Re: New Discovery
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2025 2:00 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 30, 2025 1:51 pmNo they don't. I am not at all influential.
No it isn't. Everybody is vastly smarter than you, myself included. In my case I have domain knowledge regarding philosophy that you lack. These are just two among the many reasons why my judgment is superior to yours, and they don't make me unusual in that regard. Anybody with a decent education (philosophy optional), a basic grasp of elementary reasoning, and the ability to read a paragraph without forgetting the beginning of it before reaching the end is out of your league.
peacegirl wrote:The problem is that you think that you can argue and be right because your knowledge gives you that. But in this case, YOU ARE ALL WASHED UP. It doesn't fly and you are ruining it for others who look up to you.
Sure, but you have to persuade them to want to read your work for that to even begin to happen, and in case you haven't noticed, you aren't doing very well at your end of that task. You've had no more success with what you are doing here anywhere else either. You can't blame me for wherever those failures occurred. You haven't enough smarts to think about what you are getting wrong though.
peacegirl wrote:This is so hard for me because you are myopic. More than that, you are doing the very thing you don't like by claiming that I must be wrong because it hasn't worked before. This is pure nonsense.
Richard Milton knew what he was talking about:
The taboo reaction in science takes many distinct forms. At its simplest and most direct, tabooism is manifested as derision and rejection by scientists (and non-scientists) of those new discoveries that cannot be fitted into the existing framework of knowledge. The reaction is not merely a negative dismissal or refusal to believe; it is strong enough to cause positive actions to be taken by leading skeptics to compel a more widespread adoption in the community of the rejection and disbelief, the shipping up of opposition, and the putting down of anyone unwise enough to step out of line by publicly embracing taboo ideas. The taboo reaction in such simple cases is eventually dispelled because the facts — and the value of the discoveries concerned — prove to be stronger than the taboo belief; but there remains the worrying possibility that many such taboos prove stronger (or more valuable) than the discoveries to which they are applied. In its more subtle form, the taboo reaction draws a circle around a subject and places it ‘out of bounds’ to any form of rational analysis or investigation. In doing so, science often puts up what appears to be a well-considered, fundamental objection, which on closer analysis turns out to be no more than the unreflecting prejudices of a maiden aunt who feels uncomfortable with the idea of mixed bathing. The penalty associated with this form of tabooism is that whole areas of scientific investigation, some of which may well hold important discoveries, remain permanently fenced off and any benefits they may contain are denied us. Subtler still is the taboo whereby scientists in certain fields erect a general prohibition against speaking or writing on the subjects which they consider their own property and where any reference, especially by an outsider, will draw a rapid hostile response. Sometimes, scientists who declare a taboo will insist that only they are qualified to discuss and reach conclusions on the matters that they have made their own property; that only they are privy to the immense body of knowledge and subtlety of argument necessary fully to understand the complexities of the subject and to reach the ‘right’ conclusion. Outsiders, on the other hand, (especially non-scientists) are ill-informed, unable to think rationally or analytically, prone to mystical or crank ideas and are not privy to subtleties of analysis and inflections of argument that insiders have devoted long painful years to acquiring. Once again, the cost of such tabooism is measured in lost opportunities for discovery.
But you are right. Anybody who wants to have an insight into the quality of your offering but who doesn't want to read insane gibberish about a dragon with an invisible key for a door of knowledge should really look beyond the fact that I consider you a window licking loon and attempt to discern why that is.
Assuming they don't want to read 160 pages of stultifying, pretentious and self-congratulatory prose via the link you have provided just now, they would do well to check out what I have written about why the tautological underpinnings of the first discovery renders it a non-discovery. Why that same tautology invalidates the backup argument that in a case of free will the tautology would stop applying. That should be enough. Philosophically there is nothing really to see here.
I don't really care about your respect. I think your dad was a con artist and you are his substandard chiselling lackey. I might respect the hustle if there was some art to it, but in present form I don't even respect you that much.peacegirl wrote:You are a fraud FlashDangerpants. You don't know what you don't know (i.e., a tautology), which this knowledge is not BTW. I will continue to share whatever I want to with or without your understanding or lack thereof. You don't own this forum.
