A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

I understood very well what he said; science is based on a preponderance of evidence.

Not really.

It's true that the observations of a round earth are more reliable than anything the flat earthers are offering,

What do you base that statement on? Surely it could not be the fact that scientists say they are more reliable?

It is also true that because science deals in theory, however strong the evidence may appear, cannot rule out the possibility that their conclusions on a given topic could be mistaken.

Indeed! And both you and the flat-earthers take this to mean that this means that their theories is automatically plausibe. Hypocritically, you allow that for your ideas, but not for the flat-earthers.

The round earth theory doesn't have any opponents other than the flat-earthers whose evidence isn't convincing.

Again, you do not know what their evidence is. You are not even giving it a chance, are biased, don't know what you are talking about, are jumping on the bandwagon etc etc etc.

Their belief regarding the shape of the earth does nothing to improve on what we already know.

Again, you do not know that.

You can't compare their arguments for a flat earth with what my father is offering, which cannot be denied, if understood, because we're dealing with undeniable observations that are not easily perceived, but true nevertheless.

Actually, the similarities are uncanny. Especially the way the reason for it's universal rejection is anything but the incredibly poor quality of the arguments in favour of both ideas.

No they haven't. They have not proved that the earth is shaped like a disc.

Au contraire.

This is a game to you. You are out to make it appear that Lessans is nothing but a crackpot.

There is no need for me to do that: you do a better job at that than I ever could. I am merely pointing out that you are hypocritically dismissing this theory while asking other people not to dismiss your book for the exact same reasons that you dismiss the theory that the earth is flat.

That's far from the truth Vivisectus, and it's sad that you are comparing Lessans to a flat earther. This makes you guilty of the taboo reaction; a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black. As Richard Milton stated:

p. 8 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.

Did you read and understand that quote? Did you see the part where it says "carefully prepared body of evidence"?

Do you have any for your ideas about sight and about how conscience works? No? Then I am afraid that very quote relegates your book to the "crank" category.

I hardly think requiring a reason to assume an idea is correct is using taboo categories. So it is up to you: produce the evidence, or have the decency to admit that the evidence does not exist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

NO!


Good gravy. In all this time, have you learned nothing at all? It's not as if I and others haven't explained to you -- repeatedly and in detail -- what a scientific theory actually is.

Why are you wasting space. Just explain it then.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

False dichotomy

You keep saying the same thing over and over as if saying it makes it true. You cannot have free will (the kind we're discussing) and not have it. You can have the illusion of free will, and act as if there is free will, but that doesn't mean in actuality that free will exists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And it has been demonstrated that the contact results in signals to the brain. Is Peacegirl suggesting that those signals are just meaningless static?

Not at all. It just doesn't transmit signals that can be decoded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that have to do with what Lessans claimed?

He said "If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ."

What he said was demonstrably incorrect since light makes direct contact with afferent neurons in the eyes.

Light makes contact, that is true, but there is no stimuli that travels to the brain whereby an image can be interpreted as normal sight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And what on Earth do you mean there is no direct contact between the nerve ending and the brain?? Are you seriously making a claim about neural anatomy...which you know nothing about?

There is no external stimuli as in a brightly colored object that is making direct contact to cause a reaction. In the case of sound, a baby can hear the roar of a lion and it would wake him up because there is direct contact with something external. He gave his reasoning in his example with an infant. Waking up to light because his pupils are dilated is not what Lessans is referring to. He is referring to a baby recognizing something in the external world such as a brightly colored mobile, which would be equivalent to the roar of a lion. But that's not what happens. Scientists attribute this lack of ability to the ciliary muscle which is not fully developed. Lessans refutes that this is the cause of why they can't focus.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. It just doesn't transmit signals that can be decoded.

Actually it has been demonstrated that the signals are decoded by the brain to form images in our mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is denying that light must be at the film but to say that the image created is subject to light travel time delay long after the object or event is no longer present, remains a theory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These Hubble images are not theoretical, they are not imaginary, they exist. These are facts HubbleSite - Hubble Deep Field

You're appealing to the conclusion, which is the very thing that is in question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just as much a scientific discovery as any other scientific discovery made in the history of our world. You don't like it because he didn't use the method that you believe is necessary for proof. Sorry to say that it's not the only tool in the toolbox that can be used to determine the accuracy of the observations made.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it is the method necessary for what he did to be called science.

