I'm confident that he's right because I see for myself that these principles work.
Just where and in what context are you seeing these principles work.
Her imagination
Do you see why I don't enjoy talking to you. Your sarcasm shows me you're really not interested in what I'm sharing.
It's an accurate answer is it not? You said the only way to test the extension of the principles for oneself is to imagine how you would act under the changed conditions.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the changes that must be in place before this knowledge can be applied. One of the changes is the removal of all forms of institutional authority and control.
Except whatever institution takes up the job of deciding what terms need to be removed from our vocabulary (as though we wouldn't simply invent new ones), like "beautiful," "ugly," and "educated." Or is that going to be decided by a show of hands?
We wouldn't invent new ones only because they are not accurate and they hurt people.
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eight: Until Death Do They Part pp. 340-341
Unknowingly, our choice of words has been responsible for
artificially stratifying people into layers of value, giving some more
privilege than others. This misuse of words has caused a systemic
form of inequality that has formed the basis for discrimination and
differential treatment. For example, a college graduate is considered
of greater value and therefore is paid a higher income; besides, he
receives greater respect, gets a title like professor or Ph.D. which,
again, places him in a category apart from others.
Although it is true
he may have read more books, may have learned more words, may
have passed to a higher grade than other of his colleagues; yet a
laborer may have shoveled more dirt, may have developed greater
muscles, may have built buildings instead of read books, for what
reason is the one considered more educated?
The fallacy lies in the
fact that the word education, like beauty, has become associated only
with certain differences and represents a judgment of one person in
relation to another, but regardless of who is the judge, it is the word
itself which compels him to see through this faulty lens what he is
convinced is absolutely true — a very intelligent, educated, person —
while he sees someone who has a different background as an
uneducated individual. Most of you know this but are unaware that
it is absolutely impossible for an individual to see this person for what
he really is because the word slide projects a value that does not exist
externally, and only when these very symbols are removed will
someone begin to get a glimpse of the real world.
It is now time to draw a mathematical line of demarcation, the
line which will reveal the words that are going to be removed because
they have hurt many people by forcing them to see themselves, as well
as be seen by others, in a distorted manner. There exists one major
obstacle in removing this injustice. Exposing the truth about the
fallacy of words will not necessarily prevent people from using them.
It is impossible for a person living in our present world to give up the
notion that she is more beautiful than another, nor will a person
desire to stop using the word unless she realizes the serious hurt that
has been inflicted on those who are not identified this way. If I call
a girl beautiful in the presence of another who is not considered as
nice, or whose opinion differs from mine, I am seriously hurting this
other person who prevents my desire to hurt her this way by letting me
know well in advance, through this knowledge, that she will never
blame me for this hurt.
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus, for which he knows no one will ever blame
him. Although many people will slip and use words that judge others
as inferior productions of the human race; when the blame for this is
permanently removed; when these people fully realize that such words
distort the real world and are a genuine hurt, they will soon find
greater satisfaction in removing them from their vocabulary. These
changes come about out of necessity by revealing in an infallible
manner where the responsibility lies for this unjust hurt to others,
which is then not blamed.
I'm confident that he's right because I see for myself that these principles work.
Just where and in what context are you seeing these principles work.
Her imagination
Do you see why I don't enjoy talking to you. Your sarcasm shows me you're really not interested in what I'm sharing.
It's an accurate answer is it not? You said the only way to test the extension of the principles for oneself is to imagine how you would act under the changed conditions.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the changes that must be in place before this knowledge can be applied. One of the changes is the removal of all forms of institutional authority and control.
Except whatever institution takes up the job of deciding what terms need to be removed from our vocabulary (as though we wouldn't simply invent new ones), like "beautiful," "ugly," and "educated." Or is that going to be decided by a show of hands?
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus
Very hurtful then to call his observations astute. It hurts me deeply by putting my observation in a category of minus.
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
Well of course. And as everyone knows, we all agree on what is best. Just look at Congress.
I guess I'm not that serious about being understood because I'm not defining these terms again. They were explained clearly and I responded to each one. It's never going to be enough for you.
