[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the introduction, Lessans discuses Mendel and other discoveries that were initially scoffed at or disregarded but later were found to be true and concluded:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He fails to mention all of the ideas that science and skepticism proved untrue...until this:

So, according to the author it is fallacious to consider that because many people have been positive and wrong that Lessans might also be wrong. All ideas have the possibility of being wrong, so it is not remotely fallacious to consider the possibility.

Of course it isn't. He was just showing that people often use fallacious reasoning to support their beliefs. People will conclude that because people in the past have been positive and wrong, he's could be wrong because he's positive. He was just demonstrating the kind of fallacious logic that people use.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He then goes on to compare himself and his idea to important discoveries made by Edison and Einstein, stating that he will demonstrate his correctness as they did.

What he fails to mention is that Edison and Einsteing used evidence and data in their demonstrations. Edison has an actual working light bulb to show people, and was able to explain it so others could easily replicate his work and demonstrate it for themselves! Einstein had pages and pages of notes and complex math that he showed to other physicists for their thorough critique, so that any flaws or mistakes could be recognized and addressed.

Does Lessans means he plans to show us a real life, replicable model? Is he letting us know he will show us his data to analyze? No.

His observations are just as accurate as what Edison and Einstein demonstrated. The only difference is that Lessans' discovery is based on a psychological law of man's nature; which is not a physical object such as a lightbulb that can be easily demonstrated; nor is it physics which can be shown easily through mathematical formulas and complex data. This knowledge is not mathematical, per se, because it doesn't deal with actual numeric symbols, but it is just as mathematical as any math formula because these are undeniable word relations. Unless you see the accuracy of these relations, you're going to say that he only made assertions, or worse yet, wild speculations. The fact that David says there is no first discovery tells me that he understands absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He tried to make his claims to a professor who smiled and ignored him. Why his claims/conclusions? Why not data? Why not ask the professor "Hey, I think I may have found something, can you review my extensive notes and reasoning and help me find possible mistakes or ways to refine and prove my ideas?"

They knew less than he did. That would be like asking a chimpanzee to help me with my math homework. I'm being serious. Imagine for a moment someone with a genuine discovery asking a professor for help when the professor himself has no understanding of the subject matter. He didn't need help. He knew what he had. It took him years to come to these findings. He burned his first set of books because he wasn't happy. What if he went to a professor and said that he discovered (hypothetically people) that two plus two equals four, and his professor claimed that it was five. Is he supposed to listen to the professor because he went to college, or trust himself because he sees the relations? That's why he wrote this:

However,
when it is scientifically revealed that the very things religion,
government, education and all others want, which include the means
as well as the end, are prevented from becoming a reality only because
we have not penetrated deeply enough into a thorough understanding
of our ultimate nature, are we given a choice as to the direction we are
compelled to travel even though this means the relinquishing of ideas
that have been part of our thinking since time immemorial? This
discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no
opposition and your awareness of this matter will preclude the
possibility of someone adducing his rank, title, affiliation, or the long
tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which he thinks he
qualifies to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself
undeniable proof of its veracity.

In other words, your background, the
color of your skin, your religion, the number of years you went to
school, how many titles you hold, your I.Q., your country, what you
do for a living, your being some kind of expert like Nageli (or
anything else you care to throw in) has no relation whatsoever to the
undeniable knowledge that 3 is to 6 what 4 is to 8. So please don’t
be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge
what has not even been revealed to you yet. If you should decide to
give me the benefit of the doubt — deny it — and two other
discoveries to be revealed, if you can.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Another questions his educational background, which leads me to wonder, how did Lessans approach these people? Was it as a fellow researcher looking for constructive criticism, checks and balances, or was he already saying "I have made the most important discovery ever made and you must read it to save mankind!"?

He did not approach these people for checks and balances because he knew what he had, and maybe that's what got them angry. They right away put the cart before the horse and put him under fire by asking what his educational background was. When he told them he was self-learned, they wouldn't let him continue. In their mind he couldn't have made such a discovery, so they would not listen. I'm just waiting for the time that your questions are answered satisfactorily LadyShea, and you'll read the book with a little less suspicion, because you'll never understand it otherwise.