A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing to do with it and I've explained why.

No, you have NOT explained why this video describing special relativity has "nothing to do" with Lessans' claims. It has EVERYTHING to do with them.

1. If we saw in real time, it would be impossible for the ground observer and the train observer to disagree on when the lightning struck. Both would say it struck the front of the train simultaneously, or both would say the strikes occurred sequentially. This automatically rules out real-time seeing.

2. Special relativity also rules out efferent seeing, for -- after all -- it is possible, I suppose, that we see efferently but not in real time. I have no idea how efferent seeing is supposed to work, but if such a thing were possible, there is no logical reason why efferent seeing should entail real-time seeing. Of course, neither you nor Lessans ever explain the MECHANISM of so-called efferent seeing, and you admit that you don't know what it is. But we can assume, for the sake of argument, that efferent seeing is possible, just not in real time, which SR rules out. The answer is that SR also rules out efferent seeing. We know exactly why the observer in the train does not see the pulse of light from the back of the train until sometime after she sees it at the front of the train: Simply because she is moving away from the light (as judged by the person in the ground frame) and it has not caught up with her. This proves that light carries information, and that we see afferently: When the light catches up with her, it is transduced to the brain for interpreteation.

3. Of course, even without SR, we know that efferent seeing is wrong. It's wrong because, as the Lone Ranger carefully explained in the essay you refuse to read, the eye is anatmomically and functionally AFFERENT. This is a docmented and incontrovertible fact.

So, SR conclusively rules out real-time seeing and efferent seeing, and the anatomy and functional behavior of the eye conclusiviely rule out efferent seeing. Your game is over, your claims are sunk.

If, now, after this video and these explanations, you continue to maintain that there is no contradiction between SR and Lessans' claims; and if you continue to maintain that efferent seeing is possible even though we know conclusively that the structure and function of the eye rule out that possibilty, then you are a liar.

All an honest person can do at this point is say something like the following:

"It's obviously true that SR contradicts Lessans' claims; but I maintain the theory of relativity is false." That was your initial tack, which you quickly abandoned once it dawned on you how entrenched relativity theory is in science. This also proves you quackery and dishonesty: You are able to embrace, and then abandon, entire world views, just as soon as it becomes expedient for you to do so, and NOT based on any evidence or logic. Just like you claimed that cameras can, and cannot, take pictures in real time.

If you were to maintain that the theory of relativity is false, then it would be incumbent upon you to show why it is false. Good luck with that.

Anyway, the fact that the eye is structurally and functionally afferent, and this has been conclusively demonstrated, ruins Lessans and you from the get-go. Your sniveling tactic of saying that "more testing is needed" is just prevarication on your part. The testing has been done and is explained in the essay that you refuse to read. Thus it is otiose for you to call for "more testing" on something about which you know nothing and are determined to remain ignorant of.

I conclude that you are a charlatan and a swindler. The fact that you are trying to make money off this madness by hawking your book over the Internet is the giveaway: you have a powerful motive to con people, because there is money in it. There is no way you can fail to understand that very clear video, and there is no way that you can fail to understand how it destroys Lessans' claims. Your are simply of the ilk of the young-earth creationists, who are not interested in facts, logic or truth but rather are interested in living in a fantasy world of their own making, for their own reasons. In your case, the reasons are two-fold: the possibility of making money off this con game; and the fact that you have some deep-seated psychological need to believe that your father was God.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that his observations do not violate the laws of physics. Why can't you just leave it at that? If

Oh, they don't violate the laws of physics, because you said so??



Oh, well, then, that's different! If YOU SAID SO, you must be right and we must be wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said earlier that he wanted an investigation, but you have to read the book.

Originally Posted by davidm

You claim that Lessans wanted an investigation, and we did that but you're not happy with the result. In truth Lessans wanted nothing to do with an investigation, he wanted someone to rubberstamp it as something it was not, a work of genius. Instead we found it was nonsense, worthless rubbish, derived from an unobtainable goal, not from sound research or reasoning. It was a work of comical fiction intended as a mealticket.

I beg your pardon. You never read the book David. All you did was butcher it, and you call this an investigation? Not!!!!!

Originally Posted by davidm

Exactly. We have read the book.