And he clarified what these terms meant in the context he was using them. He didn't want people to get caught up in the terminology as being more significant than the undeniable nature of his observations ---as if methodology trumps accurate perception. It does not LadyShea. You can balk at this all you want, but it doesn't change the veracity of these principles.

For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, the consequences are incredible, but I'm not invoking the consequences as proof that this knowledge is accurate.

No I don't. Lessans perceived something real; something that made him question whether the eyes are a sense organ. His explanation makes absolute sense and should be taken seriously instead of just thrown into a scrap heap and forgotten. I can't speak for the flat earthers. As I said, I don't go around trying to debunk what science has already established as true, because most of what they have established has absolute merit.

They have their evidence. Obviously it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny and I am siding with science because I believe that science's evidence is stronger for a round earth. I don't believe the evidence is stronger when it comes to the eyes because I can see the validity of Lessans' observations. But if you don't see it, it can be tested further. It's not like it's unfalsifiable.

There is no proof that the earth is flat, and there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, especially since landing on the moon required knowing the true shape of the earth. You cannot compare this to Lessans' discoveries.

And this means that you are biased, and that a flat earth is entirely plausible. It is just that you are not giving it a chance: you just assume the established consensus is correct.

True, I have always taken for granted that the earth was round because that's what science has established and science is trustworthy. Their advanced technologies have allowed them to confirm many of their hypotheses. This discovery is also scientific even though you don't see it yet. In fact, the world will be run by science.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Six: The New Economic World

p. 256 “How will the population be controlled since people will not die of
unnatural causes? Where is man going to build his house when there
isn’t any more room, and how is he going to feed his family when
there is a food shortage; and since you said that nobody can tell
another what to do, can everybody have just as many children as they
want?”

At the rate the population is increasing and with no more wars, no
automobile accidents, and no sickness to take our lives prematurely
the earth will soon be too small to feed, clothe, and shelter everybody.
If you are earning at present $100 per week, you cannot afford to
support eight children. Having this many children in the new world,
with that kind of an income, would definitely hurt the taxpayers
because they would have to supply your family with what you are
unable to give them. And since it cannot satisfy you to hurt them
when you know they will never blame or criticize whatever you do, you
are given no choice but to bring into the world the number of children
you know positively you can adequately support.

Consequently, since
money is related to what you can buy with it, and since there is a limit
to what can be produced, there will exist in the International Bureau
of Welfare, a group of scientists and lawyers from each nation who,
like parents guiding their children without blame, will recommend
what is required to sustain and improve the world’s standard of living,
such as how many offspring a couple should aim for. They will
announce periodically the value of your dollar in relation to the raising
of one, two, three, four children, etc. If, after checking these figures
you can see that all you can afford is one child, unless you hurt others,
are you given any choice when you know you will never be blamed or
punished?

Science will actually govern Earth, but without telling one
person what he must do. If the scientists determine that the
population on earth is beginning to get crowded they will announce
this, and the very fact that you will never be blamed for this
overcrowding which hurts the economy will compel you of your own
free will to desire limiting your family in accordance with what is best
for everyone. The total needs of the economic system would
determine the amount of the population and all this would be included
in the general information given to the public so each person could
decide for himself the direction which is better for him to take.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What makes this particularly unfair is that they offer a lot more evidence than you offer for your positions on conscience and the nature of sight. This just proves how biased you are, and that your rejection is just an emotional reaction to the challenge to your world-view.

Not really. I don't have to understand their ideas on conscience or the nature of sight to know that my father's observations on these issues were spot on. And I don't need to know all of the theories on freedom of the will, determinism and compatibilism to know that his understanding of determinism is spot on, and therefore the most useful.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think you are losing the plot a little here. I am saying they offer more evidence for a flat earth than you offer for conscience working as you believe, or for sight working as you believe.

I don't know what they are using as evidence so I can't compare. All I know is that my father's proof is undeniable whether you see it or not, and I am not even talking about the eyes. Leave that out until you are satisfied that empirical evidence supports his claim.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am glad to see you admit that you do not feel the need to know anything about a subject in order to make absolute statements about it. You just look at it, and decide if it is "spot on" or not, without any reference to outside reality. It is a bit like saying that you do not need to know anything about medicine in order to diagnose and treat a brain tumor.

I would not do that. I am only supporting what I know to be true not because my father made a discovery but because I see its validity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is hypocritical in the extreme, since:

1: You have not read the book(s), so your opinion on any part of the book(s) that have been explained to you is automatically invalid.