You say that facetiously, but it's quite true that you really aren't serious about being understood. I set you a simple task of explaining a few terms in your own words, and showing how they are compatible or incompatible with Lessans' account, and you've completely refused to even try to do that.
I'm not interested in having a discussion with other websites. I'm trying to talk with you. It is absolutely critical that you try to express yourself in your own words. When you simply cut and paste from other websites (or from Lessans) I have no idea how much or how little you understand of what you are posting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I explained very clearly why Lessans' account is not compatible with these terms. You need to go back and reread what I wrote.
No, you didn't explain that. His account cannot be incompatible with all of those terms for two reasons: (i) Determinism and indeterminism are jointly exhaustive - by definition one or the other must be true - so his account is contradictory if it excludes both; and (ii) One of the terms was a part of his own account, and therefore can't be incompatible with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Within the Christian framework, there is a lot of similarity with the basic assumptions and definitions of the secular community. I'm not going back and redoing it, so you're going to have to be satisfied with what I posted.
You said you were interested in discussing this topic of determinism before moving on to conscience. Your actions show the opposite. The definitions you copypasted without understanding were not correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I told you that you have to meet me halfway...
Then you need to do your part by providing what I actually asked for instead of trying to weasel out of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
1. Determinism (as normally defined) is the thesis that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events.
Lessans' account is incompatible with this thesis because we are not caused to do what we do by antecedent events. In other words, the environment does not cause someone to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused.
So the aroused desire is not causally determined by previous events and conditions? Then his account entails and is compatible with causal indeterminism, right?
Why won't you do what you've done above for the rest of the terms on the list? There were only 6 of them, and it would really help people understand what you're trying to say if you could relate his account and terminology to the standard terms and definitions of the free will debate.
Just fill in the sentences. Look things up if you have to, but then answer in your own words, saying what you understand these terms to mean:
2. Causal indeterminism is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
3. Lessans' version of determinism is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
4. Libertarian free will is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
5. Compatibilist free will is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
6. Lessans' version of free will is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I'm confident that he's right because I see for myself that these principles work.
Just where and in what context are you seeing these principles work.
Her imagination
Do you see why I don't enjoy talking to you. Your sarcasm shows me you're really not interested in what I'm sharing.
It's an accurate answer is it not? You said the only way to test the extension of the principles for oneself is to imagine how you would act under the changed conditions.
That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the changes that must be in place before this knowledge can be applied. One of the changes is the removal of all forms of institutional authority and control.
Except whatever institution takes up the job of deciding what terms need to be removed from our vocabulary (as though we wouldn't simply invent new ones), like "beautiful," "ugly," and "educated." Or is that going to be decided by a show of hands?
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
Once these words are made known, they will gradually become obsolete because people will not desire using them. There will be no authority telling anyone what to do.
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus
Very hurtful then to call his observations astute. It hurts me deeply by putting my observation in a category of minus.
We're all different to a degree, but that isn't what hurts us. What hurts us is the disrespect that is shown by others to us because someone may be superior to us in certain things. That's where the words we use play an important role in how we feel about ourselves and the respect we are all deserving of, not just those in high places.
I guess I'm not that serious about being understood because I'm not defining these terms again. They were explained clearly and I responded to each one. It's never going to be enough for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You say that facetiously, but it's quite true that you really aren't serious about being understood. I set you a simple task of explaining a few terms in your own words, and showing how they are compatible or incompatible with Lessans' account, and you've completely refused to even try to do that.
I did try. If you understood this discovery like you say you do, you would be able to show how they are compatible or not compatible with Lessans' account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not interested in having a discussion with other websites. I'm trying to talk with you. It is absolutely critical that you try to express yourself in your own words. When you simply cut and paste from other websites (or from Lessans) I have no idea how much or how little you understand of what you are posting.
I understand this knowledge Spacemonkey, and when it's appropriate I do answer in my own words. It feels like you're trying to catch me in a contradiction which is why you want me to express things in my own words, because you want me to fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I explained very clearly why Lessans' account is not compatible with these terms. You need to go back and reread what I wrote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
No, you didn't explain that. His account cannot be incompatible with all of those terms for two reasons: (i) Determinism and indeterminism are jointly exhaustive - by definition one or the other must be true - so his account is contradictory if it excludes both; and (ii) One of the terms was a part of his own account, and therefore can't be incompatible with it.
