[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And it is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone except the terminally concussed that that is exactly Maturins point. But it seems that this particular universal law is far from robust: it shrivels up at the merest hint of criticism, it withers in the presence of nay-sayers, it wilts like a hot-house flower in a cold February wind when exposed to skepticism and seems to require a whole set of special circumstances in order to even be detectable.

In fact, this universal, mathematical law is so ethereal, so very very fragile that it can only come out if everybody present already believes in it. When even a few people do not believe it, it seems, it stays completely undetectable.

Where normal theories are born out by observations of reality, this one is different: it requires reality to be altered first, and then we will all see how true it is. First everyone needs to agree with the book about free will and conscience and act accordingly: only then, in the Changed Conditions, will any evidence materialize. Until then, all we have to go on is the claims in the book.

It is a part of the wonderful circular thinking that permeates the book. In order to see that it is correct, everyone first needs to agree that it IS correct and act accordingly. Once the Brave New World is underway, we will actually get some evidence that it works as it claims it does... in the mean time, we will just have to take the books word for it. It does not offer any reason to believe that conscience works as it says it does: it makes a strong claim THAT it does, and encourages people to imagine that they feel like it does, but that is all I can find.

You have claimed in the past that by explaining what he believes, your father also demonstrated that it works that way, but in order to call something a demonstration in that fashion, some logical evidence needs to be present: it must be shown that something must logically be that way. But nothing of the kind is proffered in the book: you yourself have been unable to find it.

Strange that it never occurred to this visionary genius, this adept observer of human behavior and the sagacious inventor of the translucent robe and sexy jacket to provide people with a reason his book is correct.

It's funny how you default into your little harangue about the book not demonstrating anything. The knowledge is much more than anything logic can tell us, which can be unsound. His findings come from astute observation, but you are ignoring them so that you don't have to deal with the fact that he could be right. It's a very easy thing to do. Then it's a skip and a hop to make fun of him and put the blame for your disapproval of what his claims tell us, on his lack of integrity. Do you see how unfair that is? No you won't. That's why you keep putting him in the category of a flat earther. If he's that, then you can justify saying anything you want about him even if it's 100% wrong.