You're right. I haven't read the books so I don't have the right to argue the points they have made.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Progress! Now I put it to you that this prohibits you from holding any opinion at all about a wide range of subjects. A notable example is your opinion about scientific medicine, a subject about which you have not even begun to read the slimmest volume.

I didn't say I know about a wide range of subjects. What I do know and can be confirmed is that medicine has helped people, but it has also caused serious injury and death. In the new world you can take all the medicines you want, even if you hurt yourself in the process. I would rather err on the side of caution. That's just me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

2: You yourself advocate that in such cases as these, where someone has acutely observed some relations, it is vital that we believe him completely and assume he is correct while we wait for empirical evidence to materialize.

I never said you have to believe him completely if you don't see the relations for yourself. I said you'll have to wait, that's all

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is untrue once again. You have repeatedly asked just that: you have required us to ignore the evidence against efferent sight, on the basis that an explanation could possibly surface later that explains it in a way that is compatible with efferent sight. That is not asking someone to wait: that is asking someone to ignore evidence because of the possibility of future evidence to the contrary.

You can believe whatever you want. If you believe his observations are without substance, then let it go. It's as simple as that Vivisectus. I'm not trying to dismantle anyone's worldview if it upsets them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

3: It would be great if the earth was flat, for we would get a lot of spare money to do good with, and we would have a perfect argument to make people more environmentally conscious, not to mention the further beneficial scientific discoveries that could follow should all scientists embrace the correct (flat) theory.

I don't understand how the earth being flat would make us more environmentally conscious, or would give us spare money. If it was true, then we probably would find other discoveries based on this knowledge, but so far it seems that we were able to get to the moon after learning that the earth was round, so I'm not sure how they overcome this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is just because you do not perceive the underlying relations. You should probably go and read the books. And I do not see how reaching the moon (if it ever happened, opinions are divided on this in the flat-earth community) has anything to do with the price of fish. The moon exists: it is just smaller and closer than we think, and does not circle the earth, but hovers above it.

Haven't people traveled the entire globe and ended up in the same place? How do the flat earthers explain that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for how it would give us spare money, you are either being obtuse or dishonest. I have already explained that we could use the NASA budget and all the money wasted on astronomy.

That part is true. In the new world this will be a private enterprise. People won't be forced to pay their taxes for space missions on their dime if they're not interested in this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

4: Something else could be going on – science does not deal in certainties, and since there are no certainties in science, this particular idea must be plausible!

Nope, this particular idea doesn't necessarily get equal treatment just because science doesn't deal in certainties. It depends on what they bring to the table. If it refutes what we know mathematically to be true (Nasa deals in mathematics), then it won't stand up to scrutiny and it will rightfully belong in the woo category.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Where to start? Your responses are such a muddle lately that it is hard to disentangle them properly so I can respond to them.

1: Mathematics is not what you seem to think it is. It just isn't. Stop using that word in that way as it makes you look positively unhinged.

2: What they bring to the table is considerably more than what you bring to the table regarding sight and conscience. They actually offer a reason to assume the earth is flat on occasion: you supply no reason at all to assume sight and conscience work as you believe. You keep saying that such reasons exist, but you have never been able to supply them. If you feel I am wrong about this, go ahead and supply the reasons. If not, have the decency to admit it.

You're the one unhinged. They have been supplied but not the way you expect. You won't even listen to what he has to say which is why you don't think he has said anything. You keep saying he had no reasons to assume sight and conscience work that way, yet he clearly demonstrated his reasons.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

3: We have held your ideas about sight up to scrutiny, and they do not hold up. I remind you of the moons of jupiter, of the time it takes to see the dot of a laser appear when one is fired at the moon,

The time it takes to see a dot of a laser appear has nothing to do with light and sight. You are so off the beaten track like David, it's unfortunate but I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...of the fact that we can launch probes at distant planets and hit them even though we fire them at where we do not see them, the fact that the light from a star and the position in the sky where we see that star coincide... the list is endless.

We use light to measure the distance and location of a planet and the trajectory to take. Light is used as an instrument of measurement. There is no denying that.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

However, you do not see that as evidence that suggests your ideas are wrong: in stead you maintain that since it is not 100% impossible that "something else is going on", this means we should not dismiss the idea. However, this means that by the same token, you cannot dismiss the notion that the earth is flat: the same applies.

Maybe I should look at the flat earth claims, but I'm not that interested in them. When you say that all Lessans is bringing to the table is that "something else may be going on" is inaccurate and misleading. He had strong reasons for what he said based on his observations. You are making his claims look flimsy intentionally.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So again, I notice that you are applying different standards to the flat earth theory as you apply to your book.

