Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I need a break from this discussion. I'm sure you can understand why.  |
Actually, if you really wanted to shut us all up, you could find a problem with the current theory - "afferent vision" as you call it, then you could show how efferent vision might explain this problem better.
I'm really interested to hear one of your many examples of this. |
I'm doing my best specious_reaons, and if I can't meet your expectations, it doesn't prove that Lessans was wrong in any way, shape, or form.  |
Of course it doesn't disprove anything. However, until you can come up with something, the concept of efferent vision is not worth studying. No one will perform the empirical studies you think will confirm efferent vision until you find a problem with the current theory that is explained better by Lessans' ideas.
I'm so confident that Lessans' ideas will never unseat the current theory that I'm telling you exactly how you could achieve it. How about that? |
Finding a problem with the current theory probably won't unseat it either. The only way that this theory will be unseated is if there is compelling evidence that it's wrong, and that will take a lot of empirical testing. |
Finding a problem is the first required step. Without a problem, nobody will search for a solution. Get it? |
Going round full circle. More than 150 pages ago I explained that she had a non-existent solution to a non-existent problem. That's what this whole thread has been about. It's like Alice in Wonderland.