“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

What does this prove? That the author was wrong? Hell, you don't know a thing about him.

It is not necessary to know a thing about a person in order to assess the validity of their ideas.

The problem with this comment is that in this case, it does matter because people have judged him negatively because the idea that we see the past as sacrosanct.

No, it is not “sacrosanct.” It is TRUE. “Sacrosanct” has no place in science.

It's untouchable.

No, it’s not. It’s just TRUE.

Look at what they have said about him without knowing him or his intellect.

And there you go again.This has got nothing to do with him as a person or his intellect. Scientists don’t judge people or their intellects. They judge how well their ideas match up against observed and tested reality. HIs ideas fail that test.

 

[peacegirl]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening? As much as science believes their claim of seeing in delayed time, there is no absolute proof that reality is seen in the past tense, no matter what science claims is true. Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

 

[pood]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening? As much as science believes their claim of seeing in delayed time, there is no absolute proof that reality is seen in the past tense, no matter what science claims is true. Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

Yet again, you learn nothing that is explained to you.

As I and others have already explained, the standard of science is NOT “absolute truth,” which implies, true beyond any doubt whatsoever. The standard is, true beyond any REASONABLE doubt — the same standard used in court.

Nor do we see “in the past tense,” because that is a meaningless phrase. We see, IN THE PRESENT, objects as they were IN THE PAST.

Finally, one cannot “discredit” science. One builds models of the world and tests them against observed reality. If they explain what is observed and make testable predictions, the model is tentatively accepted. If they fail to do so, the model is discarded or modified.

Your writer’s claims do not agree with observed and tested reality, so they are rejected. It’s even worse for him because he does not have a MODEL — he simply has a claim, which turns out to have no contact with observed reality

 

[Jarhyn]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening? As much as science believes their claim of seeing in delayed time, there is no absolute proof that reality is seen in the past tense, no matter what science claims is true. Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

Observed reality is verifiably happening. That which is counter to observed reality is observably not happening in the way it is described.

Science doesn't deal in proof, that's math. Until we find math that describes the most basic behaviors of physical stuff, proof won't enter into discussions of what happens in reality... And we will still never be sure we are "complete" in the math of physics even then. But at least then we would have a solid axiom to prove function with.

Science, to admit discredit, *requires* demonstration of flaw.

You have not *demonstrated* flaw.

Please, by all means *demonstrate* the flaw. Your Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

 

[peacegirl]

The worst part of this is... I actually took classes to learn all this. I took chemistry classes and biology classes, I took psychology classes, and logical reasoning classes... I took my entire major so that I could eventually have the prerequisites for my classes studying the learning and inference process itself.

It's honorable that you took all these classes and studied the learning and inference process itself. What does this prove? That the author was wrong? Hell, you don't know a thing about him.

Classic peacegirl. It’s got nothing to do about the personal characteristics of your author. Nobody needs to know a thing about him.

Wrong. They need to know what his observations were that caused him to make this claim. You know, a demonstration? You never read the chapter or the book. This is what happens when people are so committed to their ideas that they cannot entertain the possibility their ideas could be wrong. I've entertained the idea that Lessans could be wrong, and so far, he wasn't.

Also wrong. I read the book. It’s wrong, that’s all.

You did not read the book because you didn't purchase it. All you did was took out slices that Chuck found and made a laughing stock out of it.

He was wrong on the facts. That’s all that matters. But you think reality is decided by authority, by decree.

Wrong.

Where you got this idea, I don't have a clue. This is not an appeal to authority. You are using this against me for no reason. That you constantly say I agreed because it was my daddy is just another one of your accusations. I could never do what I'm doing—in my own right—if I didn't understand why he made the claims he did and what he demonstrated to prove it.

You obviously do not understand his claims, because you yourself cannot explain them. For example: What does the retina do in the eye, on HIS model? What’s does the optic nerve do, on HIS model? You have no clue. If you did, you’d explain it. But you don’t because you can’t.

I gave everyone most of the chapter. He demonstrated how the eyes work from observations that led him there. What does science do other than give their version of what they believe is happening in the brain? They have not proven that the brain receives signals that are then interpreted as images. This is a logical jump. All the neural processes may be correct, but that's as far as it goes.

 

[peacegirl]

What does this prove? That the author was wrong? Hell, you don't know a thing about him.

It is not necessary to know a thing about a person in order to assess the validity of their ideas.

The problem with this comment is that in this case, it does matter because people have judged him negatively because the idea that we see the past as sacrosanct.

No, it is not “sacrosanct.” It is TRUE. “Sacrosanct” has no place in science.