Not really. There has to be some way to prove that a claim is correct. I believe Lessans' claims are correct because of his perceptual abilities and how he was able to see things that others overlooked. Because I didn't have competing theories in my head it wasn't that difficult for me to grasp these principles. Your stubborn resistance (I'm calling it what it is) is the problem here. Why do you think he wrote this:

Therefore, it is imperative that you know, well in
advance, that my reasoning will be completely mathematical, scientific
and undeniable, so if you find yourself in disagreement you had better
reread that which you disagree, otherwise, your stubborn resistance,
your inability to perceive these relations will only delay the very life
you want for yourself.


I don't expect you to accept this knowledge unless you see it for yourself, but you're never going to at this rate.

* If you can, please don't make your posts so long. Maybe you can take the most important points you want to share and narrow it down.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you wasting space. Just explain it then.

I'm not wasting the time to do so yet again. If you actually wanted to know, you've had plenty of instruction. But none of it has taken.


You've proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you simply will not learn anything that you don't want to. And you clearly have no desire whatsoever to learn what science actually is and how it actually works. You clearly prefer your made-up, fantasy version of what it is and how it works.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True, I have always taken for granted that the earth was round because that's what science has established and science is trustworthy.

Quoted for the sheer, jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm not wasting the time to do so yet again. If you actually wanted to know, you've had plenty of instruction. But none of it has taken.


You've proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you simply will not learn anything that you don't want to. And you clearly have no desire whatsoever to learn what science actually is and how it actually works. You clearly prefer your made-up, fantasy version of what it is and how it works.

Whatever you say Lone Ranger.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say Lone Ranger.

If we spend our time explaining to you, yet again, how science works, you'll only ignore it or forget about it as you have so many times before.

If you want to see some good explanations - which The Lone Ranger and others have devoted considerable time and trouble in writing - you only have to look back through this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very much supported. As long as a person's conscience is intact, this principle works perfectly.

You still aren't providing any support for your claim. All you can ever do is assert that the support exists.

And you are a fundamentally dishonest person who cannot keep her word.

[Vivisectus]

Yes, the consequences are incredible, but I'm not invoking the consequences as proof that this knowledge is accurate.

That is yet another lie: you have done so on multiple occasions, and you have been called on it. Do you realize how often you lie?

No I don't. Lessans perceived something real; something that made him question whether the eyes are a sense organ. His explanation makes absolute sense and should be taken seriously instead of just thrown into a scrap heap and forgotten. I can't speak for the flat earthers. As I said, I don't go around trying to debunk what science has already established as true, because most of what they have established has absolute merit.

The standards by which you determine what is "real" and what isn't are very different when you compare your reaction to flat earth theory and the ideas in the book.

Efferent sight flies in the face of large amounts of hard evidence, just like the flat earth theory. It is just that you want to believe your book is correct, and have no particular reason to believe the earth is flat. The case in favour of a flat earth is actually a lot stronger than the case in favour of efferent sight, or the case for conscience working the way you believe. I am not even aware of what your case in favour of conscience working that way is, exactly.

They have their evidence. Obviously it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny and I am siding with science because I believe that science's evidence is stronger for a round earth. I don't believe the evidence is stronger when it comes to the eyes because I can see the validity of Lessans' observations. But if you don't see it, it can be tested further. It's not like it's unfalsifiable.

When you are caught in a lie, you just ingore it and keep going, don't you? Was your father dishonest too? I am beginning to expect that he waffled around the part where the evidence was supposed to go on purpose...

That aside, you only just said you had no right to an opinion on this because you had not studied the evidence. And now you are jumping to the conclusion that obviously it is not as compelling as the evidence for a round earth...

On what basis do you dismiss the evidence against efferent sight, and yet accept the evidence against a flat earth? You seem to just pick what you like and run with it...

Which is extremely hypocritical in someone who is always accusing others of bias, emotional irrationalism, knee-jerk condemnation, etc. etc. etc.

You are really showing just how little actual thought goes into your world-view.

There is no proof that the earth is flat, and there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, especially since landing on the moon required knowing the true shape of the earth. You cannot compare this to Lessans' discoveries.

You are wrong, I am afraid. There is quite a bit of evidence: it is just that by your own admission, you never bothered to look into it.

Funny you should choose that example - knowing where planets are, and knowing they are not where we see them in the sky, is required to succesfully launch probes at distant planets. But somehow that does not qualify as compelling evidence, while the moon-landings do.

