Absence of Evidence..............

Are you seriously suggesting that you would marry someone of whom you have no empirical experience?
Once again you confuse and conflate personal empirical experience with imagination.Nuns and priests are the only ones who could even remotely make this sort of claim...........

Personal empirical experience is necessarily subjective experience of an objective reality.
Those who claim Jesus is in their lives do so on the basis of nothing that could be described as objectively verifiable.
Delusion and imagination, again, are not the same as perception of an objective reality.
If you are seeing and hearing things that othere are inherently unable to see and hear then you have no evidence. You have only delusion.

Firstly no. Empirical evidence is not that produced by means of a study. All sorts of crap conclusions are derived from all sorts of invalid studies. Studies into personal auras do not make personal auras empirical.
Empirical means observable. Directly or indirectly observable but objectively verifiable either way.People do not generally get married without empirical experience of their potential partner.However in this context that is neither here nor there. This thread is about evidence.
Not whims and not preference. I may prefer beer to wine. That is a personal preference. It is not objective evidence that beer is somehow better than wine.
Our choice of marriage partners depends on many things (and is not as non-empirical as you would suggest - even with your complete misapprehension of the term taken into account). However nobody is claiming that our chopice of marriage partner is necessarily based on reliable evidenceSo ultimately what is your point?

Perosonal empirical experience (and I don't claim this as a formal definition - just the meaning I gave it in the post you are replying to)Is evidence that can be objectively observed by others.Where an eye witness claims to have seen something take place, for example, that is a personal empirical experience. If the claim is true anyone could have witnessed the event if they had been there. The evidence itself exists in an objective reality external to the experiencer.Feelings of having a soul for example cannot, by definition, be indepently verified because they are inherently personal.That is the difference.

It is not just that nobody has thought of a way to test the existence of a soul. There is no empirical basis on which to think a soul might even exist.Should we also search for little green men that live in the wall? The mighty invisible pink unicorn? If we look for everything that is claimed to exist on the basis of the claim alone we would be chasing rainbows pointlessly. this sounds like the sort of study that is conducted by those who "know" the soul exists and then set out to prove the existence of the soul. Unsurprisingly they then do so.But I will give you the benefit of the doubt - Do you have a link to this study. It sounds interesting. I have no doubt techniques to try and verify the existence of the soul will be found. What I do doubt is that there will be any valid independently verifiable evidence for such a thing.However the great thing about science and empirical investigation in general is that no matter what one thinks the truth of reality will get you in the end.So care to provide more details of this study? Who conducted it? Was it peer reviewed? Did the authors give any other possible explanatiions for their findings along with possible causes of error in their study?These are all standard practice and procedures in scientific research. These are the methods science uses to weed out bias and wishful thinking. Does the study you mention conform to these criteria?

I am not denying the soul as non-existant on principle!! If there is empirical evidence for it then hooray for the soul.
However there is no empirical evidence for the soul. So actually it is you who believes in such a thing on purely philosophical grounds. In the absence of any empirical evidence for the soul whatsoever how on Earth would we even go about perfecting technologies to verify it's existence? Is it made of matter? Is it affected by electric fields? Where do you suggest we begin?We might as well start looking into technologies to verify the existence of the Easter Bunny....... We should not reject things due to insufficient technology. This, for example, is why we should not reject out of hand the possibility that there are lifeforms on other planets.
However in the complete absence of any empirical evidence to even suggest that something might be possible and is worth investigating further the only rational and practical conclusion is that it does not exist.The lack of evidence for the soul, or for God or for angels has got nothing to do with technology. Because personal subjective feelings are subject to delusion in a way that objectively verifiable phenomenon are not.
The things you are advocating (feelings of having a soul, personal experiences with angels etc. etc.) are equally as unreliable as the genuine belief of the mass murderer who believes that God told him to do it or the local lunatic who chats to his dead friends as he wanders round town with a bottle in one hand and his wordly possessions in the other. Now you are just being stubbornly stupid.

I have no idea why you have decided to spread your various points and responses over so many disparate posts. It just confuses things. If I were less charitable I might suggest that it is either a slightly odd debating tactic or evidence of a lack of coherent thought . . . Anyway in this post I attempt to address your various points and misapprehensions regarding the nature of evidence.Let’s start with the basics . .What Does Empirical Mean?
I hate threads full of arguments over dictionary definitions but your incessant misunderstanding over what is meant by the term empirical needs to be addressed. From a simple online dictionary lookup I obtained the following definition

Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.

Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.

Guided by practical experience as opposed to theory.

​

Now I really do not want to get into a battle of definitions. I can think of nothing more boring. However with the above in mind I see empirical evidence, in the broadest sense, as that which exists in an objective reality and which can therefore be experienced and independently corroborated by individual conscious beings existing in that same objective reality. Observable evidence in the widest sense of the word is that which can be independently verified because it is external to the ”experiencer’.
Empirical in this context does not necessarily mean formally studied or experimented upon. It does not necessarily mean scientific. It merely means observable. Whether directly or indirectly.

​

Non-Empirical “Evidence”
What is non-empirical evidence? Anything that it is inherently impossible to observe or detect by empirical means. Anything that is purely and only the subject of personal subjective experience. Things that fit into this category are - Feelings of having a soul, personal relationships with God, an innate knowledge that you are special and destined for great things, anything that is utterly personal to you and under no circumstances could be expected to be detected like for like by anyone else.
If considered as evidence then frankly there would be “evidence” for just about every immaterial being or phenomenon imaginable. Such “evidence” is so obviously unreliable and subject to delusion that the very word “evidence” is unwarranted and is merely used by those with a philosophical agenda to give undeserved credence to their irrational conclusions in relation to the impossible and stupid.

​

Personal Empirical Experience
Much has been made of this category of evidence in this thread and a distinction needs to be drawn. An eye witness account experienced by nobody else. A claimed sighting of a resurrected demi-god. An alien encounter involving kidnapping and (optional?) anal probes. No corroborating physical evidence to show afterwards.
In any such cases the nature of evidence is empirical in so far as the claim being made states that the events described actually physically happened. This is not non-empirical in the sense that nobody could witness the act taking place. This is not like personal feelings of having a soul. These are claims that physical events occurred in an objective reality where it just so happened to be the case that nobody else was available to witness the event in question.
Whilst being inherently different in nature to claims of non-empirical evidence in this context such claims are equally unreliable.
How can we know what is claimed actually happened? How can we know that the person making the claim is not lying, delusional or just plain barking mad?
Did the event that is claimed to have taken place actually take place in an objective reality available to all or is it all in the mind of the experiencer?
It is impossible to tell. Thus claims of personal empirical evidence should be treated no differently to claims of non-empirical evidence unless there is corroborating empirical evidence available.
In practice we do not require these standards in most cases. In the event of mundane claims we readily accept such claims without need for further evidence. However if the claim being made is extraordinary or of deep importance we, quite rightly, require additional reliable evidence. In short empirical evidence.

​

Example 1: If I said that I saw a cat in the street today you would probably believe me without any further evidence being required. This is claim is mundane, ordinary and perfectly believable based on your own lifetime of empirical experience that tells you cats are common place and I have nothing to gain by lying about said cat sighting.

​

Example 2: If I said I had seen a herd of unicorn in my street this morning you would very probably, and quite justifiably, be very sceptical. On the basis that unicorn do not usually roam the streets of inner London and in fact have never been seen, or even left any traces of physical evidence for their existence, anywhere ever. Am I mad? Am I lying? Am I hallucinating? In the absence of additional and conclusive empirical evidence these are the perfectly valid conclusions that you would come to.

​

Claims involving personal experiences of aliens, angels, resurrections or anything else outrageous and extraordinary should be treated similarly to example 2 above. Don’t let those advocating such things fob you off by making unjustified comparisons with the standards of evidence we require for the mundane and ordinary!!!!!

​

Personal Preference
The fact that I prefer beer to wine does not mean that there is “evidence” that beer is superior to wine. That would be a ridiculous conclusion. Personal preference is exactly what it says it is. Objective reality and reliable conclusions are not even a factor in such decisions and preferences.
Randman has made much of marriage partners in this context. Do we empirically judge our potential partners? Well frankly in this context does it matter? Are we claiming to make reliable conclusions regarding reality with such choices?
Our choice of partner relies on many things. Some of it arguably empirical experience and some of it very definitely personal preference. Psychology, gut feeling, physical attraction etc. etc. are just a few of the complex and interweaving factors. But who says such conclusions are reliable? The divorce rate apart from anything else suggests otherwise. Longevity of relationship relies as much on ongoing compromise and adaption to individual needs as it does initial “conclusion”. In terms of this thread and it’s exploration of the basis for reliable conclusions regarding reality the whole topic is completely irrelevant.

