Is My Hypothesis Valid???

I misunderstood what you said then, but yes, I would argue that it doesn't get you any higher than the ground unless there is some sort of objective evidence that you may not be considering.When someone tells me something, I have objective evidence to fall back on when interpreting the claim. If what the person tells me is completely devoid of any and all objective evidence, I relegate the claim to, at best, the "merely possible but not very probable" bin. Unsurprisingly, if I were to make a wild guess about something for which I have no evidence or knowledge, it would go in the exact same bin.

Indeed. There has to be some sort of objective evidence to suggest that the claim being made was actualy observed and was not just a complete figment of ones imagination.That is why my claim that I have a son is objectively evidenced. Sons exist. We know this from objective experience. Googlesplats on the other hand...........We have finally established that RAZD is in fact intentionally conflating the possibility of the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" (even if it is recounted second hand) with his flawed notions that there is some form of evidence that can apply to empirically undetectable entities. See Message 134.To get this all remotely back on topic - I would suggest that those entities which cannot possibly be objectively evidenced cannot be the subject of a scientific hypothesis as they are concepts neither derived from evidence nor able to be tested by evidence.Claims relating to empirical phenomenon can potentially be the subject of validly scientific hypotheses but one persons claim that they have seen something completely otherwise unevidenced in any way at all is not sufficient from which to derive a scientific hypothesis.

Thanks Straggler, ROFLOL de LOL. You just CANNOT GET DEITIES OUT OF YOUR MIND, can you. You just CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES, can you.NEWS FLASH: sheesh! What is WITH you and DEITIES? Bad childhood experience?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spling

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

i would put only Wild Guesses in the Wild Guess bin. Depending on my own view of the reliability of the person providing the claim, i would put the claim in a bin near the Wild Guess bin as appropriate. in my case, i might have so many bins that to a distant observer it may appear that every once in a while i put one claim in the Wild Guess bin.for me, the "merely possible but not very probable" bin is different from the Wild Guess bin.is the Wild Guess bin equivalent to standing at ground level beside the zillion-rung ladder? if so, my "merely possible but not very probable" bin would be above the "faintly possible but extremely improbable" bin, which would be above the ground. actually my Wild Guess rung is above the ground. my ground level rung (or bin) could be for "no way, no how, not possible, never".

---

- xongsmith

yes! the objective evidence rungs are just so many, many, many rungs above the subjective evidence rungs.