True, I have always taken for granted that the earth was round because that's what science has established and science is trustworthy. Their advanced technologies have allowed them to confirm many of their hypotheses. This discovery is also scientific even though you don't see it yet. In fact, the world will be run by science.

Science also says that sight is not efferent. How come science is only trustworthy when it says things that you like?

I don't know what they are using as evidence so I can't compare. All I know is that my father's proof is undeniable whether you see it or not, and I am not even talking about the eyes. Leave that out until you are satisfied that empirical evidence supports his claim.

Then you should believe the flat-earth theory is plausible and valid, until the evidence to support it comes in. But once again, it only counts for things you like, it appears. Isn't that odd?

I would not do that. I am only supporting what I know to be true not because my father made a discovery but because I see its validity.

Indeed: you just look at an idea and somehow just "see" that it is valid. Without any reference to any reality outside of your head.

I didn't say I know about a wide range of subjects. What I do know and can be confirmed is that medicine has helped people, but it has also caused serious injury and death. In the new world you can take all the medicines you want, even if you hurt yourself in the process. I would rather err on the side of caution. That's just me.

You have not read the books in which all medical knowledge is held: this means that you have no right to judge even the parts that have been explained to you. That is the standard that you demand from people who criticise your ideas. However, it is not the standard you apply when you are criticizing other ideas. Because "you just know it is right".

You can believe whatever you want. If you believe his observations are without substance, then let it go. It's as simple as that Vivisectus. I'm not trying to dismantle anyone's worldview if it upsets them.

Ah you feign indifference to cover up the hypocrisy? How childish.

Haven't people traveled the entire globe and ended up in the same place? How do the flat earthers explain that?

How do they know they have traveled round a globe?

That part is true. In the new world this will be a private enterprise. People won't be forced to pay their taxes for space missions on their dime if they're not interested in this.

Excellent - so your objection that there is no benefit to believing in a flat earth was nonsense.

You're the one unhinged. They have been supplied but not the way you expect.

Please provide same or admit you are full of it. Somehow you never do either...

You won't even listen to what he has to say which is why you don't think he has said anything. You keep saying he had no reasons to assume sight and conscience work that way, yet he clearly demonstrated his reasons

.

Correct me then: provide me with a reason to think sight is efferent.

The time it takes to see a dot of a laser appear has nothing to do with light and sight. You are so off the beaten track like David, it's unfortunate but I don't think I can convince you otherwise.

It rather does. But hey, if you dislike that particular one, it is just one of many, many observations that are not compatible with efferent sight.

We use light to measure the distance and location of a planet and the trajectory to take. Light is used as an instrument of measurement. There is no denying that.

Which has nothing at all to do with the price of fish.

Maybe I should look at the flat earth claims, but I'm not that interested in them. When you say that all Lessans is bringing to the table is that "something else may be going on" is inaccurate and misleading. He had strong reasons for what he said based on his observations. You are making his claims look flimsy intentionally.

I don't think your book needs any help to make it's claims look flimsy: you yourself do a lot better job, and the book itself makes the flat-earth theory look rock-solid by comparison. Once again you are all of a sudden not interested: but this did and does not stop you from dismissing it, on grounds that you whinge about pathetically if they are applied to your own ideas.

Not really. There has to be some way to prove that a claim is correct. I believe Lessans' claims are correct because of his perceptual abilities and how he was able to see things that others overlooked. Because I didn't have competing theories in my head it wasn't that difficult for me to grasp these principles. Your stubborn resistance (I'm calling it what it is) is the problem here.

The point, which you are still trying to avoid, is that I could say the same thing about you and flat-earth theory. Anyone can claim bias when people are not convinced by their ideas. Even the most obviosu crackpots.

You are also humorously circular in your reasoning: your father had great perceptional ability because he was able to write this amazingly true book, which you know is amazingly true because he had great perceptional ability.

I don't expect you to accept this knowledge unless you see it for yourself, but you're never going to at this rate.

You mean I wont agree unless I agree? I see you have inherent your fathers talent for circular reasoning.

* If you can, please don't make your posts so long. Maybe you can take the most important points you want to share and narrow it down.

That is very hard to do because you never, ever deal with any issues: you circumvent them. I am forced to leave in what you said before to show your rather transparent attempts at avoiding the issues at hand. It is also hard because of your exceptionally jumbled writing style, which tends to lump a lot of poorly-understood assertions, assumptions and quite often pure gobbledygook together, so it takes a few sentences to pick it apart for a response.

