Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because what I'm being asked really doesn't relate to what he discovered. I told you all along that you are coming from a perspective regarding light that you believe disproves his claim. I don't. And, once again, this was not how he came to his finding therefore it's not how his claim is going to be validated. I see no reason why I should continue to answer questions regarding photons that will not get us anywhere. If you call that evading, oh well.
|
I didn't ask you about any of this. I was simply pointing out the difference between the behaviour you were talking about and the behaviour we were actually asking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And just because I couldn't reconcile certain contradictions in my explanation, or I couldn't explain the mechanism behind efferent vision, still does not prove him wrong.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Actually, irreconcilable contradictions do prove him wrong. That is as strong as disproof can possibly get.
|
Spacemonkey, there are no irreconcilable contradictions. If you want to believe that there are, go on believing, but your reasoning is incorrect. |
You already told me that there were. Those are your own words just above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You still haven't thought it through. That is what you persistently refused to do. Whenever we would try to get you to think things through you would weasel and evade instead. And people are quite right to take your responses as proof that you don't know what your talking about.
|
Bingo! Your questions make it seem like his observations couldn't be true in light of all the opposing evidence. That's why I am not answering these questions anymore... |
Right. So you refuse to answer questions when doing so would reveal your father to have been wrong. Got it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, it's because efferent vision has no evidential support, is directly refuted by all of the available evidence, and cannot be explained without contradiction. Again, that's as strong as an opposing case can ever get.
|
That is so not true Spacemonkey. You are failing to understand why there is a discrepancy between light that travels (afferent vision) and light that allows the object to be seen since light, in the efferent account, becomes a necessary condition of sight, not a cause. Let's not get into this again. |
You can't distinguish between light that travels and any other kind of light, because ALL light travels, as you have yourself agreed. This is yet another of those irreconcilable contradictions which you have both acknowledged and denied to exist. All the evidence opposes him, none of it supports him, and you can't explain his claims without contradiction. All of this is perfectly true, and it is as strong as an opposing case can ever possibly get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not saying that anyone should trust only intuition when it comes to the book. I was talking about parents whose intuition about their child is oftentimes correct. Many people have an intuition that they are dying, and they usually are right, before any tests prove it, or they have an intuition that someone is out to hurt them, only to find out later that this person was a killer. Things like that. When it comes to the book, I can only say that empirical proof will come soon enough. In the meantime, I would hope that you would not give up on this work even if it's keeping the book in the back of your mind for later reference when more scientists have a chance to confirm its validity.
|
You've explicitly stated that we should trust intuition over evidence, stating that the later can be unreliable (while ignoring that intuition is also unreliable, and even more so). So when should we trust intuition over actual evidence and when should we not? By your responses it would seem you think we should trust intuition whenever the evidence doesn't appear to support what we really want to believe. Can you offer better criteria for when we should trust intuition?