No you haven't. You are a dam liar David, and you know it.

Originally Posted by davidm

We're not going to rubberstamp it.

We???? If you didn't have your little cronies next to you, you'd run away with your tail between your legs. You are far from an independent thinker.

Originally Posted by davidm

Instead, we investigated it. The book is worthless rubbish. It's only redeeming aspect is its unintentional humor, such as the discussions of rumpy-pumpy on the dinner table (but not with little ones present! Why not? Are they being blamed for wanting to watch? )

Actually, I included that because I thought people would misconstrue this excerpt, which they chose to do anyway. In the new world, children will be able to do whatever they want, because they won't want to look at things that they aren't ready for.

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans' phone call to Will Durant, his chasing around and hectoring his intellectual betters, his missives to Nixon and Carter, and so on. That stuff is rich in satiric material, which I will use for my next published story. Thanks for the material.

Intellectual better? This just shows me how very confused you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, they don't violate the laws of physics, because you said so??



Oh, well, then, that's different! If YOU SAID SO, you must be right and we must be wrong!

Enough David. You are adding zero plus zero to the discussion. And you what that leaves us. A BIG FAT ZERO!!!!!!!!!!

[LadyShea]

davidm is an editor. He reads for a living. I have no reason to doubt he read the entire book, who do you insist he didn't?

I admit I did not read the entire book, thought I read substantial portions including the fabled chapters 1 and 2...the economic and political chapters were too boring to get through.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing to do with it and I've explained why.

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you have NOT explained why this video describing special relativity has "nothing to do" with Lessans' claims. It has EVERYTHING to do with them.

1. If we saw in real time, it would be impossible for the ground observer and the train observer to disagree on when the lightning struck. Both would say it struck the front of the train simultaneously, or both would say the strikes occurred sequentially. This automatically rules out real-time seeing.

Wrong. You are still seeing in real time even though the frame of reference is different for each observer.

Originally Posted by davidm

2. Special relativity also rules out efferent seeing, for -- after all -- it is possible, I suppose, that we see efferently but not in real time. I have no idea how efferent seeing is supposed to work, but if such a thing were possible, there is no logical reason why efferent seeing should entail real-time seeing. Of course, neither you nor Lessans ever explain the MECHANISM of so-called efferent seeing, and you admit that you don't know what it is. But we can assume, for the sake of argument, that efferent seeing is possible, just not in real time, which SR rules out.

SR does not rule out efferent vision. You may be seeing light that has reached B, not A which was where it originated, but you are seeing B in real time.

Originally Posted by davidm

The answer is that SR also rules out efferent seeing. We know exactly why the observer in the train does not see the pulse of light from the back of the train until sometime after she sees it at the front of the train: Simply because she is moving away from the light (as judged by the person in the ground frame) and it has not caught up with her. This proves that light carries information, and that we see afferently: When the light catches up with her, it is transduced to the brain for interpreteation.

This proves that we use information coming from light, and that information is dependent on our frame of reference, but there are no images being carried in the light itself.

Originally Posted by davidm

3. Of course, even without SR, we know that efferent seeing is wrong. It's wrong because, as the Lone Ranger carefully explained in the essay you refuse to read, the eye is anatmomically and functionally AFFERENT. This is a docmented and incontrovertible fact.

You sound like a stuffy old professor who can't even hear another point of view.

Originally Posted by davidm

So, SR conclusively rules out real-time seeing and efferent seeing, and the anatomy and functional behavior of the eye conclusiviely rule out efferent seeing. Your game is over, your claims are sunk.

Wrong for reasons I just mentioned.

Originally Posted by davidm

If, now, after this video and these explanations, you continue to maintain that there is no contradiction between SR and Lessans' claims; and if you continue to maintain that efferent seeing is possible even though we know conclusively that the structure and function of the eye rule out that possibilty, then you are a liar.

If I'm a liar, you must have pseudologia fantastica!!!

Originally Posted by davidm

All an honest person can do at this point is say something like the following:

"It's obviously true that SR contradicts Lessans' claims; but I maintain the theory of relativity is false." That was your initial tack, which you quickly abandoned once it dawned on you how entrenched relativity theory is in science.

