Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
In your opinion, has your weaseling worked? Do you think your dishonest evasion of awkward questions been better than being direct and honest would have been? If you have no idea, why keep doing it?
|
[silence] |
You didn't answer this bit, Peacegirl. Yet it was the most important part of my post. Has your dishonest weaseling actually worked?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Do you realize that you are doing the exact same things on this topic as you did when discussing the book? You are still making things up, weaseling, and asking us to accept faith and intuition over actual evidence.
|
No I'm not Spacemonkey. |
Yes, you are. You have blatantly made things up that you cannot support (such as children being sicker and weaker now than in the past, or seatbelts causing harm less often than vaccines), you have weaseled out of answering direct questions concerning your own claims (such as whether autism rates have gone up or down since the removal of mercury from vaccines), and you have explicitly claimed that we should sometimes follow intuition over actual evidence. These are the very same kinds of behaviours you engaged in when discussing the book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But regardless, you haven't here answered what I asked: What has actually happened in those cases where you honestly admitted to not knowing something instead evading and weaseling? Has the outcome been all that terrible? Has it been any worse than when you've evaded and weaseled out of answering? Has anyone ever criticized you or your father on the grounds that you've admitted to not knowing an answer to something?
|
Because you know that people will use it against me, just like in a court of law certain circumstantial situations make it appear that the person is guilty. People want me to admit that the moons of Jupiter is enough evidence to discredit Lessans' claim. If I can't give an alternate explanation that would explain this phenomenon, that would count as a strike against my father. That's crazy. |
You haven't answered
any of the questions you just responded to. But why is it crazy to count it as a strike against your father that there are phenomena explainable on the standard account that his alternative account cannot explain at all? Why shouldn't that count against him?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So do you think it is a good idea then to be dishonest and evasive whenever you fear people may use your honesty against you? Does that actually solve anything? Which do you think gives the worse impression - seeing you get something wrong but honestly admitting the mistake, or seeing you get something wrong and then dishonestly weaseling and evading the issue?
|
Like I said, in the early days of this thread showing ignorance on the topic of optics or physics would have immediately sent this book to the trash bin. I didn't want that to happen because it wouldn't have been a fair assessment. |
You still haven't answered what I just asked. You are weaseling here in a discussion of your own weaseling. If you answer a question and get things wrong, then yes, people may conclude (quote correctly) that you don't know what you're talking about. But when you lie, weasel, and evade people will conclude that you don't know what you are talking about
and also that you are not an honest person. So which strategy is better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So go ahead and question them. Tell us what standards you think we should be using instead. Do you think we should all adopt blind uncritical acceptance? Do you think we should ignore evidence and flat-out contradictions proving him wrong? Do you think we should share your faith that future evidence will vindicate him? Do you think we should adopt standards which if adopted universally would not allow us to rule out a flat Earth?
|
There is proof of a round earth; there is not proof of afferent vision even though scientists think proof has been established. |
There is not absolutely conclusive proof for a round Earth of the sort you demand for disproving Lessans claims. After all, it is always possible that something else may be going on. And you haven't answered the question her either. If you think our standards are questionable, then you need to tell us what standards you think we should be using instead. So far we are using the same standards of evidence and rationality that we use for everything else. Do you think we should make an exception for your father's work? Do you think we should trust in faith and intuition instead of the preponderance of evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Is not having an answer going to be worse than making up a wrong answer and then dishonestly weaseling and evading when this is pointed out? How bad has the actual outcome and response been when you've simply been honest and admitted that you don't know something?
|
This is the umpteenth time you've asked me this. I answered you already. |
Yes, I have asked this a few times. But no, you have not yet answered it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
People want to see how I do my research to determine if they can use it against me as it relates to my discernment of the book.
|
And so far it seems that they can, as your 'research' has consisted of nothing more than scouring the internet for sources which appear to support what you already believe and want to keep believing, which you then cut and paste without having made the slightest effort to verify or critically analyze.