Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't hold Lessans to a different standard.
|
That is a monstrous lie, and you know it. |
It is not a monstrous lie. He gave his observations, but because he didn't write the data down, you tell me I hold him to a different standard. I don't.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
The only "evidence" you've been able to provide for Lessans' claims is his and your say-so.
Despite many requests, you have failed to provide so much as a single shred of evidence that these so-called "astute observations" ever even took place.
|
I'm sorry but giving the evidence you demand is not possible, therefore more testing needs to be done. Why do you think I want to end the conversation on the eyes? Let time be the judge. I am tired of providing the entertainment in here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Yet you immediately dismiss the literally millions of carefully-conducted, mutually-consistent studies which refute his claims.
|
What can I do? I believe Lessans was right. I do not believe there are millions of carefully-conducted, mutually-consistent studies. That's a lot of studies. Where have they proved conclusively that dogs recognize their owner's faces without other cues? Therefore, how can you honesty tell me that science's version of the afferent model of sight is airtight and that there is no possibility of an alternate model?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
You expect us to accept Lessans' assertions on no evidence whatsoever -- even you freely admit that you can provide no empirical evidence for his claims. But no amount of contrary evidence is sufficient to make you question his claims.
That's the very definition of a double standard!
|
Maybe you count this as a double standard, but I don't see it that way. I understand his reasoning, and I don't believe the eyes work in the same way as the other senses. There are distinct differences.