[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know. I might not have lasted as long as I have if I hadn't weaseled in the beginning. I don't think I weasel anymore, although you might think I do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So lets' summarize: You say you have weaseled in the past, but that you don't weasel any more, i.e. you are making a point of (allegedly) no longer engaging in this kind of behaviour. Yet you also say that you haven't made any attempt to change your behaviour in this thread, or identified any behaviour that you think you should change. How does that work?

It worked in the past; I don't need to weasel now. And stop sounding like Dr. Phil.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I have answered most of the questions regarding vaccines. I have found supporting evidence that shows there is a correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism in some children. I have found reports saying that Andrew Wakefield's research was confirmed. I have read reports where children were observed as being less robust after mass vaccinations. I don't know all the answers and I don't claim to, but as a parent the vaccine schedule that is now up to 36 doses before age 2 and starting in infancy is disturbing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Non sequitur.

Where is what I said a non-sequitur?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Even if all of this were true, you have still made things up, weaseled out of answering questions, and dismissed evidence in favour of intuition. Just like I said.

What have I made up? As I said, I will trust a parent's observations, especially when the connection between a vaccine and a radical change in their child's behavior (one hour after the shot) is staring us right in the face.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because appearances are not always correct. What appears to be true isn't always true, especially when someone sees something from a different perspective that was never considered.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what? How does this show that we should not count it as evidence against Lessans that there are things his account can't explain which our account can? If it were the other away around - with Lessans being able to explain phenomena that the afferent account could not explain, would you recommend that we all ignore this and deny it as evidence in his favour just because "apearances are not always correct"?

That is why I am saying that further empirical testing should give us more information, but it has to be an unbiased test. The tests that have been run were only trying to confirm what they have taken for granted is a fact, which can easily be skewed in the direction of what they are looking to find.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really not sure. I really hate to think that people would use the fact that my father wasn't an astronomer as some kind of proof that he didn't know what he was talking about, and by proxy, me as well.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They don't. They use the fact that he made claims which any competent astronomer knows for a fact to be wrong, as evidence that he did not know what he was talking about.

But that goes back to the issue of how the efferent position changes the function of light, not the properties of light. It's like driving on two sides of the highway. They are diametrically opposed which brings a different set of factors that you are failing to see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, it is pretty conclusive that the earth is round. The flat earthers have not proved their theory. All they are doing is making assertions. I believe more experiments will prove that my father was correct. Obviously, if it can't be empirically tested, then his claim will never be confirmed or denied.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's also pretty conclusive that vision is afferent and delayed. Lessans certainly hasn't proved his theory, though he sure makes several assertions. Why isn't it possible that the Earth is flat and something else is going on that merely makes it seem round? After all, you seem to think that an unexplained "something else might be going on there" is enough to make evidence against efferent vision less than conclusive. The evidence in both cases is just as strong, and in neither case is it absolutely conclusive beyond any remote possibility of error.

The evidence is not as strong in favoring a flat earth. So far there is no empirical evidence that supports a flat earth over a round earth. Please don't compare this to Lessans' claim because evidence (through testing) may end up in his favor afterall.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. Evidence is crucial, but you are discounting his evidence because he didn't use the scientific method...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I dismiss his unsupported claims because he has no evidence at all. I am not discounting his evidence, as he doesn't have any for us to discount.

You keep saying this even in regard to his proof of determinism. Maybe it's you that won't allow yourself to give him the benefit of the doubt before telling me that this is a non-discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I did. I don't know how it would have turned out. Maybe people would have thought I was a troll and that would have been the end of the thread.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You think people would have been more likely to view you as a troll if you had honestly admitted to not knowing things instead of constantly weaseling and evading questions? Do you really think the thread could not have continued if you'd been honest instead of trying (rather transparently) to hide your ignorance?

Maybe it would have; maybe it wouldn't have, but at the time it wasn't a chance worth taking. Now I don't care.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true Spacemonkey; how can you say that in all honesty? I have learned a lot from this research, so even if no one in here does my efforts have not been for naught. I doubt if you have been following the research that I have posted.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What I said was perfectly true, and you have just confirmed it again by cutting and pasting yet another source that you hope supports what you already believe and which you have no doubt made no attempt whatsoever to verify for accuracy.

What does cutting and pasting have to do anything? I am reading these articles that provide information which contradicts government sponsored studies. Doesn't LadyShea cut and paste? I am making an effort to verify these studies for accuracy and what I am finding is that the government sponsored studies are often skewed in favor of Big Pharma. So now what? Is she checking them for accuracy? Is she a weasel? Why am I being the only one targeted as being a weasel?