God in the Lord’s Prayer to deliver us from evil? Another rabbi
criticized me for not attending the synagogue to which I replied, “Isn’t
the reason you go to the Temple due to your faith in God, your belief
that one day He will reveal Himself to all mankind?” “That is true,”
he answered. “Well you see, Rabbi, the reason I don’t go to the
synagogue is because I know for a fact that God is real. I don’t have
faith or believe this; I know that 2+2=4; I don’t have faith or believe
that this is true.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When he further discussed it with a priest and alluded to his discovery being "God's miracle", he wasn't trying to make the priest more comfortable and therefore more likely to listen?

Of course he used language that he knew was familiar to them. What's wrong with that? But he didn't change the meaning of his words. He actually explained to the priest what Judgement Day actually means in terms of this knowledge.

p. 24 Still hoping that I could convince a member of the
clergy to hear what I had to say, I phoned a Catholic priest for an
appointment and our conversation went as follows:

“What do you want to see me about?”

“Father, when you utter the words of the Lord’s Prayer I take for
granted that you are sincere and would like to see us delivered from
evil, isn’t that true?”

“Certainly, what kind of question is that?”

“Well the reason I had to ask is because I have just made a
scientific discovery that will bring about the actual fulfillment of this
prayer, this deliverance from evil.”

“What’s that you say? Deliver mankind from evil? Absolutely
impossible, it cannot be done.”

“But how can you know without first finding out what it is I have
discovered? Isn’t this your fervent wish, that God perform such a
miracle?”

“It is.”

“Well then, why don’t you let me come out and show you exactly
how all evil must decline and fall as a direct consequence?”

“It’s impossible, that’s why I’m not interested. The only time such
a world will become a reality is on Judgment Day.”
“But that’s just the point; this Judgment Day when interpreted
properly has actually arrived because it conforms to the basic
principle.”

“This still doesn’t convince me that I should devote my precious
time to what sounds ridiculous.”

“Sounds can be deceiving, Father. Who believed the first
astronomer when he predicted an eclipse, or Einstein when he revealed
the potential of atomic energy? If I told you without adequate proof
that this discovery will bring about the inception of the Golden Age
your skepticism would not be an unwarranted reaction, but the actual
proof is explicit and undeniable. It is only natural for you to be
skeptical, Father, but this is never a sufficient reason to exclude the
possibility of a scientific miracle.”

“I’m afraid that I will have to end this conversation. My advice is
to take what you have to one of the secular universities. I’m sorry I
couldn’t be more helpful but thanks for calling anyway.”

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He made zero mention of God in his reported discussion with Eric Johnson, and stuck to the "scientific changes" Johnson had written about. Again, tailoring his message to make the listener more comfortable.

Who in the world doesn't tailor his presentation to the individual or group he is addressing, but this doesn't change the message. The things you come up with are so ridiculous, as if his addressing people using the word God because they are religious negates the truth of his knowledge. You're grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are so full of shit. He was a salesman for fuckssake...tailoring language and reference points to the listeners comfort zone is like breathing to a good salesperson.

Oh my god LadyShea. It's amazing how a woman who is trying so hard to be objective is so unobjective. How can you equate the fact that he was a salesman to being a liar. You are the one full of shit woman.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The book switches from God as a personal being as in a companion when Lessans states "Man does not stand alone", to a metaphor for physical laws. This has been pointed out to you before. The metaphoric use is not consistent.

No, Lessans agreed with Morrison's reasoning that man does not stand alone over Huxleys, that man stands alone because of the knowledge that man does not have free will. Lessans never implied that God is a companion although it is comforting to me to think of God that way. Regardless, there are physical laws that are leading us toward an age when there will be peace on earth, and there's nothing we can do about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but the all things to all people tactic is absolutely used throughout the book.

He stated that God is a mathematical reality, not a personal being. I'm not sure what you mean by "the all things to all people tactic."

p. 61 By now I hope you
understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything
that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using
the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave
me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force
that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the
direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will
Durant’s analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what
obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not
satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving
that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God
made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my
nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is
absolutely true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can be seen with direct perception that one two plus two equals four. You don't need a logical construct to figure this out.

One of the criticisms that empiricists would put forth is that “one plus one is two” is trivial. It is tautological, meaning it is true, sure, but not because it is self-evident: It is true because we made it that way. One plus one is the definition of two, and so with the rest of mathematics. We created math in such a way that it works consistently for us! Epistemology

So, in comparing Lessans observations to mathematics epistemologically, are you similarly saying that he simply defined his statements into being true as humans have done with math?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I was. It's just that Maturin has no questions, just criticism and ridicule. If the only reason he's here is to enjoy the trainwreck, it's a pretty long trainwreck. I would think it would get old by now and he could do more contructive things.

He does lots of constructive things in his personal and professional life. As do the rest of us participants. This is an amusing or interesting diversion for him, and many of us.

Don't you have more constructive things to be doing, like marketing the book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, in comparing Lessans observations to mathematics epistemologically, are you similarly saying that he simply defined his statements into being true as humans have done with math?

I am saying that he didn't have to turn what he perceived into a syllogism (which is often required when a truth cannot be seen directly), just as you don't need to make a syllogism out of the observation that 2=1+1.

[LadyShea]

WTF? You said on the one hand

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't try to win cred with scientists and at the same time describe God in personal terms that would be comfortable with the Judeo-Christian mind.

Then admitted that he used familiar language to make listeners more comfortable...WHICH IS EXACTLY THE POINT I WAS MAKING

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who in the world doesn't tailor his presentation to the individual or group he is addressing, but this doesn't change the message. The things you come up with are so ridiculous, as if his addressing people using the word God because they are religious negates the truth of his knowledge. You're grasping at straws.

Maturin pointed out that he tried to win credit with readers both scientific and religious with his use of language, which he absolutely did, and which I gave examples of.

Using the term God, even metaphorically, wouldn't be at all necessary, or desirable, if the intended audience were all scientists. They don't need or want a religious euphemism to encompass all the laws of the universe. Religious people, OTOH, are made much more comfortable by the word God, and the allusions to a God that gives a shit about humans, as many distrust and fear the idea of an indifferent Universe.

Using the words scientific and mathematical to mean undeniable was a way to try to get scientifically minded people to not categorize the whole thing as purely philosophical or religious. Using the word God as a euphemism for the Universe was a way to make his ideas comfortable to the Judeo-Christian mind.

That's what both I and Maturin meant by "all things to all people". He used metaphors and idiosyncratic definitions tactically to gain support.

So how am I being ridiculous?