Wrong. I just didn't understand how you were using the term.

Originally Posted by davidm

This also proves you quackery and dishonesty: You are able to embrace, and then abandon, entire world views, just as soon as it becomes expedient for you to do so, and NOT based on any evidence or logic. Just like you claimed that cameras can, and cannot, take pictures in real time.

Wrong. I told you from the beginning that I was figuring it out as I go along, since I was never asked these questions. Just because I got confused over a couple of questions has nothing to do with the validity of his claim.

Originally Posted by davidm

If you were to maintain that the theory of relativity is false, then it would be incumbent upon you to show why it is false. Good luck with that.

But it isn't false, as far as I can tell.

Originally Posted by davidm

Anyway, the fact that the eye is structurally and functionally afferent, and this has been conclusively demonstrated, ruins Lessans and you from the get-go. Your sniveling tactic of saying that "more testing is needed" is just prevarication on your part. The testing has been done and is explained in the essay that you refuse to read. Thus it is otiose for you to call for "more testing" on something about which you know nothing and are determined to remain ignorant of.

If that's true, then there should be no reason why you would oppose seeing the results of a few more empirical tests.

Originally Posted by david

I conclude that you are a charlatan and a swindler. The fact that you are trying to make money off this madness by hawking your book over the Internet is the giveaway: you have a powerful motive to con people, because there is money in it. There is no way you can fail to understand that very clear video, and there is no way that you can fail to understand how it destroys Lessans' claims. Your are simply of the ilk of the young-earth creationists, who are not interested in facts, logic or truth but rather are interested in living in a fantasy world of their own making, for their own reasons. In your case, the reasons are two-fold: the possibility of making money off this con game; and the fact that you have some deep-seated psychological need to believe that your father was God.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, it would be nice to make money, but that is not first and foremost on my mind. And yes, I loved my father but I don't have a psychological need to believe he was right unless he was proven to be right.

[LadyShea]

Okay peacegirl. I am going to start with the forward. I predict you will weasel, but maybe you'll surprise me and I can learn something. I doubt you will take valid critique as anything other than an attack. I doubt you will even try to learn anything in return.

Prove me wrong.

On page ii of the forward, Lessans pre-emptively defines understanding as agreement and insults all readers by comparing them to cave dwellers who have not been living in reality. Any disagreement with any part of the book is thus defined as not understanding the book. This sets up the reader for failure from the beginning and this sets Lessans up as a messianic figure. This is not unlike Christianity, where any disagreement with the Bible is stated to be deception by the devil, or the result of stubbornly clinging to what one wants to be true.

Everyone except the author is deluded, stupid, and/or deceived. This is an early example of the frequent arrogance displayed by Lessans

There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a way that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” ~Lessans ii

Peacegirl, do you feel this is a good way to influence or persuade people to think positively about what is forthcoming?

So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence there is against any of the ideas, no matter how shoddily reasoned any part of the book is, you, peacegirl, have this built in excuse of "you don't understand". Is that a good way to gain truth and knowledge?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

davidm is an editor. He reads for a living. I have no reason to doubt he read the entire book, who do you insist he didn't?

I admit I did not read the entire book, thought I read substantial portions including the fabled chapters 1 and 2...the economic and political chapters were too boring to get through.

I don't know for sure how much he read, but what I do know is this: He destroyed the very integrity of the book by how he chopped it up. He gave me no reason to believe he read the book in a step by step fashion which is a requirement.

If you read the two chapters, you should be able to explain the two-sided equation. Can you do that? As far as the economic chapter, that's the most important chapter in the book and you wouldn't read it because it's boring? Not everything one reads is exciting, but it can be important nevertheless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay peacegirl. I am going to start with the forward. I predict you will weasel, but maybe you'll surprise me and I can learn something. I doubt you will take valid critique as anything other than an attack. I doubt you will even try to learn anything in return.

Prove me wrong.

On page ii of the forward, Lessans pre-emptively defines understanding as agreement and insults all readers by comparing them to cave dwellers who have not been living in reality. Any disagreement with any part of the book is thus defined as not understanding the book. This sets up the reader for failure from the beginning and this sets Lessans up as a messianic figure. This is not unlike Christianity, where any disagreement with the Bible is stated to be deception by the devil, or the result of stubbornly clinging to what one wants to be true.