According to Lessans, we do not have free will, although the way he defines determinism, it does not remove the agent or the fact that we can make choices. It only means that the choices we end up making could never have been otherwise. In other words, if B is an impossible choice because it gives us less satisfaction under the circumstances, we are not free to choose A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Within the Christian framework, there is a lot of similarity with the basic assumptions and definitions of the secular community. I'm not going back and redoing it, so you're going to have to be satisfied with what I posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You said you were interested in discussing this topic of determinism before moving on to conscience. Your actions show the opposite. The definitions you copypasted without understanding were not correct.
Well then correct them one at a time and I'll respond to them one at a time, not all at once. Discuss the meaning of causal indeterminism and I'll try to show you where the definitions differ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I told you that you have to meet me halfway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Then you need to do your part by providing what I actually asked for instead of trying to weasel out of it.
I just gave you an option. Take it or leave it. Define each of the words yourself, and I'll try to show you where Lessans' definition differs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
1. Determinism (as normally defined) is the thesis that we are caused to do what we do by antecedent events.
Lessans' account is incompatible with this thesis because we are not caused to do what we do by antecedent events. In other words, the environment does not cause someone to commit a crime, it just presents conditions under which his desire is aroused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So the aroused desire is not causally determined by previous events and conditions? Then his account entails and is compatible with causal indeterminism, right?
It does not mean that we can make another choice than the one that was chosen. The desire is aroused causally but not due to the past causing the present. It's due to our choosing only that which brings us greater satisfaction. It keeps the agent intact, and more importantly it doesn't indicate that something other than ourselves is responsible for our actions. But it's still causal in every sense of the word because we can only go in one direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why won't you do what you've done above for the rest of the terms on the list? There were only 6 of them, and it would really help people understand what you're trying to say if you could relate his account and terminology to the standard terms and definitions of the free will debate.
I've already done this exercise and I'm not doing it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Just fill in the sentences. Look things up if you have to, but then answer in your own words, saying what you understand these terms to mean:
2. Causal indeterminism is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
3. Lessans' version of determinism is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
4. Libertarian free will is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
5. Compatibilist free will is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
6. Lessans' version of free will is the thesis that...
Lessans' account is compatible/incompatible with this thesis because...
You answer the first part and I'll answer the second, although I cannot answer #6 because Lessans does not have a version of free will.
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. .
But why should we trust this to scientists who have such an inferrior 'formal' education compaired to self educated men like Lessans who read a lot (some books 7 times so they could figure out the big words) and hung around in pool halls, obviouslly giving them a superiour education?
To break his train of thought to explain to me what these observations were would have been inappropriate.
It would have been highly appropriate, however, to explain where he saw these patterns in his books. We have told you over and over again his failure to report and describe his actual observations- such as patterns found in historical writings- is a big problem with skeptics. All we have are his conclusions.
I asked him all the questions I could possibly think of throughout my childhood. Because he did not do empirical testing, there was no way he could point to any one book and tell me that this is where his insights came from. It was a culmination of reading hundreds of historical accounts and observing patterns or commonalities in behavior. I already told everyone that this knowledge is falsifiable and can be tested empirically. What more do you want from me? Time is of the essence and you're all squandering it due to misplaced skepticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
As a young child, I trusted him which allowed me to actually listen with an open mind, which you are not doing. The bottom line is that he was very insightful and was able to describe exactly how conscience works because of his voracious reading. He saw a common thread that is universal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This cannot be described as anything other than a faith claim!!
It's true, I had faith in my dad and I wasn't disappointed as I began reading his books. But it was my innocence that allowed me to be extremely focused without all of the static of so many competing philosophies to confuse me. I am grateful for this but unfortunately it's going to be an uphill battle trying to get you to see that his observations were accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I call that a pattern. The task of not only recognizing the significance of these observations but to get them down on paper was enormous. And you are demanding more of this man?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Of course we are. That is what critical analysis of claims is all about.