You see, unlike you I always try to underpin what I am claiming as best I can. I could just throw my conclusions together and fire them off without any support, but only loons expect to be taken seriously when they do that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The afferent theory of sight doesn't have any opponents other than you and Lessans. Your belief regarding efferent vision does nothing to improve on what we already know.

It actually does Angakuk.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand how the earth being flat would make us more environmentally conscious, or would give us spare money. If it was true, then we probably would find other discoveries based on this knowledge, but so far it seems that we were able to get to the moon after learning that the earth was round, so I'm not sure how they overcome this.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not at all clear how efferent vision and instant sight make anything better or benefit the world in any way. If they were true, then we would probably find other discoveries based on this knowledge, but so far it seems that we were able to to get to the moon after we learned that sight is delayed by the time it takes for light to travel from the object to the eyes, and it remains unclear how you and Lessans overcome this.

There are benefits to this knowledge or it wouldn't matter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you are still reneging on our deal and breaking your word? And for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the original offer you agreed to?

I will send it to you reluctantly. I'm still wondering why it even matters, if you're not going to read it? If you do give it to a university make sure Lessans gets a fair shake by not only giving it to libertarians and compatibilists (which puts him at a disadvantage because they're going to point out imaginary flaws like you have), but determinists as well.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If we spend our time explaining to you, yet again, how science works, you'll only ignore it or forget about it as you have so many times before.

If you want to see some good explanations - which The Lone Ranger and others have devoted considerable time and trouble in writing - you only have to look back through this thread.

I don't know what else to say Ceptimus. I believe in science and Lessans' claims are undeniable. Take out the word science if you don't like it; it really doesn't matter to me. What matters is that these principles work; they are accurate descriptions of reality. This whole dislike for him comes from his claim about the eyes. I can't help that he rubbed people the wrong way; so did many discoverers throughout history. Many were ostracized or even killed, so it doesn't surprise me that history is repeating itself. Lessans was a knowledgeable man with great insight. His analytical ability was rare. This group will probably be the last ones to ever admit they were wrong, even after this discovery has been confirmed valid and the Great Transition to this new world is upon us. I will forgive you because your will is not free, and like Jesus said: "They know not what they do."

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Haven't people traveled the entire globe and ended up in the same place? How do the flat earthers explain that?

If you walk in a circle around a plate, you come back to where you started. Voila!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This whole dislike for him comes from his claim about the eyes.

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. That doesn't make it true, however.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? But you invoke the potential good consequences of your idea as a reason to believe your book on a regular basis. And you recently confirmed this by saying that a lack of good consequences was a reason not to believe in a flat earth.

Yes, the consequences are incredible, but I'm not invoking the consequences as proof that this knowledge is accurate.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is yet another lie: you have done so on multiple occasions, and you have been called on it. Do you realize how often you lie?

I am not counting on the consequences as proof of anything Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to apply different standards to your book than the ones you apply to other ideas.

No I don't. Lessans perceived something real; something that made him question whether the eyes are a sense organ. His explanation makes absolute sense and should be taken seriously instead of just thrown into a scrap heap and forgotten. I can't speak for the flat earthers. As I said, I don't go around trying to debunk what science has already established as true, because most of what they have established has absolute merit.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The standards by which you determine what is "real" and what isn't are very different when you compare your reaction to flat earth theory and the ideas in the book.

You can compare this knowledge to the flat earthers if you want, but I don't think it's fair to do so. Each claim has to stand on it's own merits.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Efferent sight flies in the face of large amounts of hard evidence, just like the flat earth theory. It is just that you want to believe your book is correct, and have no particular reason to believe the earth is flat. The case in favour of a flat earth is actually a lot stronger than the case in favour of efferent sight, or the case for conscience working the way you believe. I am not even aware of what your case in favour of conscience working that way is, exactly.

I know you don't, so how can you tell me his case for how conscience works is weaker than the case for a flat earth? The only way to accumulate more evidence in favor of Lessans' claim is through reliable and unbiased testing. So far I've never seen a dog that can recognize his master from a picture or video without any other cues.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so you are asking people to wait for the empirical evidence to show up. So am I, but you seem unwilling to do so.

Yes, that's the only way to convince you that Lessans' perceptions were spot on.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Incidentally, this does not mean that the case for a flat earth is unclear and need further proof, if you actually read the evidence and follow the reasoning behind it. This is not just an assertion.