I can see that if you are comparing him to a fundamentalist, which is the very opposite of who he was. He was an independent thinker.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Everyone except the author is deluded, stupid, and/or deceived. This is an early example of the frequent arrogance displayed by Lessans.

He never said anyone was stupid or deluded. He was just frustrated and this was his way of trying to preclude anybody from forming any preconceived ideas, although unfortunately it had a reverse effect.

There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a way that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” ~Lessans ii

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, do you feel this is a good way to influence or persuade people to think positively about what is forthcoming?

In that passage he wasn't saying anything terrible; he wasn't being arrogant. He was only trying to get people to refrain from passing judgment, before reading the book. And it still didn't work. People have done the opposite of what he requested. How unfair can one get, and then have the gall to pass judgment on his work.

Originally Posted by davidm

So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence there is against any of the ideas, no matter how shoddily reasoned any part of the book is, you, peacegirl, have this built in excuse of "you don't understand". Is that a good way to gain truth and knowledge?

You may not think there is anything to this book, but he would never have prefaced the foreword and introduction this way if he didn't know positively that he had uncovered a genuine discovery that is valid based on careful observations, sound reasoning and an uncanny insight into the human condition.

[LadyShea]

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

Down through history, there has always been this skepticism before certain events were proven true. ~Lessans page

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

You may reason that many people have been positive that they were right but it turned out they were wrong, so couldn’t I also be positive and wrong? There is a fallacious standard hidden in this reasoning. Because others were positive and wrong, I could be wrong because I am positive.~ Lessans page 3

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

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

Edison when he first discovered the electric bulb was positive and right. Einstein when he revealed the potential of atomic energy was positive and right —and so were many other scientists — but they proved that they were right with an undeniable demonstration, which is what I am doing. ~Lessans page 3

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

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

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

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

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may not think there is anything to this book, but he would never have prefaced the foreword and introduction this way if he didn't know positively that he had uncovered a genuine discovery that is valid based on careful observations, sound reasoning and an uncanny insight into the human condition.

In other words, he was right because if he wasn't right he wouldn't have said he was right. Yes, you've said as much many times. I don't think you're so stupid that you don't understand why this argument holds no weight.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that if you are comparing him to a fundamentalist group, which is the very opposite of who he is.

The comparison is valid from what he wrote. He may have been different in real life, but we can only judge what and how he wrote.

He never said anyone was stupid or deluded. He was just frustrated and this was his way of trying to preclude anybody from forming any preconceived ideas, although unfortunately it had a reverse effect.

He was proactively frustrated with unknown potential readers? This is in the forward for chrissakes.

When you come out swinging, of course people are going to feel unfairly attacked.

There are those who may be blinded by this mathematical revelation as they come out of Plato’s cave having lived so many years in the shadows that distorted their beliefs into a semblance of reality — and may deny what they do not understand or don’t want to be true. Just bear in mind that any disagreement can be clarified in such a way that they will be compelled to say, “Now I understand and agree.” ~Lessans ii

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In that passage he wasn't saying anything terrible; he wasn't being arrogant. He was only trying to get people to refrain from passing judgment, before reading the book.

He was saying that people are shadow/cave dwellers and deluded into believing they were living in reality when they were not.

He further attacks his potential readers by prejudicedly assuming that if they deny it, it could not possibly be out of honest skepticism, valid contradictory reasoning or facts, or expectations of valid supporting logic or evidence, but because they don't understand or don't want to learn.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it still didn't work. People have done the opposite of what he requested. How unfair can one get, and then have the gall to pass judgment on his work.

Want to talk about unfair? How about telling your readers, the very people you hope to persuade to your way of thinking, that if they don't agree they are either incapable of understanding or are intractably stubborn?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence there is against any of the ideas, no matter how shoddily reasoned any part of the book is, you, peacegirl, have this built in excuse of "you don't understand". Is that a good way to gain truth and knowledge?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You may not think there is anything to this book, but he would never have prefaced the foreword and introduction this way if he didn't know positively that he had uncovered a genuine discovery that is valid based on careful observations, sound reasoning and an uncanny insight into the human condition.

