[quote=Vivisectus;1176801]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Still, you've gotta love a "universal law" that can't manifest itself because a false belief completely cancels out what would otherwise be its spectacularly beneficial effects.
 |
Universal laws don't get cancelled out Stephen. |
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. |
Quote:
|
It's funny how you default into your little harangue about the book not demonstrating anything.
|
It is funny indeed how this incredible genius seems to have forgotten to add any reason to believe he is correct, only to happily go on as if he has proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. Combined with the conceit, anyway. It would just be sad if he did not write such in such a grandiose and self-congratulatory style.
Quote:
|
The knowledge is much more than anything logic can tell us, which can be unsound.
|
I am in full agreement: someone's logic can be unsound (the modal fallacy comes to mind) and this "knowledge" is not based on logic.
Quote:
|
His findings come from astute observation,
|
Again, I am in full agreement: these findings come from a Lessanese "Astute Observation", which we have established is something your father believed to be true, which means that to you it requires no other evidence than it's own existence.
Quote:
|
but you are ignoring them so that you don't have to deal with the fact that he could be right.
|
He could not be right about sight: we have covered that. There is no fact to dispute there. I have no reason to believe he was right about conscience, and nor does anyone who does not accept that a claim by Lessans is automatically right because of astuteness. Since conscience needs to work as described int he book for the entire solution to evil that it describes to work, I have no reason to believe any of that works either.
Quote:
|
It's a very easy thing to do.
|
It is indeed very easy to dismiss your father as an idiot. That is because he made idiotic mistakes, and then wrote them down.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Ermmm... no. You blame my disagreement on a lack of understanding, despite being unable to deal with the reason of my disagreement.
At no point do I blame my own disapproval "on what he tells us". You seem to be rambling incoherently here.
I disagree with the book because I see no reason to believe it is correct, and often see reason to believe it is incorrect.
Quote:
|
Do you see how unfair that is? No you won't.
|
Is it unfair to require a reason to believe something to be true? Should we give this book special treatment and suspend this requirement?
Quote:
|
That's why you keep putting him in the category of a flat earther.
|
No, I put him int he category of a bumbling idiot. YOU are the flat earther: when faced with evidence, you do not change your ideas, but try to argue your way around the evidence.
Quote:
|
If he's that, then you can justify saying anything you want about him even if it's 100% wrong.
|
But I underpin everything I say - and give you a fair chance to rebut. It is not my fault that you are unable to. |
Not responding to this diatribe. I am sick and tired of the namecalling whether it's directed at me or my father. It appears that you cannot do anything more than yell and scream and have a histrionic shit fit. Done!