They have their evidence. Obviously it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny and I am siding with science because I believe that science's evidence is stronger for a round earth. I don't believe the evidence is stronger when it comes to the eyes because I can see the validity of Lessans' observations. But if you don't see it, it can be tested further. It's not like it's unfalsifiable.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

When you are caught in a lie, you just ingore it and keep going, don't you? Was your father dishonest too? I am beginning to expect that he waffled around the part where the evidence was supposed to go on purpose...

What do you want me to say? Maybe the flat earthers were right. I know that Lessans has a strong case for efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That aside, you only just said you had no right to an opinion on this because you had not studied the evidence. And now you are jumping to the conclusion that obviously it is not as compelling as the evidence for a round earth...

You're right. Maybe the earth is flat.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On what basis do you dismiss the evidence against efferent sight, and yet accept the evidence against a flat earth? You seem to just pick what you like and run with it...

I dismiss the evidence against efferent sight because I believe the evidence for efferent sight is compelling. As far as the flat earth theory, I accept what science has to say and I still do. Lessans stumbled upon this knowledge; he didn't go out looking to discredit science. Most of the time science gets it right. It's not Lessans' fault that his observations led him to a different conclusion.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is extremely hypocritical in someone who is always accusing others of bias, emotional irrationalism, knee-jerk condemnation, etc. etc. etc.

You are really showing just how little actual thought goes into your world-view.

I get your point Vivisectus, but it really doesn't fly in this case. Like I said, each case has to be examined on its own merit, not on appearances based on theories that have not stood up under scrutiny. I want this knowledge to be tested and analyzed. That's the only way the truth will come out, one way or another. And don't tell me that all the tests have been done.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The evidence is in the astute observations of the flat earthers, which are spot on and are undeniably true. If you do not agree, then that means you have just not studied it enough. In dismissing it the way you have been, you are ruining it for everyone: you are making them dismiss it too, and like you, they dismiss it simply because it upsets their world-view, not based on it's merits. They all jump on your band-wagon, and this is not because the idea is breath-takingly imbecilic: it is just because people won't give it a chance, or because of an emotional reaction, or because they are afraid that giving credence to it will hurt their academic career, or because there are big business interests working against the idea's acceptance.

I notice that you once again apply a different standard to the flat earth theory as you apply to the book.

There is no proof that the earth is flat, and there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, especially since landing on the moon required knowing the true shape of the earth. You cannot compare this to Lessans' discoveries.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are wrong, I am afraid. There is quite a bit of evidence: it is just that by your own admission, you never bothered to look into it.

So why aren't you a flat-earther if there is so much compelling evidence?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Funny you should choose that example - knowing where planets are, and knowing they are not where we see them in the sky, is required to succesfully launch probes at distant planets. But somehow that does not qualify as compelling evidence, while the moon-landings do.

We can measure a lot of things by the speed of light, but this has no relation to how the eyes work in relation to light. You're getting all mixed up.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And this means that you are biased, and that a flat earth is entirely plausible. It is just that you are not giving it a chance: you just assume the established consensus is correct.

True, I have always taken for granted that the earth was round because that's what science has established and science is trustworthy. Their advanced technologies have allowed them to confirm many of their hypotheses. This discovery is also scientific even though you don't see it yet. In fact, the world will be run by science.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Science also says that sight is not efferent. How come science is only trustworthy when it says things that you like?

I never gave much thought to it. Maybe science is wrong there too. I don't know. All I know is that Lessans' observations regarding the eyes make absolute sense and should be investigated.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think you are losing the plot a little here. I am saying they offer more evidence for a flat earth than you offer for conscience working as you believe, or for sight working as you believe.

I don't know what they are using as evidence so I can't compare. All I know is that my father's proof is undeniable because he's not using logic. Leave that out until you are satisfied that empirical evidence supports his claim.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then you should believe the flat-earth theory is plausible and valid, until the evidence to support it comes in. But once again, it only counts for things you like, it appears. Isn't that odd?

No you're right. A theory is a theory is a theory. Maybe their claims are compelling and the preponderance of evidence is leaning in their direction.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I am glad to see you admit that you do not feel the need to know anything about a subject in order to make absolute statements about it. You just look at it, and decide if it is "spot on" or not, without any reference to outside reality. It is a bit like saying that you do not need to know anything about medicine in order to diagnose and treat a brain tumor.

I would not do that. I am only supporting what I know to be true not because my father made a discovery but because I see its validity.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed: you just look at an idea and somehow just "see" that it is valid. Without any reference to any reality outside of your head.