---

- xongsmith

Well Straggler, maybe I should call you "struggler," for you struggle with simple concepts, and you struggle mightily to try to shoehorn deities into any nook and cranny of my arguments. I bet I'll have to refer you to Message 138 a number of times before this thread is over. No, it isn't clear to you. You still don't get it. ROFLOL. You have a lot of dad-burned GALL to say that after titling your post "Why You Are Wrong" ... but let it pass - because your "proof" of my error is curiously inept. Okay, it isn't irrelevant - to you. Knock yourself silly (literally) pretending that you can distinguish one form of subjective evidence from the other. Have at it. Let me know when you want to talk about perceptions of reality.I find it totally irrelevant because it is beside the point. It does not lead to an answer to the question of whether subjective evidence - perceptions of reality that don't have the credentials to please you - can be used for scientific conjecture. Curiously, I did not say it was "impossible" - what I said was "If you can't define where one ends and the other begins, then your distinction is artificially imposed and irrelevant." (bold, color and underline for empHAsis)But not in ALL cases - and that is why, no matter how much you detail "certain specific cases," you will still be totally WRONG about all the other cases. Interestingly, I have not said that there are not SOME cases where you can determine the difference, I even detailed some. However, you can make several hundred erudite posts about specific cases where we can distinguish a concept like the IPU from reality, but in the process you will waste a lot of bandwidth, and you will never answer the question about what all the subjective experiences where you cannot distinguish the difference say about reality. Strangely, you only need to be wrong about ONE case where you cannot determine the difference for your argument to be worthless.THAT is why it is irrelevant. THAT is why it is a waste of time. That is why the distinction is ultimately of little use, and pointless for determining anything of value about reality. What is it with you and supernatural etc./s? Let's posit a subjective experience, therefore it MUST be about god/s? Yes that logic IS painful, excruciatingly painful.Try this:Person B, alone, has an unusual experience, one that is indistinguishable between an experience of empirical reality, and one that is imaginary. (that's what I am talking about - not your straw man).Let's say that it's a remote mountainous jungle forest area, and that person B has been hiking all day before sitting down for a rest.Person B thinks\believes that this experience is of a horse sized animal with some bold stripes and a single curved horn.Has he found a new species? has he found the mythological unicorn? or is he day-dreaming? He doesn't know. We don't know. YOU don't know. We can make educated guesses, but we can't know for sure. Without being able to know for sure in ALL cases, the distinction is ultimately pointless. Seeing as you have built this a condition into the "conclusion" of person A, you are once again begging the question.Are only red cars well built? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY? Now show that this applies to person B. If you cannot apply this to person B, your argument is invalidated by B's subjective experience. Can it be both a new species AND a unicorn? Or is it a day-dream? Is there a necessary contradiction here? And, seeing as that is NOT my argument, you have slain a straw man. Again. Of course it won't stay slain, because YOU will probably resurrect it. Again.Are there wholly subjective concepts that can lead to improved understanding of reality?Math is wholly subjective. Curiously, you've gone to great lengths to claim that Einstein was NOT trying to explain existing evidence, by creating a completely subjective construction to model the universe. Either this is a wholly subjective concept that leads to conclusions that are able to be demonstrated as more reliable than guessing, or it wasn't wholly subjective and was based on, and explained, existing knowledge\evidence of the universe. Which is it Straggler?Memes are a subjective concept, a subjective concept about subjective concepts. Do these concepts have an objective reality outside the mind? Do they exist independent of minds? Can you show me one? If not, then: can the effect of these wholly subjective concepts be measured and cataloged and described and studied? If they can, then don't memes provide us with a valuable explanation of some aspects of reality that you cannot otherwise determine? Is this a wholly subjective concept that leads to conclusions that are able to be demonstrated in reality, in a way that is more reliable than guessing? No, because (a) I have never claimed that they can be "empirically experienced" (in spite of your seemingly endless assertions otherwise) and (2) that does not mean they cannot exist, just that they cannot be "empirically experienced" by us. Do you not see the difference? ZING. You've slain ANOTHER straw man (those poor guys don't stand a chance around you). And once again, what we have is your straw man.RAZD: it is faith, belief without evidence.
Straggler: thus you are attempting to use "subjective evidence" to support your belief in unevidenced entities
RAZD: no Straggler, I am not using "subjective evidence" to support my belief, it does not need "support" from any evidence, faith is belief without evidence.
Straggler: thus your use of "subjective evidence" for your belief in unevidenced entities is falsified.What faith means, strangely, is belief WITHOUT EVIDENCE. So it is completely irrelevant and immaterial how much you insist on discussing "wholly subjective evidence" in relation to belief. Curiously, I find bald assertions like that totally unconvincing, having more the appearance of disagreeing out of bias, bigotry and spite, rather than any logical and rational evaluation of the proposal. A curiously inept argument for someone who has claimed a logically and rationally superior methodology, calling people who don't agree with them "irrational" and worse.Especially as you still cannot show that the experience of person B is not worthy of investigation. Let's say that it's been 20 years since the experience, that there has been no second experience, and no evidence found of any new species in the area: is it valid to keep looking to see if the experience was real or a day-dream? Can you now conclude with absolute assurance that it was either of your (ultimately unnecessary) distinctions: a "wholly subjective experience" or a "subjective experience of objective reality" ... and (more to the point) how can you tell? What is (reality)?
How do we perceive (reality)?
How do we tell that the (perceptions of reality) are true or even likely to be true?Does not the phrase (perceptions of reality) by definition remove from consideration those "wholly subjective experiences" that you are so obsessed with - in those instances where when we CAN determine that they are without doubt "wholly subjective experiences"?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : last question added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This thread is beginning to exhibit hints of spinning out of control, but the primary participants in this thread are very familiar with one another, so I'm going to suggest to the other moderators that we stay out of this thread unless assistance is requested.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What is "evidence"? Your position regarding this important question remains deeply contradictory.Until this contradiction is cleared up there can be no progress in this discussion. I genuinely want to progress this discussion. As a result I will put this contradiction to you in as clear and calm a manner as I am able. I will also do this within the limitations of terminology and subject matter that you have unilaterally imposed. Here goes:This thread is effectively about the nature of evidence.We seem to all agree that a hypothesis must be derived from evidence of some sort.We seem to agree that just randomly guessing as to what might be true from amongst all of the possible concepts one can imagine and then setting off to investigate is not the way to formulate valid hypotheses. I assume that is why you argued in favour of the use of the term "conjecture". As opposed to simply calling it "randomly guessing".(evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")Note that this is your equation. Written in your terminology.So then the question, and difference between you and I, essentially boils down to what is evidence and what is not. What leads to simply guessing. And what does not. The above seems to me to be a declaration from you, in no uncertain terms, that you agree with me that there are no forms of evidence that can be experienced "non-empirically".But in the other two threads that you and I have engaged in as part of this extended discussion you have advocated in no uncertain terms that various concepts which are inherently non-empirical in nature remain somehow "evidenced". How do you reconcile these two seemingly very contradictory positions regarding the very nature of evidence that is so important to this discussion?Once we have this tied up I will be happy to explain to you why I disagree with your wider position.