But put yourself in the shoes of a first time reader, like us when you brought this to us? How are we to know what he would or wouldn't do? All we have to go on, right now while reading the forward, are the words he wrote. He basically accuses his reader of stubbornness and adherence to incorrect ideas from the get go.

It's arrogance, peacegirl, for him to assume he is 100% correct. And it is arrogance and unfairness to set up a false dichotomy; either they agree, or they do not understand.

It's like the Emperors New Clothes...if you can't see the clothes you are a fool. Really, what other scholarly works are prefaced like this? Which authors feel the need to order their readers about in such a manner? Either the material stands and persuades on its own merits or it does not.

[LadyShea]

Two sided equation
* Man's will is not free, as he is compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction

* No person can be forced or compelled to do anything they do not want to do

*Because everyone understands points 1 and 2, nobody will ever blame, punish, criticize or question another person for any action even it results in hurt

*Therefore it is not possible to commit a hurtful action, because one cannot derive satisfaction from hurting another knowing they will never be held responsible in any way by another person.

Feel free to ask questions to test my understanding, because I know you can't believe, even for a second, that someone could understand and still disagree.

[LadyShea]

As for the economic chapters, they were boring, and because I did not find the foundational conclusions regarding justification and blame convincing or compelling, that were the basis, I didn't feel they were important.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. You are still seeing in real time even though the frame of reference is different for each observer.

SR does not rule out efferent vision. You may be seeing light that has reached B, not A which was where it originated, but you are seeing B in real time.

This proves that we use information coming from light, and that information is dependent on our frame of reference, but there are no images being carried in the light itself.

You sound like a stuffy old professor who can't even hear another point of view.

Wrong for reasons I just mentioned.

If I'm a liar, you must have pseudologia fantastica!!!

Wrong. I just didn't understand how you were using the term.

Wrong. I told you from the beginning that I was figuring it out as I go along, since I was never asked these questions. Just because I got confused over a couple of questions has nothing to do with the validity of his claim.

But it isn't false, as far as I can tell.

If that's true, then there should be no reason why you would oppose seeing the results of a few more empirical tests.

Wrong on both counts. Yes, it would be nice to make money, but that is not first and foremost on my mind. And yes, I loved my father but I don't have a psychological need to believe he was right unless he was proven to be right.

OK, now we've established beyond doubt that you're a lair, not just confused.

Hey peacegirl, you're such a moron that you didn't notice something important: You are now in disagreement with your father. Lessans explicity attacked scientists for promoting the thesis that light carries information and that real-time seeing is impossible because of this. However, that thesis is a CENTRAL TENET of the special theory of relativity; if light did NOT carry information that is transduced to the brain, the theory would not just be wrong, it would actually be meaningless!

Hey, shitwit, if we see in real time, how come the person ont the train sees the light pulses sequentially, while the person on the ground sees them simultaneously?

Also, shitwit, how come, if the sun is turned on at noon, we see the reflected light of the moon immediately, but not the reflected light of our neighbors for eight and a half minutes?

[LadyShea]

By the way, I still request you lay out "why human will is not free" in a similar or comparable format as I have offered the two sided equation (see below).

Fair is fair, right?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Two sided equation
* Man's will is not free, as he is compelled to always move in the direction of greater satisfaction

* No person can be forced or compelled to do anything they do not want to do

*Because everyone understands points 1 and 2, nobody will ever blame, punish, criticize or question another person for any action even it results in hurt

*Therefore it is not possible to commit a hurtful action, because one cannot derive satisfaction from hurting another knowing they will never be held responsible in any way by another person.

Feel free to ask questions to test my understanding, because I know you can't believe, even for a second, that someone could understand and still disagree.

[davidm]

Even when peacegirl is SHOWN to be wrong, conclusively shown, as in the case of efferent sight being impossible given the anatomy and function of the eye, and now in the case of SR being imcompatible with real-time seeing, she simply declares herself to correct.

She is fundamentally dishonest. There is no point in conversing with her about anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

She is fundamentally dishonest. There is no point in conversing with her about anything.

You just discovered this?

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

You just discovered this?

--J.D.