It's untouchable.

No, it’s not. It’s just TRUE.

You don't get to claim as TRUE the very thing that Lessans is challenging.

Look at what they have said about him without knowing him or his intellect.

And there you go again.This has got nothing to do with him as a person or his intellect. Scientists don’t judge people or their intellects. They judge how well their ideas match up against observed and tested reality. HIs ideas fail that test.

Science can only infer that they see delayed images. I know you believe they have proven it by the train example and Jupiter io. You are positive that science got it right as much as I am positive that they got it wrong. May the best man win.

 

[peacegirl]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening? As much as science believes their claim of seeing in delayed time, there is no absolute proof that reality is seen in the past tense, no matter what science claims is true. Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

Yet again, you learn nothing that is explained to you.

As I and others have already explained, the standard of science is NOT “absolute truth,” which implies, true beyond any doubt whatsoever. The standard is, true beyond any REASONABLE doubt — the same standard used in court.

So that should leave open the claim that we don't see in delayed time. But no one is doing that. They don't even care how he came to his conclusions. All they say is he's wrong because science is right.

Nor do we see “in the past tense,” because that is a meaningless phrase. We see, IN THE PRESENT, objects as they were IN THE PAST.

When you think about what we would see if we were on the star Rigel, it really is absurd. We would possibly see all different times in history just showing up, like Columbus discovering America or maybe the time of the dinosaurs, or the Ice Age, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Civil War but never what is happening in the here and now.

Finally, one cannot “discredit” science. One builds models of the world and tests them against observed reality. If they explain what is observed and make testable predictions, the model is tentatively accepted. If they fail to do so, the model is discarded or modified.

Your writer’s claims do not agree with observed and tested reality, so they are rejected.

They haven't been studied, so how can you say that they do not agree with observed and tested reality? You are using science as a control variable, which will not work in this case.

It’s even worse for him because he does not have a MODEL — he simply has a claim, which turns out to have no contact with observed reality

Science has a model, but if it's wrong, what good is it? It may appear perfectly constructed, but so what if it's incorrect? Lessans explained what the brain is able to do when it comes to the projection of words that have no corresponding reality whatsoever.

If you were taught one word, orange, which included within that symbol a grapefruit and tangerine, you would hand me any one of the three if I asked for an orange, but when you learn the other two words, which photograph the difference, then you could not hand me a tangerine or grapefruit if I asked for an orange. The reason we have a word for the sun and a word for the moon is because these two bodies are different, and the reason we have a planet named Earth, one named Saturn, Venus, etc. is only because these are not one and the same planet, and we have separated them by calling them different names. However, the reason we do not call the moon a planet is because we learned it does not function like one, therefore it does not fall in the same category. Once it is understood as an undeniable law that nothing impinges on the optic nerve, even though the pupils dilate and contract according to the intensity of light, it becomes possible to separate what exists in the external world from that which is only a negative or word in our head. In the course of our children’s development, they learn other kinds of words that form inaccurate relations, not only because a judgment of personal value is given external reality by the symbol itself but also because the logic of unconscious syllogistic reasoning confirms the apparent validity of inaccurate observations. Let me show you how this was accomplished.

From the time we were small children, our relatives, parents, friends, and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and dislikes regarding people’s physiognomies. The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over and over again with an enhancing inflection as to someone’s physical appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives that also contained the degree of feeling experienced. Similarly, an entire range of words heard repeatedly with a detracting inflection as to someone’s physical characteristics took a picture of the similarities between this type of physiognomy and developed negatives containing the degree of feeling experienced below this line of demarcation. As time went on, a standard of beauty was established. Not knowing what the brain was able to do, we were convinced that one group of similarities contained a lesser value than the opposite similarities. We were unaware that the brain had reversed the process by which these negatives were developed and then projected onto the screen of undeniable differences a value that existed only in our head. It would not be long before we would be conditioned to desire associating with the one type while avoiding the other, and as we would get older, you would not be able to convince us that an ugly or beautiful person did not exist because we had witnessed these differences with our very eyes. In other words, when a word contains a judgment of value, a standard of perfection, then we are able to project this value directly onto substance, and then because we see this with our very eyes, it was a simple thing to convince ourselves that beauty was a definite part of the real world. The confusion between what is real and what is not comes from the fact that these words not only describe real differences that exist in the world, but they also create external values when there are no such things.

 

[peacegirl]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening? As much as science believes their claim of seeing in delayed time, there is no absolute proof that reality is seen in the past tense, no matter what science claims is true. Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

Observed reality is verifiably happening. That which is counter to observed reality is observably not happening in the way it is described.

