They were not his opinions. If they were just his opinion, this would not be a discovery.
[i]In order for this discovery to be adequately understood the reader
must not apply himself and his ideas as a standard of what is true and
false, but understand the difference between a mathematical relation
and an opinion, belief, or theory. The mind of man is so utterly
confused with words that it will require painstaking clarification to
clear away the logical cobwebs of ignorance that have accumulated
through the years. For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.
The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone… is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth, but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost. 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. [/i]
If something is a known fact, is there a need for an opinion? Obviously this discovery is not recognized, so people interject their opinion. It is also true that science can be wrong which is why they use the term “scientific theory”.
Did you read the second chapter thoroughly? I asked you if you could explain the two-sided equation, and you didn’t answer. I don’t mean to put you on the spot, but if you don’t know what the two-sided equation is (which is the core of the discovery), how can you say you don’t think this discovery will change human behavior?
I know it does. Isn’t it ironic that this knowledge came out of philosophical thought and because it’s a discovery, it is beyond the forum discussion? So we should never take philosophy to higher ground where it really counts?
Many theories as to how world peace could be achieved have been proposed, yet
war has once again taken its deadly toll in the 21st century. The dream of peace has
remained an unattainable goal — until now. The following pages reveal a scientific discovery
regarding a psychological law of man’s nature never before understood. This finding was
hidden so successfully behind layers and layers of dogma and misunderstanding that no one
knew a deeper truth existed. Once this natural law becomes a permanent condition of the
environment, it will allow mankind, for the very first time, to veer in a different direction —
preventing the never-ending cycle of hurt and retaliation in human relations. Although this
discovery was borne out of philosophical thought, it is factual, not theoretical, in nature.
Let me repeat what was in the post above so that you understand that he’s not talking about math per se, but is using the term to mean undeniable:
For purposes of clarification please note that the
words ‘scientific’ and ‘mathematical’ only mean ‘undeniable’, and are
interchanged throughout the text. The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.