I understand all about critical analysis, but to let a discovery slip between the cracks because he didn't come to these findings through empiricism, is extremely short sighted, especially when epistemology states that new knowledge can come from pure reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I never thought I'd have to pull this out and dust it off, but Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lessans provided only his conclusions. We have no idea what he saw that led to them.
These are extraordinary claims and they have extraordinary evidence through his careful observations and his sound reasoning. You keep repeating the same questions as if I'm suddenly going to come up with the empirical evidence you demand. If you knew that he didn't have empirical evidence hundreds of pages ago, why didn't you leave then? I can only give you what I have. You're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. You'll just have to wait for more empirical testing to be done to prove that he was right. I can't keep defending this knowledge without seeing any real interest. All there seems to be is confrontation and ridicule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's a very astute and common sense question based on your very own position, peacegirl. You claimed he saw patterns while reading. You bragged about how many times he read the work. Lettice asked where she can see these same patterns (replicate the observation) and you go off the deep end.
And you dare to call it science.
I did not brag LadyShea. I was expressing that he didn't just skim these volumes. He studied them carefully and extracted patterns of behavior that allowed him to accurately describe how conscience works. You are the one that is being very rigid and unscientific.
The reason I went off the deep end was due to the last comment. I'm getting sick and tired of everyone making jokes at Lessans' expense and I don't want one more person coming online and repeating what I went through with doc, Natural Atheist, and Davidm. Lettice, if you're reading this, you are invited to participate but just leave out the sarcasm. Thanks.
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus
Very hurtful then to call his observations astute. It hurts me deeply by putting my observation in a category of minus.
We're all different to a degree, but that isn't what hurts us. What hurts us is the disrespect that is shown by others to us because someone may be superior to us in certain things. That's where the words we use play an important role in how we feel about ourselves and the respect we are all deserving of, not just those in high places.
So you or Lessans thought if there were no big words then he wouldn't be such an ignoramus?
I cannot answer #6 because Lessans does not have a version of free will.
You are asked to define the version of free will Lessans was refuting, arguing against, or disproving. He had to have a definition in mind when writing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already told everyone that this knowledge is falsifiable and can be tested empirically.
Telling us it is falsifiable and testable does not mean it is actually falsifiable nor can actually be tested. You have to explain exactly how it can be falsified...especially his premise "Man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" which is not at all falsifiable under his definitions and proof.
I did not brag LadyShea. I was expressing that he didn't just skim these volumes, like you're doing. He studied carefully and extracted patterns of behavior that allowed him to accurately describe how conscience works. You are the one being unscientific.
The reason I went off the deep end was because of the sarcasm. Scroll back and read the last comment. I'm getting sick and tired of everyone making jokes at Lessans' expense and I don't want one more person coming online and repeating what I went through with doc, Natural Atheist, and Davidm. I needed to nip it in the bud.
What exactly did you think you were signing up for a decade ago when you went online asserting you had the answer to world peace and perfect human relationship harmony? Why do you still act surprised you are having repetitive experiences?
I cannot answer #6 because Lessans does not have a version of free will.
You are asked to define the version of free will Lessans was refuting, arguing against, or disproving. He had to have a definition in mind when writing.
What do you think I've been doing this whole time? Free will is the ability to choose equally, without any compulsion, but there is compulsion. The fact that we can only move in one direction makes free will an illusion.
The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen
without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is
a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A. The reason you are
confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes
that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion
because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he
considers better for himself and when two or more alternatives are
presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one
which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I already told everyone that this knowledge is falsifiable and can be tested empirically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Telling us it is falsifiable and testable does not mean it is actually falsifiable nor can actually be tested. You have to explain exactly how it can be falsified...especially his premise "Man always moves in the direction of greatest satisfaction" which is not at all falsifiable under his definitions and proof.
It can be tested by simulating or transitioning into the new world. If people can still desire hurting others under the changed conditions, then Lessans would have been wrong. But he wasn't wrong, and one day this knowledge will be recognized.
I hope you all read this very carefully (and if you read it already, read it again) because it describes you all to a T. If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo.