Your response to my rather poor taste but, nevertheless effective, example of empirical limitation was as follows: It is clear RAZ. From this we must conclude that your position is that unless an experience is empirical in nature you are not including it as evidence of any sort whatsoever. "None. Zero. Zilch. Nada".That unless something can in principle be seen, touched, tasted, smelt or heard (experiences all denied to our example) that such experiences are most definitely NOT experiences that YOU would class as evidence. I do see the difference. I have never said that the inherently non-empirical cannot exist. Rather I have consistently maintained that the inherently non-empirical cannot be evidenced.So, bearing in mind your previous response, can the inherently non-empirical (choose any example you like*) therefore be evidenced? Or not?I put it to you that your position regarding this matter is inherently contradictory.Over to you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thankyou. I would very much like this thread to continue. I understand the "dead horse" comments. I really do. I really really do. But I think we are extremely close to resolving a long term difference in position at this point.It is my stated aim to avoid either responding to or instigating any inflammatory remarks or behaviour in order that this thread be allowed to remain open as I genuinely believe that the resolution of this long term difference will come down in favour of my argument.RAZD obviously has a problem with the use of deities as an example. I am not sure why it should be he that is the sole arbiter of what examples can or cannot be used but in the name of keeping this thread open I will submit to his wishes and desist from using deities specifically as examples.I would however like to request that RAZD confront my arguments as applied to generic concepts that are inherently non-empirical by their very nature without declaring them as being "off topic" or "irrelevant" or not of his liking for whatever other reason.I believe that this inherent property of some concepts makes them very evidentially different to any concepts that are, in principle, able to be empirically evidenced. I fully appreciate that in RAZD's opinion this is not the case but I do not feel that his mere opinion on this should give him the right to declare any suggested exploration of such differences as "irrelevant".I think I can show that they are not irrelevant if allowed to do so. In fact I think I can show that they are very relevant indeed. But it takes two to tango, so to speak. Simply being told it is "irrelevant" is not very conducive to anything. All I ask for are honest and consistent responses to questions relating to this matter. Nothing more.This thread is about the nature of evidence. If the difference between concepts which are empirically evidenced and concepts which inherently cannot be empirically evidenced are not on topic or relevant then I am not really sure what is?RAZD says:(objective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(subjective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")I ask that we be allowed to explore what exactly it is that constitutes "evidence". Nothing more.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

To me the point you made with the aware but otherwise insensate intellect seems obvious. You established this as a baseline for the type of experiences that cannot constitute valid empirical evidence, and RAZD agreed with it.Using this baseline you then argue that internal experiences that are of the same nature as those of an aware but insensate intellect also cannot constitute valid empirical evidence. This would seem to be inarguable and sufficient to settle the discussion, and I don't understand RAZD's position.If RAZD uses this post as a springboard to launch another clarification, my only request is that it be short, as I think the great length of many of his posts works against him. It spreads his argument across too many paragraphs causing a loss of focus. If RAZD has a valid point then it must be one that you and I are missing, and the longer the post the harder it is to find it. Not every reply has to be an essay, not that RAZD is the only one here with this tendency.--Percy

Point taken.

Your entire "Perceptions of Reality" argument (Venn diagrams and all) takes what is perceived and then tries to determine how well this is evidenced. By taking this "top down" approach you end up considering perceptions that are not "evidenced" in any way at all as actually being evidenced. Regardless of whether they can in fact be possibly evidenced in practical terms or not. You are effectively taking a rationalist approach to evidence. An approach that would have Descartes literally spinning in his grave.This approach leads you inevitably to contradictory conclusions regarding the nature of evidence. Contradictiions such as the one detailed in Message 145Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thanks again Percy, Eventually, but by gosh what a wrangle to get there from where he started. I find it humorous that he had to go to the point where perception of any external experience was impossible before he could get to a point where subjective perception was not possible evidence. All intermediate positions had some level of credibility that evidence so provided could be true. This includes also several previously stipulated subjective experiences - dreams, and any unconscious perceptions, and induced mental states - whether they involve real objects or not (dreams are often fantasy about reality, including things recently read or discussed).Again I agree. My position started with such exclusions, a long time ago, and what I have been trying to discuss is evidence of reality, not beliefs. Message 146Then the very first thing to do is get a working definition of evidence that we can agree on. Trying to distinguish "wholly subjective experience" and "subjective experience of objective reality" when it is impossible to do so in all cases without making subjective judgements, to me says such pursuit is unproductive. My point has been, and will continue to be, that until you can adequately define what evidence really involves, that any attempt to run down rabbit-holes with a blind roughshod subjective application of undefined terms to a specific argument is pointless and irrelevant: you may very well find, once you have defined the term in question, that there is no NEED to discuss it. There is no need to discuss dreams, for instance. The I'd better cut this short.I, for one, would much rather discuss what is really evidence of reality and how can we tell.You stated, a while ago, something to the effect that "objective evidence" is subjective evidence that is sensed (perceived) from the external world, and experience that has been repeated and replicated by different people so many times that it is accepted as factual evidence of reality. What we can call the "objectivation" of evidence.Is that a good place to start?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •