A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might be a tautology in the sense that whatever one chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you are using this as a means to discredit his entire presentation, which it doesn't. A tautology does not a false proof make, nor does it prove that what comes from this understanding is useless.

It is tautological. No, that doesn't mean it is false nor does it mean it is useless, it does mean it is completely unfalsifiable...it can't be tested in any way.

If it can't be tested, people must either accept it or reject it based on faith, or feelings, or trust or whatever. That's not science, that's simple belief. It's therefore not a discovery, it's a tenet.

There you go again badmouthing him. What do you mean he has no credit to lose?

In order to be discredited, one must first have a good reputation or respect. Lessans had those things as a person, and a father, and a salesman and a pool player...sure. But we aren't addressing those, we are addressing his ideas expressed in the book. There is no good reputation or respect for him to lose in that area.

The fact that you call this knowledge bullshit shows me what a self-pontificating person you are.

The fact that you call it the one and only answer to world peace, and the most important thing ever thought by anybody, is also pontificating. Why is it okay for you to express your opinions in a pontificating manner but it's not okay for me?

I think it is bullshit. Prove me wrong and your pontification becomes warranted!

You obviously are not as smart as you think you are. You are too full of yourself, and it's really sad because you have the capability of comprehending this work if you kept an open mind and didn't use your present knowledge and understanding to make this determination.

Maybe, but this is an ad-hom. My calling bullshit is no less correct just because you don't like me.

[LadyShea]

The HuffPo articles on the Bailey Banks case was written by anti-vaxxers, so you must account for bias. Hell Generation Rescue took out a full page ad in USA Today about the case. You don't think these people have an agenda?

Did you bother to read the "other side"? Hell did you even bother to read the ruling itself to see if it was being interpreted and reported correctly in the article you sent your son? (I know the answer is no)

From the actual ruling

Despite their accord on certain factual predicates contained in Bailey’s medical records, there is, unsurprisingly, a pronounced conflict between the parties as to the following issues: whether a biologically plausible link exists between ADEM and pervasive developmental delay (PDD) in a direct chain of causation, whether Bailey did in fact suffer from ADEM, and ultimately whether the administration of the MMR vaccine to Bailey actually caused ADEM which would then cause PDD that currently besets Bailey today.

Note that he uses PDD-pervasive developmental delay, not PDD-NOS. PDD-NOS is as specific diagnosis on the autistic spectrum. PDD is not. Also, as was brought up during the trial, there is no medical literature at all showing that acute disseminated encephalomyelitis - ADEM is related to autism.

The title of the ruling itself is Non-autistic developmental delay; Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis; Expert Credibility; Evidentiary Reliability; Scientific Validity; Burden of Proof; Causation in Fact; Proximate Causation Non-Austistic developmental delay. Bailey's own expert witness, Dr. Lopez, testified that he does not suffer from autism, during the trial.

So, the article you sent your son was at the very least misleading right from the get-go.

Bailey Banks most probably suffered an vaccine related injury, which is what the vaccine court if for, as there are risks to vaccines. Far from denying there are risks, the existence of the vaccine courts shows that the risks are known to science and accepted by the government.

However, it was not demonstrated that the vaccines caused autism as claimed. Also please note that legal rulings are not scientific findings as judges are not scientists.

[LadyShea]

Fallacious reasoning is not a trivial mistake.
There are several strawmen...outright lying type strawmen, numbers in a vaccum, and irrelevant facts represented in this single paragraph.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't check the accuracy of these comments. Maybe they were over-exaggerated to show the reason why parents are being called anti-vaxers. Why don't you tell me what the flaws were so I don't have to go scrambling trying to find trivial mistakes that have no bearing on the point she was making.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, more assertions. You've never refuted the charge of tautology (and in fact conceded that the satisfaction principle is tautological) and have never refuted the charge of modal fallacy...other than saying, as you did here, "is not".

It might be a tautology in the sense that whatever one chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you are using this as a means to discredit his entire presentation, which it doesn't. A tautology does not a false proof make, nor does it prove that what comes from this understanding is useless.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is tautological. No, that doesn't mean it is false nor does it mean it is useless, it does mean it is completely unfalsifiable...it can't be tested in any way.

That is very true, but it does not explain why this is an unimportant triviality in so far as this discovery goes. You are so completely invested in micromanagement that you cannot see the forest from the trees LadyShea. You look for little mistakes that do not impact what is being said. You've done that all along, but it has failed by any objective test.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it can't be tested, people must either accept it or reject it based on faith, or feelings, or trust or whatever. That's not science, that's simple belief. It's therefore not a discovery, it's a tenet.

But sometimes it cannot be shown this way. Are you hard of hearing, or reading for that matter?

There you go again badmouthing him. What do you mean he has no credit to lose?

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

In order to be discredited, one must first have a good reputation or respect. Lessans had those things as a person, and a father, and a salesman and a pool player...sure. But we aren't addressing those, we are addressing his ideas expressed in the book. There is no good reputation or respect for him to lose in that area.

Oh heaven help me here. Why have I spent so much time with you? I don't know. All I know is that we are completely opposites in the way of arrogance. You are so arrogant, I can't penetrate your wall.

The fact that you call this knowledge bullshit shows me what a self-pontificating person you are.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact that you call it the one and only answer to world peace, and the most important thing ever thought by anybody, is also pontificating. Why is it okay for you to express your opinions in a pontificating manner but it's not okay for me?

I am not saying this is the only way that can contribute to peace, but this is the ultimate answer to world peace.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I think it is bullshit. Prove me wrong and your pontification becomes warranted

You can think whatever you want. I am not here to prove that this is a discovery to someone who thinks they are the epitome of knowledge that can even decipher what is true and what isn't. You haven't proven me wrong; you have only added further proof that your opinions are just that: opinions.

You obviously are not as smart as you think you are. You are too full of yourself, and it's really sad because you have the capability of comprehending this work if you kept an open mind and didn't use your present knowledge and understanding to make this determination.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe, but this is an ad-hom. My calling bullshit is no less correct just because you don't like me.

That is not true. I actually like the person you are, but I believe you are wrong in this instance, and I will not allow you to badmouth my father just because you think you have identified a false conclusion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't proven me wrong;

I don't have to prove you wrong, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the positive claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have only added further proof that your opinions are just that: opinions.

My opinions are opinions! Yes, that is a true statement. Tautological, but true.

[LadyShea]

You are so arrogant, I can't penetrate your wall. We are better off by not talking.

No you!

If you don't want to talk to me then stop talking to me.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But sometimes it cannot be shown this way.

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, more assertions. You've never refuted the charge of tautology (and in fact conceded that the satisfaction principle is tautological) and have never refuted the charge of modal fallacy...other than saying, as you did here, "is not".

It might be a tautology in the sense that whatever one chooses is in the direction of greater satisfaction, but you are using this as a means to discredit his entire presentation, which it doesn't. A tautology does not a false proof make, nor does it prove that what comes from this understanding is useless.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is tautological. No, that doesn't mean it is false nor does it mean it is useless, it does mean it is completely unfalsifiable...it can't be tested in any way.

You are wrong in your analysis. The proof does not come from formal logic. It comes from observation, and if his observations are right, no logical conclusion can prove that he is wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it can't be tested, people must either accept it or reject it based on faith, or feelings, or trust or whatever. That's not science, that's simple belief. It's therefore not a discovery, it's a tenet.

I cannot stress enough how wrong you are in your conclusions LadyShea. You are completely off base. I hope one day when this knowledge comes to light you will be able to admit this, but I won't hold my breath.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no interest in discrediting Lessans...he has no credit to lose. My agenda is to point out bullshit where I see it, and you and Lessans are swimming in it.

There you go again badmouthing him. What do you mean he has no credit to lose?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In order to be discredited, one must first have a good reputation or respect.

So wrong I don't know where to begin. Respect has nothing to do with people's opinions, although it it does affect how people think. I don't depend on you or anyone else for the respect I deserve. Are you that superficial?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans had those things as a person, and a father, and a salesman and a pool player...sure. But we aren't addressing those, we are addressing his ideas expressed in the book. There is no good reputation or respect for him to lose in that area.

The discrimination against my father is obvious for those who see it. This attack on his credibility is no different than any other type of discrimination; it just happens to be in the scientific field which you use as an infallible guide.

The fact that you call this knowledge bullshit shows me what a self-pontificating person you are.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The fact that you call it the one and only answer to world peace, and the most important thing ever thought by anybody, is also pontificating. Why is it okay for you to express your opinions in a pontificating manner but it's not okay for me?

Not true. I am not trying to be a big shot. You are. You are condemning this man without even understanding whether his discovery is genuine. You've done this from day one. You are a fraud because you are putting yourself on a pedestal as being the one person who knows whether his discovery is valid or not based on what you have been taught. This is a true obstacle. Ironic, isn't it?

I think it is bullshit. Prove me wrong and your pontification!

You obviously are not as smart as you think you are. You are too full of yourself, and it's really sad because you have the capability of comprehending this work if you kept an open mind and didn't use your present knowledge and understanding to make this determination.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe, but this is an ad-hom. My calling bullshit is no less correct just because you don't like me.

The ad homs that you say I have accused you of don't compare with what you have accused me of. You are not being the least bit objective. I am sure you will go away with your snotty nosed attitude LadyShea, when you are the least person to know whether this man's discovery is authentic or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

Do you see what you're doing, which I predicted? You are using this discussion on vaccines as a reason to dismiss this discovery. It's not fair, and the reason why I'm done talking about vaccines.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you!

If you don't want to talk to me then stop talking to me.

Why don't you stop answering my posts. Let's both compromise, okay?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't have to prove you wrong, the burden of proof is on you, as the one making the positive claim.

LadyShea, I have shown you where you are wrong with your idea of what constitutes a modal fallacy. You have cotton in your ears, yet you are influencing people in here who don't know enough about fallacious reasoning to know who to believe. That means people here are going to accept your analysis and conclude that Lessans is wrong, when I know Lessans is not wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have only added further proof that your opinions are just that: opinions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My opinions are opinions! Yes, that is a true statement. Tautological, but true.

Then hold onto that thought before spouting off your opinion which means nothing in terms of what is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

It's actually funny at this point. You are comparing yourself to a man who was unusually gifted. I don't know what to say other than one day you will be extremely embarrassed and apologetic by your insistence that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see what you're doing, which I predicted? You are using this discussion on vaccines as a reason to dismiss this discovery. It's not fair, and the reason why I'm done talking about vaccines.

He's not doing that at all. He's using your discussion of your father's "discovery" and your discussion of vaccination as two different examples of your poor understanding of how knowledge claims can actually be justified. Your father's claims are being dismissed because neither he nor you has provided any good reason to think they are true, not because you have subsequently failed to provide any good reason to think your claims about vaccination are true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are wrong in your analysis. The proof does not come from formal logic. It comes from observation, and if his observations are right, no logical conclusion can prove that he is wrong.

Who said anything about formal logic? I said his satisfaction principle cannot be tested. Which is a true statement.

I cannot stress enough how wrong you are in your conclusions LadyShea. You are completely off base.

How am I wrong or off base? If the statement cannot be empirically tested, and cannot be concluded through logic as you state, then what criteria can be used to accept or reject it's veracity?

So wrong I don't know where to begin. Respect has nothing to do with people's opinions, although it it does affect how people think.

The word "discredit" means loss of reputation or respect. Respect has everything to do with people's opinions, as respect is an opinion someone holds of someone else.

Are you using idiosyncratic definitions of words yet again?

I don't depend on you or anyone else for the respect I deserve.

What are you talking about? You can respect yourself without depending on anyone else, but respect from other people certainly does depend on other people respecting you.

The discrimination against my father is obvious for those who see it. This attack on his credibility is no different than any other type of discrimination; it just happens to be in the scientific field which you use as an infallible guide.

LOL, you aren't even making sense anymore. When it comes to his thoughts as expressed in the book, he has no credibility to attack.

And yes, if you are using discrimination to mean "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.", then I am discriminating between Lessans and other scholars and thinkers and scientists. Sure.

Not true. I am not trying to be a big shot. You are. You are condemning this man without even understanding whether his discovery is genuine.

I am pretty sure his ideas are wrong. You have failed to convince me otherwise. Dismissing unconvincing ideas and arguments on a small Internet forum doesn't indicate I am trying to be a big shot.

Pronouncing an idea to be the key to ending all evil in the world and trying to usher in a Golden Age for all 6 billion humans...that's dreaming of being a Big Shot. You win!

You've done this from day one. You are a fraud because you are putting yourself on a pedestal as being the one person who knows whether his discovery is valid or not based on what you have been taught. This is a true obstacle. Ironic, isn't it?

I have not lied, so how can I be a fraud? The rest of this is incoherent.

The ad homs that you say I have accused you of don't compare with what you have accused me of. You are not being the least bit objective. I am sure you will go away with your snotty nosed attitude LadyShea, when you are the least person to know whether this man's discovery is authentic or not.

You are not making any sense in your snit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's actually funny at this point. You are comparing yourself to a man who was unusually gifted. I don't know what to say other than one day you will be extremely embarrassed and apologetic by your insistence that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about.

Dragar is also gifted...sort of a requirement for being an astrophysicist.

[Adam]

Also, not in evidence: any reason to believe that Lessans was particularly "gifted" at anything but writing self-congratulatory butthurt.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I have shown you where you are wrong with your idea of what constitutes a modal fallacy.