Introduction: pp. 7-11
According to Richard Milton, in his book, “Alternative Science,
Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment,” “We are
living in a time of rising academic intolerance in which important new
discoveries in physics, medicine, and biology are being ridiculed and
rejected for reasons that are not scientific. Something precious and
irreplaceable is under attack. Our academic liberty — our freedom of
thought — is being threatened by an establishment that chooses to
turn aside new knowledge unless it comes from their own scientific
circles. Some academics appoint themselves vigilantes to guard the
gates of science against troublemakers with new ideas. Yet science has
a two thousand year record of success not because it has been guarded
by an Inquisition, but because it is self-regulating. It has succeeded
because bad science is driven out by good; an ounce of open-minded
experiment is worth any amount of authoritative opinion by self-styled
scientific rationalists.
The scientific fundamentalism of which these
are disturbing signs is found today not merely in remote provincial
pockets of conservatism but at the very top of the mainstream
management of science on both sides of the Atlantic. Human
progress has been powered by the paradigm-shattering inventions of
many brilliant iconoclasts, yet just as the scientific community
dismissed Edison’s lamp, Roentgen’s X-rays, and even the Wrights’
airplane, today’s “Paradigm Police” do a better job of preserving an
outdated mode of thought than of nurturing invention and discovery.
One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the
new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to
appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy
skepticism.
But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than
a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine
the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a phenomenon that
occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be
almost an integral part of the process. It seems that there are some
individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to
risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that
mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more importantly,
it is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to
prohibit such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo
subjects; about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of
ridicule and ostracism. Often those who cry taboo do so from the best
of motives: a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific
enlightenment is not corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank
ideas and that the community does not slide back into what Sir Karl
Popper graphically called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out
to guard the frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are
adopting a brand of skepticism that is indistinguishable from the
tyranny they seek to resist.
These modern skeptics are sometimes the
most unreflecting of individuals yet their devotion to the cause of
science impels them to appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth.
And this raises the important question of just how we can tell a real
crank from a real innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet.
Merely to dismiss a carefully prepared body of evidence — however
barmy it may appear — is to make the same mistake as the crank. In
many ways cold fusion is the perfect paradigm of scientific taboo in
action. The high priests of hot fusion were quick to ostracize and
ridicule those whom they saw as profaning the sacred wisdom. And
empirical fact counted for nothing in the face of their concerted
derision.
The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its
simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and
rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries
that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge. The
reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is
strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by leading skeptics
to compel a more widespread adoption in the community of the
rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of opposition, and the putting
down of anyone unwise enough to step out of line by publicly
embracing taboo ideas. The taboo reaction in such simple cases is
eventually dispelled because the facts — and the value of the
discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger than the taboo belief;
but there remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos
prove stronger (or more valuable) than the discoveries to which they
are applied.
In its more subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle
around a subject and places it ‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational
analysis or investigation. In doing so, science often puts up what
appears to be a well-considered, fundamental objection, which on
closer analysis turns out to be no more than the unreflecting
prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the idea of
mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is
that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well
hold important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any
benefits they may contain are denied us. Subtler still is the taboo
whereby scientists in certain fields erect a general prohibition against
speaking or writing on the subjects which they consider their own
property and where any reference, especially by an outsider, will draw
a rapid hostile response. Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo
will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions
on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they
are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument
necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to
reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially
non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or
analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to
subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have
devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such
tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery. Any
contribution to knowledge in terms of rational analysis, or resulting
from the different perspective of those outside the field in question,
is lost to the community.
In its most extreme form scientific
tabooism closely resembles the behavior of a priestly caste that is
perceived to be the holy guardians of the sacred creed, the beliefs that
are the object of the community’s worship. Such guardians feel
themselves justified by their religious calling and long training in
adopting any measures to repel and to discredit any member of the
community who profanes the sacred places, words or rituals regarded
as untouchable.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the taboo
reaction is that it tends to have a cumulative and permanent
discriminatory effect: any idea that is ideologically suspect or counter
to the current paradigm is permanently dismissed, and the very fact
of its rejection forms the basis of its rejection on all future occasions.
It is a little like the court of appeal rejecting the convicted man’s plea
of innocence on the grounds that he must be guilty or why else is he
in jail? And why else did the police arrest him in the first place? This
‘erring on the side of caution’ means that in the long term the
intellectual Devil’s Island where convicted concepts are sent becomes
more and more crowded with taboo ideas, all denied to us, and with no
possibility of reprieve. We will never know how many tens or
hundreds or thousands of important discoveries were thrown in the
scrap heap merely because of intolerance and misplaced skepticism.
To the scientists of the Babylonian civilization, it seemed
reasonable to believe that the Earth was flat and was held up by
elephants standing on a giant sea turtle — even though their
astronomy was highly developed and they had observed the curvature
of the Earth’s shadow moving across the Moon during eclipses. They
held this view because they could not imagine a plausible alternative
today. The idea of a flat Earth held up by elephants was the most
reasonable explanation available. Flatness seemed to fit their everyday
experience, and, although highly improbable, elephants were far less
improbable than any conceivable alternative. Yet, because it was
based on faulty evidence, it was actually only a superstitious belief.
What appeared the most reasonable view was really completely
unreasonable.
The flat Earth theory was rejected by Greek scientists
who observed that the Sun and Moon were spherical and reasoned
that the Earth must be too. Once the flat Earth viewpoint was
deprived of the appearance of being reasonable, its wildly improbable
nature became obvious, and it seems amazing to us today that anyone
could have believed in such a theory, however limited their scientific
knowledge.
I believe that something very similar is true of parts of western
science today. It actually contains some wildly improbable theories —
as improbable as elephants holding up the Earth. Yet these theories
appear to represent a reasonable view because they offer a natural
sounding mechanism explanation that seems consonant with common
sense and our essentially limited experience and understanding of the
world. Whole areas of the western scientific model come in this
category: theories that seem as solid as rock and, indeed, are the
foundations of much of western thinking, yet in reality are at best
unsubstantiated and at worst no more than superstitions: there are
many examples of Earth beliefs that have been exported the world
over. But why should any rational person — let alone a trained
scientist — accept such beliefs? One especially strange aspect of
belief in western culture is that we habitually use the word belief to
mean two entirely different things depending on whether we are
speaking of belief in an everyday sense (I believe in parliamentary
democracy) or in the scientific sense (I believe in the atomic theory of
matter). It is normal in our culture to take the second statement as
meaning that the empirical evidence and theoretical background of
atomic theory are such that any rational person who analyzes the facts
must be compelled to accept the theory.
We also think that this
process of ‘scientific’ acceptance is different in kind from the ordinary
acceptance of everyday things: a person might be right or wrong to
believe in the value and the effectiveness of parliamentary democracy
because it is a matter of opinion, but he or she cannot be wrong to
believe in atomic theory because it is a matter of fact. Yet the
psychological process of acceptance is actually the same in each case:
it rests simply on the fact that the conclusion seems to be irresistible,
even to the well-informed mind. This appearance of being irresistible
can in itself be a self-evident justification for belief — just as it is
‘obvious’ that two and two must make four, and just as it was obvious
to Babylonian scientists that the Earth is flat. The problem that this
psychological process can present, as we saw earlier, arises because our
perception — and hence what appears obvious — is to some extent
determined by our beliefs. It means that all observers, scientists as
well as savages, employ a kind of mental inertial guidance navigation
system which takes over our routine mental processing; an intellectual
autopilot whose perpetual heading is star of our convictions, and
which filters our perceptions to ensure that they conform to those
convictions. It is as though our perceptions reach our minds through
a screen — a matrix that is dynamically adaptive to our world view
and that can selectively modify the contents of our field of vision in
the service of that world view.”
Time is of the essence and you're all squandering it due to misplaced skepticism.
Peacegirl seems to be in some kind of hurry for this 'Golden Age' of her's to come about, I would guess the book sales are not going well. One of the things that really should be examined is the actuall 'Golden age' as described by Lessans. Do we, as a society, want to live under the conditions described? Certainly eliminating war would be a good thing but are the sacrifices of our personal freedoms and relationships too high a price? Would you want to marry and spend the rest of your life with the first person you were sexually attracted to? Lessans describes a world of extremes in many areas and many of the conditions are not the ideal world in my opinion. I enjoy the freedoms I have and I am not ready to give them up for a lot of empty, unprooven promises.
If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo
Why on Earth should I refrain from calling 'em as I see 'em? As you just said "if the shoe fits, wear it". Milton is a total woo peddler and fraud...that's his fitting shoe.
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus
Very hurtful then to call his observations astute. It hurts me deeply by putting my observation in a category of minus.
We're all different to a degree, but that isn't what hurts us. What hurts us is the disrespect that is shown by others to us because someone may be superior to us in certain things. That's where the words we use play an important role in how we feel about ourselves and the respect we are all deserving of, not just those in high places.
But you respect your fathers observations so much more than mine! This hurts me deeply - you are valuing them more than mine, which puts me in a definite minus category.
I asked him all the questions I could possibly think of throughout my childhood. Because he did not do empirical testing, there was no way he could point to any one book and tell me that this is where his insights came from. It was a culmination of reading hundreds of historical accounts and observing patterns or commonalities in behavior. I already told everyone that this knowledge is falsifiable and can be tested empirically. What more do you want from me? Time is of the essence and you're all squandering it due to misplaced skepticism.
Attempt at diversion and ad hom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegir
I understand all about critical analysis, but to let a discovery slip between the cracks because he didn't come to these findings through empiricism, is extremely short sighted, especially when epistemology states that new knowledge can come from pure reason.
And his reasoning has been demonstrated to be unsound, circular and otherwise fallacious. You have been unable to offer any argumentation other than mere assertions to the contrary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
These are extraordinary claims and they have extraordinary evidence through his careful observations and his sound reasoning.
Baseless conclusions and fallacious reasoning are hardly extraordinary. Anyone can spout their opinions an unilaterally declare them astute observations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You keep repeating the same questions as if I'm suddenly going to come up with the empirical evidence you demand. If you knew that he didn't have empirical evidence hundreds of pages ago, why didn't you leave then?
The last few pages I have been addressing only his reasoning. You are no better at arguing for its soundness than you are at offering evidence for instantaneous sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I can only give you what I have. You're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. You'll just have to wait for more empirical testing to be done to prove that he was right. I can't keep defending this knowledge without seeing any real interest. All there seems to be is confrontation and ridicule.
And we can only discuss and debate what we've been given to read, and yet you insist we need to take your personal judgments and inferences of Lessans ideas and personality into account, rather than what he wrote.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's a very astute and common sense question based on your very own position, peacegirl. You claimed he saw patterns while reading. You bragged about how many times he read the work. Lettice asked where she can see these same patterns (replicate the observation) and you go off the deep end.
I did not brag LadyShea. I was expressing that he didn't just skim these volumes, like you're doing. He studied carefully and extracted patterns of behavior that allowed him to accurately describe how conscience works. You are the one being unscientific.
The reason I went off the deep end was because of the sarcasm. Scroll back and read the last comment. I'm getting sick and tired of everyone making jokes at Lessans' expense and I don't want one more person coming online and repeating what I went through with doc, Natural Atheist, and Davidm. I needed to nip it in the bud.
What exactly did you think you were signing up for a decade ago when you went online asserting you had the answer to world peace and perfect human relationship harmony? Why do you still act surprised you are having repetitive experiences?
I did not expect this, that's for sure. I thought there would be questions, but I didn't think there would be such animosity. I have to remind myself that I grew up with this knowledge so it doesn't seem far fetched at all, but to people who are first hearing this, it probably sounds crazy.
I asked him all the questions I could possibly think of throughout my childhood. Because he did not do empirical testing, there was no way he could point to any one book and tell me that this is where his insights came from. It was a culmination of reading hundreds of historical accounts and observing patterns or commonalities in behavior. I already told everyone that this knowledge is falsifiable and can be tested empirically. What more do you want from me? Time is of the essence and you're all squandering it due to misplaced skepticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Attempt at diversion and ad hom.