The speed of light is verifiable, but seeing in delayed time is inferential.

inferential: based on inference (= a guess or opinion that comes from the information that you have):

Science doesn't deal in proof, that's math. Until we find math that describes the most basic behaviors of physical stuff, proof won't enter into discussions of what happens in reality... And we will still never be sure we are "complete" in the math of physics even then. But at least then we would have a solid axiom to prove function with.

Science, to admit discredit, *requires* demonstration of flaw.

You have not *demonstrated* flaw.

Please, by all means *demonstrate* the flaw. Your Nobel Prize is waiting for you.

I don't need to discredit science in order to prove that Lessans was correct in his observations. When his discoveries are recognized, I would be honored to accept a Nobel Prize on his behalf.

 

[peacegirl]

The worst part of this is... I actually took classes to learn all this. I took chemistry classes and biology classes, I took psychology classes, and logical reasoning classes... I took my entire major so that I could eventually have the prerequisites for my classes studying the learning and inference process itself.

It's honorable that you took all these classes and studied the learning and inference process itself. What does this prove? That the author was wrong? Hell, you don't know a thing about him.

Classic peacegirl. It’s got nothing to do about the personal characteristics of your author. Nobody needs to know a thing about him. He was wrong on the facts. That’s all that matters. But you think reality is decided by authority, by decree.

Wrong.

Thank you! In fact it helps in evaluating any individual claims he makes to not know who he is.

I don't really expect people to believe MY claims. I want wholeheartedly for them to not, but to go to school and see and learn for themselves, and then evaluate my claims for their contents rather than anything to do with who I am and let it be that there is only the text.

My text will carry enough of me into the future anyway, assuming I write enough of it.

That is why I took the time to put his books online in the hope that one day his discoveries will speak for themselves.

 

[pood]

You don't get to claim as TRUE the very thing that Lessans is challenging.

Of course I get to do that, because that we see in delayed time and that the eye is a sense organ are FACTS, they are TRUE. You and your author claim they are not facts, that they are false. YOU DON’T GET TO DO THAT, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

IOW, the burden of proof is entirely on you to establish your claims. You have failed spectacularly to do so.

 

[Jarhyn]

You don't get to claim as TRUE the very thing that Lessans is challenging.

Of course I get to do that, because that we see in delayed time and that the eye is a sense organ are FACTS, they are TRUE. You and your author claim they are not facts, that they are false. YOU DON’T GET TO DO THAT, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

IOW, the burden of proof is entirely on you to establish your claims. You have failed spectacularly to do so.

My gosh this whole thread is just so straight up batshit crazy. Sight IS inference of something's existence based on information transmitted by the particular qualities of photons and the relationships between emissions from a general location over time.

Like, I remember a whole back you told me what peacegirl's deal was, but to actually *see* it is something else entirely!

She takes "eye lasers" and one-ups them with eye database access by photonic token.

 

[peacegirl]

The worst part of this is... I actually took classes to learn all this. I took chemistry classes and biology classes, I took psychology classes, and logical reasoning classes... I took my entire major so that I could eventually have the prerequisites for my classes studying the learning and inference process itself.

It's honorable that you took all these classes and studied the learning and inference process itself. What does this prove? That the author was wrong? Hell, you don't know a thing about him.

Classic peacegirl. It’s got nothing to do about the personal characteristics of your author. Nobody needs to know a thing about him.

Wrong. They need to know what his observations were that caused him to make this claim. You know, a demonstration?

Right, a demonstration.

Why don’t you give us one? Braying over and over, “efferent seeing, efferent seeing,” is NOT a demonstration.

For example, demonstrate the role of the retina and optic nerve in the eye on HIS model.

You have the floor.

When he said nothing strikes the optic nerve, he didn’t mean that the optic nerve wasn’t an essential conduit between the brain and the eyes. He only meant that there is no nerve ending (like in the other 4 senses) that receives stimuli from the light itself (i.e., the wavelength) that the brain interprets as an image. Again, he was not saying that the optic nerve wasn't an integral part of how we see, but it does not work like the other four senses because it's part of the central nervous system itself. The other senses are part of the peripheral system, which means that to say the eyes work like the other senses is not accurate. Obviously, the brain processes information, but the question is how does it process?