No you haven't. You keep saying you have, but can never give me the link to this alleged demonstration. I have requested you offer a refutation a dozen times, and your response has never gone beyond the assertion that "it isn't an example of the modal fallacy". That's not showing anything, you know.

So, once again, if you think you have posted a decent refutation, go find it and give me the link or post number.

You have cotton in your ears, yet you are influencing people in here who don't know enough about fallacious reasoning to know who to believe.

Huh? Who do you think I am influencing? Which participant in the thread, besides you, do you think knows less about fallacious reasoning than I do, and is sitting here confused?

That means people here are going to accept your analysis and conclude that Lessans is wrong, when I know Lessans is not wrong.

What on Earth makes you think anyone is going to blindly accept my analysis?

Then hold onto that thought before spouting off your opinion which means nothing in terms of what is true.

LOL, what are you raving about? This is quite a stupid thing to say. All I can offer in any discussion is my opinions, same as you. Same as anyone.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you stop answering my posts. Let's both compromise, okay?

No. I am not the one who has any problem with this discussion. Why do you need my participation in your stopping participating? Why is there any compromise on the table. If you don't like it, walk away. Why is it so difficult for you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But sometimes it cannot be shown this way.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Tough for you then! We've learned pretty well from history that when you use ridiculous things like 'faith' or 'anecdotes' or 'spot on observations', you screw up. Science, on the other hand, works.

I'm sorry your magical stories and vision or vaccines or world peace can't be shown via testing; I'm sure you'd be a lot happier if they could. But anyone with a shred of understanding about 'how to figure real things out' is going to interpret this as either them being wrong, or useless, or both.

But this discovery can be proven via testing. That's just it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. I am not the one who has any problem with this discussion. Why do you need my participation in your stopping participating?

I don't need your participation; I was asking you to kindly back off to make it easier for me when I see you say stupid things that you think are intelligent.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why is there any compromise on the table. If you don't like it, walk away. Why is it so difficult for you?

It's really not difficult and I will walk away. Don't double dare me and don't use this as some obsessive/compulsive ideation that has been rumored.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1162805]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But this discovery can be proven via testing. That's just it.

Lessans satisfaction principle, which is foundational to the whole "discovery", cannot be tested. And that's what we were discussing.

You just moved the goalposts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need your participation; I was asking you to kindly back off to make it easier for me when I see you say stupid things that you think are intelligent.

Easier for you, how? If I say stupid things then you should have a very easy time of demonstrating that and making yourself look like the bestest and smartest girl.

It's really not difficult and I will walk away. Don't double dare me and don't use this as some obsessive/compulsive ideation that has been rumored.

LOL, why shouldn't I dare you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I have shown you where you are wrong with your idea of what constitutes a modal fallacy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you haven't. You keep saying you have, but can never give me the link to this alleged demonstration. I have requested you offer a refutation a dozen times, and your response has never gone beyond the assertion that "it isn't an example of the modal fallacy". That's not showing anything, you know.

I have answered you numerous times. Where have you been?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, once again, if you think you have posted a decent refutation, go find it and give me the link or post number.

No, I'm not going searching just because you ignored my answer, or didn't see from my answer that this is not, in fact, a modal fallacy.

You have cotton in your ears, yet you are influencing people in here who don't know enough about fallacious reasoning to know who to believe.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh? Who do you think I am influencing? Which participant in the thread, besides you, do you think knows less about fallacious reasoning than I do, and is sitting here confused?

You are the biggest spokesperson in here, and you know that your opinions are heard. You even told me that yourself.

That means people here are going to accept your analysis and conclude that Lessans is wrong, when I know Lessans is not wrong.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What on Earth makes you think anyone is going to blindly accept my analysis?

I didn't say blindly, but when there is a disagreement people will automatically go to a person who represents mainstream thought where they don't have to think too hard. I don't have the same luxury where this discovery is concerned.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you have only added further proof that your opinions are just that: opinions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My opinions are opinions! Yes, that is a true statement. Tautological, but true.

Then hold onto that thought before spouting off your opinion which means nothing in terms of what is true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, what are you raving about? This is quite a stupid thing to say. All I can offer in any discussion is my opinions, same as you. Same as anyone.

No, this is not my opinion LadyShea. If that's all it was, do you think I would be working this hard?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this discovery can be proven via testing. That's just it.

What are these tests that will clearly demonstrate the discovery, other than world wide adoption of the principles?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this discovery can be proven via testing. That's just it.

Then what on Earth were you referring to with 'sometimes it cannot be shown this way [via testing]'?

Also, we've tested your daft non-discoveries on light. It failed, remember?