How can you say that when his knowledge came from years and years of studying reality? All he has done is made reference to the real world, so I don't know what you're talking about. No claims of fairies here.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Progress! Now I put it to you that this prohibits you from holding any opinion at all about a wide range of subjects. A notable example is your opinion about scientific medicine, a subject about which you have not even begun to read the slimmest volume.

I didn't say I know about a wide range of subjects. What I do know and can be confirmed is that medicine has helped people, but it has also caused serious injury and death. In the new world you can take all the medicines you want, even if you hurt yourself in the process. I would rather err on the side of caution. That's just me.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You have not read the books in which all medical knowledge is held: this means that you have no right to judge even the parts that have been explained to you. That is the standard that you demand from people who criticise your ideas. However, it is not the standard you apply when you are criticizing other ideas. Because "you just know it is right".

I have the right to take care of my health, and I will do it in the best way I know how. Medicine is not an exact science. There are many unforeseen complications from drugs and surgery, so why shouldn't I question the success rates of these therapies knowing they could impact my health and the health of my loved ones?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is untrue once again. You have repeatedly asked just that: you have required us to ignore the evidence against efferent sight, on the basis that an explanation could possibly surface later that explains it in a way that is compatible with efferent sight. That is not asking someone to wait: that is asking someone to ignore evidence because of the possibility of future evidence to the contrary.

You can believe whatever you want. If you believe his observations are without substance, then let it go. It's as simple as that Vivisectus. I'm not trying to dismantle anyone's worldview if it upsets them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah you feign indifference to cover up the hypocrisy? How childish.

I'm being very serious. I'm tired of trying to convince you when you compare Lessans to a flat earther as if the evidence they bring and he brings are equivalent.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is just because you do not perceive the underlying relations. You should probably go and read the books. And I do not see how reaching the moon (if it ever happened, opinions are divided on this in the flat-earth community) has anything to do with the price of fish. The moon exists: it is just smaller and closer than we think, and does not circle the earth, but hovers above it.

Haven't people traveled the entire globe and ended up in the same place? How do the flat earthers explain that?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How do they know they have traveled round a globe?

I don't know what you mean. It's not hard to do since the advent of airplanes and ocean liners.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for how it would give us spare money, you are either being obtuse or dishonest. I have already explained that we could use the NASA budget and all the money wasted on astronomy.

That part is true. In the new world this will be a private enterprise. People won't be forced to pay their taxes for space missions on their dime if they're not interested in this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Excellent - so your objection that there is no benefit to believing in a flat earth was nonsense.

What do taxes have to do with the benefit of believing in a flat earth?

That's it for this post. Way too long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better. That doesn't make it true, however.

It's true though. I see it. If it weren't for this claim people would not have been so incredulous and resentful.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still aren't providing any support for your claim. All you can ever do is assert that the support exists.

And you are a fundamentally dishonest person who cannot keep her word.

You are wrong Spacemonkey. I know you don't believe that that's possible. And don't tell me I'm a fundamentally dishonest person when you don't know me at all. You have nerve.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so not interested in your findings LadyShea. You're out for one reason which is to defend the indefensible. How can you defend an industry that gives approval for an unsafe drug that has killed thousands? You can't accept the fact that empirical evidence is often wrong, especially in the medical field when there is a reason to make the results look impressive. Knowing that 100,000 people die a year from a drug that is prescribed for you, wouldn't you think twice? Answer the question without giving me your brand of bullshit. Yes or no.

How can you defend a snake oil salesman who has made millions selling software that bypasses spam filters, and promotes alternative health products that he has financially partnered with while eviscerating competing products? Mike Adams has never successfully treated anyone, because he is not a trained practitioner of any kind...he sells products for money. Why do you give any weight to anything he says?

I do think twice about all meds and procedures, and weigh those risks against the risks of not treating whatever the problem is. Of course I don't just blindly follow doctors orders. Do you really think everyone is a complete moron?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think Edward Gibbons, and those that love his writings, would be offended by your summarizing his work as being called "shit like that."

Edward Gibbon is dead so can't be offended, and who gives a shit if those that love him are offended? What a strange thing to point out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying the same thing over and over as if saying it makes it true. You cannot have free will (the kind we're discussing) and not have it. You can have the illusion of free will, and act as if there is free will, but that doesn't mean in actuality that free will exists.

"The kind we are discussing"? When was that added? What a weasel, you just moved the goal posts again.