No, I knew it for a long time, but I wanted to make a very detailed rebuttal and force her to contradict herself (SR is a wrong theory, SR is a right theory; cameras take pictures in real time, cameras don't take pictures in real time, etc.) The latest is to drive home the fact that Lessans himself said Einstein was wrong. He didn't say specifically that Einstein was wrong by naming him as wrong, but in saying that light carries no information to the eye, he contradicts a central assumption of the theory of relativity. Lessans invoked Einstein in his book because he obviously had never read or understood Einstein and so proceeded blisfully unaware that all his notions had already been disproven by Einstein.

Having shown all this, the only thing left for this thread is smilie comedy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People will conclude that because people have been positive and wrong, he could be wrong because he's positive. He was just demonstrating the kind of fallacious logic that people use.

It is true that he could be wrong though, so the logic is not fallacious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that Lessans' discovery is based on a psychological law of man's nature; which is not a physical object such as a lightbulb that can be easily demonstrated; nor is it physics which can be shown easily through empirical data.

When demonstrating psychological principles or "discoveries", all other researchers offer their extensive notes regarding their observations, detailed information/demographics about the observed subjects (to eliminate the possible charge of sample bias, for example), offer and address confounding factors, and other data to support their conclusions. You can see this in every paper ever published in psychological journals. Lessans did none of this.

As I said, this knowledge can be tested empirically, but it's not as simple because much of this knowledge is immaterial, and unless you see the relations, you're going to say that he only made assertions.

Then he should have offered specific testing methods for researchers to use, and he should have followed accepted ways of gathering and presenting scientific information. He gave us his assertions and conclusions only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They knew less than he did. That would be like asking a chimpanzee to help me with my math homework. I'm being serious.

How did he know they were chimpanzees to his human? How did he know they knew less than he did? Why did he approach them at all if they were so inferior?

Basically you are claiming he had no intellectual peers? And you don't see how arrogant that is?

two plus two equals four, and his professor claimed that it was five. Is he supposed to listen to the professor because he went to college, or trust himself because he sees the relations?

2+2=4 can be easily demonstrated to anyone's satisfaction using a bag of apples. Not even remotely analogous.

Imagine for a moment that someone has an actual discovery that no one knows about asking a professor for help when the professor himself has no understanding of the subject matter.

Researchers and honest people ask their peers to check their methods, to check their data, to check their math. Crackpots and narcissists assume they are 100% correct and need no checking.

He did not approach these people for checks and balances because he knew what he had

Narcissism does tend to piss people off.

You are a toddler to my adult and intellectually inferior to me in every possible way peacegirl. Why I am I bothering talking to you?

Does that make you want to listen to anything I have to say?

[LadyShea]

I'm just waiting for the time that your questions are answered satisfactorily LadyShea, and you'll read the book with a little less suspicion, because you'll never understand it otherwise.

You can't answer them satisfactorily because you don't even accept that my very valid and well thought out criticisms are worth responding to honestly and objectively. Oh and because you know less than me, like a chimpanzee.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As for the economic chapters, they were boring, and because I did not find the foundational conclusions regarding justification and blame convincing or compelling, that were the basis, I didn't feel they were important.

But that's an extremely important chapter. The economic system is the main engine that drives the new world, so for you to say, "Well, there's no basis for reading it because I'm not convinced of the foundational conclusions regarding justification and blame," is a lame excuse LadyShea. You need to read the chapters in order, and you need to read all of them, not a few here and there. How do you expect to get a full picture of how the transition to the new world can actually take place?

[LadyShea]

There can be no transition to a new world if the foundations of its very existence are not valid.

If you weren't such an intellectual inferior you could understand my statement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't answer them satisfactorily because you don't even accept that my very valid and well thought out criticisms are worth responding to honestly and objectively. Oh and because you know less than me, like a chimpanzee.

I have answered your questions as honestly and objectively as is humanly possible. But you're not giving me a chance at all. You know what, I'm really getting the feeling that you want to win at all costs. That's what this is about, isn't it? I can't go on with this combative group if this is about proving that I'm a fundamentalist. That's not what this discussion is supposed to be about, and unless people start asking relevant questions after reading the first three chapters, this thread will be over, but it won't be because of me.