The optic nerve is the second cranial nerve but is not a true cranial nerve. Instead, it's an extension of the brain parenchyma. The optic nerve transmits electrical impulses from the retina to the brain, which will be processed into visual information.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0887217122000427

The optic nerve (also known as Cranial Nerve II or CN II) is extra special among the cranial nerves because of how it forms. It’s the only cranial nerve that’s also part of your central nervous system (CNS), along with your brain and spinal cord.

https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/22261-optic-nerve

The optic nerve is different from other nerve endings of hearing and sound in several ways. It is not part of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and is a white-matter tract of the central nervous system (CNS). Unlike other nerves, it is encased in all three layers of the meninges. The optic nerve connects the eyeball and the brain, carrying messages between the eye and brain.

Cranial Nerve II: Optic Nerve - The Defeating Epilepsy Foundation

The optic nerve, also known as cranial nerve II, is different from other paired cranial nerves in that it is not part of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Instead, it is a white-matter tract of the central nervous system (CNS) and contains around 1.2 million axons from retinal ganglion cells...

www.defeatingepilepsy.org

 

[bilby]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening?

No, I don't see that. Because it is abject nonsense. If observed reality doesn't tell us what is actually happening, then we cannot ever know anything at all.

As much as science believes their claim

Science doesn't believe anything.

of seeing in delayed time,

The scientific method overwhelmingly concludes that we see only the past.

there is no absolute proof

There are no absolute proofs of anything outside mathematics.

that reality is seen in the past tense,

No other explanation has been proposed that fits the facts (without self-contradiction).

no matter what science claims is true.

Science doesn't claim anything is true; It demonstrates that things are false.

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must include the truth.

Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

Sure. But you seem to have underestimated the meaning of the word "all".

If the scientific method cannot help us to comprehend reality, then we have no means to comprehend reality, and your ideas, my ideas, Lessans's ideas, Newton's ideas, and everyone else's ideas are ALL pure nonsense.

Rejecting science is the nuclear option; It destroys the ideas you don't like, but it destroys the ideas you do like too - and just as comprehensively.

You can certainly decide to adopt a nihilist philosophy that avoids the conclusion that we see only the past, by destroying all ability to conclude anything about anything. But if you do, you also abdicate the right to assert that your alternative ideas have the slightest validity.

 

[bilby]

My gosh this whole thread is just so straight up batshit crazy.

Is this your first day?

 

[Jarhyn]

My gosh this whole thread is just so straight up batshit crazy.

Is this your first day?

I've been around here for well over a decade now, pretty much nonstop.

I just wasn't really expecting it to go *past eye lasers* so quickly with a new member.

Also, I'm unsure how this whole thread got past that point from where the title idea started.

I mean, principally to me there is a question to be answered among the discussion between libertarianism and determinism: one would imply a god and a heaven and *desert*, and the other doesn't. The other says "you want it? WORK FOR IT!"

I am a determinist, I see how wills and degrees of freedom interact to create this concept of "free will" in a sensible way, and I operate on that basis. This requires accepting some manner of every belief as "close to the truth" in some way.

The thing is, it really just sounds like Peacegirl is here to advertise for this guy's book, whether he asked her to or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

If the scientific method cannot help us to comprehend reality, then we have no means to comprehend reality, and your ideas, my ideas, Lessans's ideas, Newton's ideas, and everyone else's ideas are ALL pure nonsense.

Rejecting science is the nuclear option; It destroys the ideas you don't like, but it destroys the ideas you do like too - and just as comprehensively.

You can certainly decide to adopt a nihilist philosophy that avoids the conclusion that we see only the past, by destroying all ability to conclude anything about anything. But if you do, you also abdicate the right to assert that your alternative ideas have the slightest validity.

I think this bears belaboring what the scientific method is:

1. Have an idea.
2. Test whether that idea is true.
3. Adjust idea...
4. Go-to 2.

It's super simple. It's literally just "test your ideas", to reduce it all the way to child-speak.

 

[pood]

If the scientific method cannot help us to comprehend reality, then we have no means to comprehend reality, and your ideas, my ideas, Lessans's ideas, Newton's ideas, and everyone else's ideas are ALL pure nonsense.

Rejecting science is the nuclear option; It destroys the ideas you don't like, but it destroys the ideas you do like too - and just as comprehensively.

You can certainly decide to adopt a nihilist philosophy that avoids the conclusion that we see only the past, by destroying all ability to conclude anything about anything. But if you do, you also abdicate the right to assert that your alternative ideas have the slightest validity.

I think this bears belaboring what the scientific method is:

1. Have an idea.
2. Test whether that idea is true.
3. Adjust idea...
4. Go-to 2.

It's super simple. It's literally just "test your ideas", to reduce it all the way to child-speak.