This has everything to do with the author. I'm showing how he was able to come up with these claims. There is no attempt at diversion or ad hom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegir
I understand all about critical analysis, but to let a discovery slip between the cracks because he didn't come to these findings through empiricism, is extremely short sighted, especially when epistemology states that new knowledge can come from pure reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And his reasoning has been demonstrated to be unsound, circular and otherwise fallacious. You have been unable to offer any argumentation other than mere assertions to the contrary.
If that what's you think, then let's forget it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
These are extraordinary claims and they have extraordinary evidence through his careful observations and his sound reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Baseless conclusions and fallacious reasoning are hardly extraordinary. Anyone can spout their opinions an unilaterally declare them astute observations.
Do you think I'm going to argue with you anymore?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You keep repeating the same questions as if I'm suddenly going to come up with the empirical evidence you demand. If you knew that he didn't have empirical evidence hundreds of pages ago, why didn't you leave then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The last few pages I have been addressing only his reasoning. You are no better at arguing for its soundness than you are at offering evidence for instantaneous sight.
Sorry you feel that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I can only give you what I have. You're trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. You'll just have to wait for more empirical testing to be done to prove that he was right. I can't keep defending this knowledge without seeing any real interest. All there seems to be is confrontation and ridicule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And we can only discuss and debate what we've been given to read, and yet you insist we need to take your personal judgments and inferences of Lessans ideas and personality into account, rather than what he wrote.
Actually, I said the opposite. I said that all I have to offer is what he wrote. My personal judgments don't mean anything if his book is incorrect.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I think you should not display your ignorance so blatantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's a very astute and common sense question based on your very own position, peacegirl. You claimed he saw patterns while reading. You bragged about how many times he read the work. Lettice asked where she can see these same patterns (replicate the observation) and you go off the deep end.
And you dare to call it science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I did not brag LadyShea.
Did
Did not. I told you why I brought this up. Why aren't you listening?
The change in our vocabulary takes place not
only as a consequence of the perfect harmony in which children will
be raised in their formative years, but also because everyone will be
made conscious that whenever one uses a word that places another in
a category of plus, he seriously hurts some individual by putting him
in a category of minus
Very hurtful then to call his observations astute. It hurts me deeply by putting my observation in a category of minus.
We're all different to a degree, but that isn't what hurts us. What hurts us is the disrespect that is shown by others to us because someone may be superior to us in certain things. That's where the words we use play an important role in how we feel about ourselves and the respect we are all deserving of, not just those in high places.
But you respect your fathers observations so much more than mine! This hurts me deeply - you are valuing them more than mine, which puts me in a definite minus category.
Yes, I value his insights much more than yours because he knew more than you on this subject, but I don't respect him more than you. Give it up Vivisectus. You're not interested in this book. I can feel your derision, so let's stop talking.
If the shoe fits, wear it. And LadyShea, please don't show your disrespect for this man just because you think he's woo
Why on Earth should I refrain from calling 'em as I see 'em? As you just said "if the shoe fits, wear it". Milton is a total woo peddler and fraud...that's his fitting shoe.
Because your prejudice is showing and it doesn't look pretty. Your fitting shoe is that you are extremely judgmental, but you don't see it because you're not looking in the mirror.
I think we already covered the fact that this will be done by Scientists! who will mathematically determine which ones are hurtful and which ones are not. This is NOT authority because in the new world, everyone will want what is best.
Actually, the first-blow determinations will be made by lawmakers. There will, however, be no laws. There will be lawmakers, yes, but no laws.
Scientists -- who in a free will environment cannot even be trusted to construct an unbiased experiment regarding how vision works -- will be charged with recommending how many children couples should have. Recommending, mind you, not commanding. However, the recommendations will be followed for to do otherwise would be to strike a first blow (if, of course, the lawmakers say so), which is unthinkable in the novus ordo seclorum.
But the scientists will not be toiling alone. Oh, mercy me, no! Working shoulder to shoulder with them in the International Bureau of Welfare will be ...
wait for it ...
LAWYERS!!!!11ONE@!
That's right, lawyers! This is miraculous and a true revolution in thought for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there will be no lawyers in the Golden Age! Yes, that's correct -- there will be no lawyers, but there will be lawyers!!
In the immortal words of the imaginary conversant from the super secret hidden writings, "It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Linear Mode