To test you need a model that can be tested. peacegirl’s author doesn’t have one.

 

[peacegirl]

You don't get to claim as TRUE the very thing that Lessans is challenging.

Of course I get to do that, because that we see in delayed time and that the eye is a sense organ are FACTS, they are TRUE. You and your author claim they are not facts, that they are false. YOU DON’T GET TO DO THAT, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

You did not prove your claim, you only think you did.

IOW, the burden of proof is entirely on you to establish your claims. You have failed spectacularly to do so.

My gosh this whole thread is just so straight up batshit crazy. Sight IS inference of something's existence based on information transmitted by the particular qualities of photons and the relationships between emissions from a general location over time.

Like, I remember a whole back you told me what peacegirl's deal was, but to actually *see* it is something else entirely!

She takes "eye lasers" and one-ups them with eye database access by photonic token.

It is batshit crazy to equate this claim to eye lasers or eye database access by photonic token (whatever the hell that means!)

 

[pood]

You don't get to claim as TRUE the very thing that Lessans is challenging.

Of course I get to do that, because that we see in delayed time and that the eye is a sense organ are FACTS, they are TRUE. You and your author claim they are not facts, that they are false. YOU DON’T GET TO DO THAT, UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

You did not prove your claim, you only think you did.

As usual you are totally uneducable. As has been repeatedly explained to you and ignored by you, “proof” is not part of science. Rather, by repeated observation and testing, scientists discard claims that don’t match up with observed reality — claims like, “we see in real time” and “the eye is not a sense organ.” Those claims have been known to false for centuries.

 

[peacegirl]

Even if science is right about most things, that doesn't make science right about all things.

That's 100% absolutely true.

People are so offended because they think this claim somehow discredits science itself, but it doesn't.

No, they really aren't. And no, it really doesn't.

This claim offends itself, by contradicting observed reality. Contradicting observed reality is the only flaw an idea can have - but it's a fatal one.

No idea can possibly "discredit science".

Don't you see that observed reality may not tell us what is actually happening?

No, I don't see that. Because it is abject nonsense. If observed reality doesn't tell us what is actually happening, then we cannot ever know anything at all.

As much as science believes their claim

Science doesn't believe anything.

of seeing in delayed time,

The scientific method overwhelmingly concludes that we see only the past.

there is no absolute proof

There are no absolute proofs of anything outside mathematics.

that reality is seen in the past tense,

No other explanation has been proposed that fits the facts (without self-contradiction).

I don't see where self-contradiction enters into it. The explanation he gives not only makes sense, but he shows why it makes sense and how we become physically conditioned (not socially) to seeing what doesn't exist.

no matter what science claims is true.

Science doesn't claim anything is true; It demonstrates that things are false.

If science demonstrates something to be false (efferent vision), then they are claiming (sorry, but it is a claim) the opposite of that something to be true (afferent vision) BY DEFINITION. The problem is they haven't demonstrated efferent vision to be false, so they cannot claim afferent vision to be true.

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must include the truth.

Nothing can discredit science if it's not flawed, but if it is, all bets are off.

Sure. But you seem to have underestimated the meaning of the word "all".

Scientific exploration is wonderful. All I am saying is that we can't place all of our bets on science always being right. They can make mistakes. This happens to be a big one.

If the scientific method cannot help us to comprehend reality, then we have no means to comprehend reality, and your ideas, my ideas, Lessans's ideas, Newton's ideas, and everyone else's ideas are ALL pure nonsense.

It all depends on what you mean by the scientific method. As I stated many times, his observations and reasoning are part of epistemology (the search for truth) and will be empirically tested one day to prove he was right all along.

epis·te·mol·ogy: the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity​

Rejecting science is the nuclear option; It destroys the ideas you don't like, but it destroys the ideas you do like too - and just as comprehensively.

He never rejected science. He wrote:

Science will actually govern Earth, but without telling one person what he must do.

Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing or wanting to hear any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists—as with free will.

You can certainly decide to adopt a nihilist philosophy that avoids the conclusion that we see only the past, by destroying all ability to conclude anything about anything. But if you do, you also abdicate the right to assert that your alternative ideas have the slightest validity.

I have no problem with the scientific method, but there are limitations. Please don't take offense, but when some beliefs become so entrenched in present-day thinking, it's almost impossible to get people to even listen to anybody that says otherwise. They call you a crackpot, crazy, or a fundie. It feels very similar to the Christian belief that says Jesus was God incarnate. You could never convince a Christian otherwise, even when proof to the contrary is staring them in the face.