​

Perfect Evidence
Does empirical evidence give us infallible conclusions?
No it does not. What form of evidence based conclusion could result in certainty and the impossibility of being wrong? The short answer is none. Such is the nature of empirical evidence. Like science in general, certainty is not an option.
The example of the coelacanth has been mentioned elsewhere (not by randman) and is a case in point. Deemed to be long extinct by means of the empirical evidence available at the time. Yet in the event of additional and unexpected empirical evidence this conclusion was dramatically overturned. What does this demonstrate? Was the initial conclusion unjustified?
Based on the evidence available at the time the conclusion as to the extinction of coelacanth was perfectly justified. Despite the fact it was ultimately wrong. However this is hardly justification for concluding that any empirical conclusion is wrong.
1) The existence of the coelacanth was eventually demonstrated empirically. Without this empirical evidence any such claim is irrelevant and no other empirically base conclusion can be overturned.
2) The initial conclusion was itself based on empirical evidence.
3) There can be no claim of equality with phenomenon for which there is no empirical evidence of existence at all. Coelacanth were known to exist and were thought (based on empirical evidence) to no longer exist. On the basis of empirical evidence they were then found to exist again.

​

Empirical evidence is not perfect but the alternatives leave open the very real possibility of “knowing” santa, the tooth fairy and every other imaginable being available to the human imagination should be considered as evidentially supported.

​

Conclusion
You have continually confused and conflated the various forms of evidence to meet the ends of your own flawed and disparate argument.
If you do indeed have a coherent argument please let us know what it is and I will address it as such.
Ultimately you have no basis for the validity of non-empirical "evidence" and you completely misunderstand the strengths and weaknesses of the various forms of empirical evidence that you seem to be denying or advocating on various philosophical grounds.

​

Let me know if you think I have missed any of your points and I will be happy to address. But lets try and keep things in a single response, rather than multiple responses eh?

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Potentially. But read the rest of the post you are arguing against.
Did they really see such a thing? How do we know? How likely is this? Is the corroborating evidence reliable? Is there any corroborating empirical evidence? Did a single person write about this persoanl experience (that they themselves never had) decades later?Who wrote these accounts? What did they have to gain by writing them? How reliable are they? Would they stand up in court, never mind scientific investigation?You seem to want to include anecdotal evidence as reliable empirical evidence.As Phat (Ex EvC member) once said - "Evidence is NOT the plural of anecdote"Try reading the posts you are writing against in future.......Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

No. I am differentiating between empirical evidence and personal delusion. Why is that such a problem?I would speculate that any problem you have with this is because much of that which you believe to be true meets the criteria of the second category. And you do not like that. In most mundane cases peer review has nothing to do with anything. The reason you want to confuse and conflate the two is because you want the same standards of evidence that are applied to the mundane and ordinary to be applied to your extraordinary, outrageous and utterly unjustified beliefs in the supernaturalI am not falling for that flawed argument. Witness testimony without even the bare bones of empirical evidence is non-existant. A murder witness without a body or missing person? Are you serious? What exprience are they based on? Do we necessarily call these decisions reliable conclusions? Nobody is claiming every human decision is based on rational thinking and empirical evidence!! Nobody is claiming that they should!!!!Least of all meHowever human day to day decisions have nothing to do with what is real, what is not and reliable conclusions regarding these matters. The fact that every person I have ever empirically experienced has been able to communicate and empirically interract with every other person I have physically experienced kind of suggests that I am not imagining said person (asuming I am of course not imagining the whole of reality - which is possible but unlikely and somewhat pointless).
There comes a point in practical terms where continual empirical experience of an external objective reality becomes more than subjective anecdote.You may believe that God exists but you will never experience God in the objectively verifiable way that you have experienced your family. No matter how strong your belief. Deal with it.Edited by Straggler, : Drunken spelling

Thanks for the info.I claim neither proof nor disproof of these events but given everything we do know the claim seems extraordinary and thus in need of additional reliable evidence if to be verified. I.e empirical evidence.In the absence of such evidence I would suggest that disbelief is the only rational conclusion.

I could not agree more. Nobody is claiming that scientific investigation and anecdotal evidence are the same thing.
However whilst scientific investigation is a formulated method of studying empirical evidence to obtain maximum objectivity and reliability it is also quite possible to have empirical evidence that is not part of a scientific study of any sort.Physical evidence that exists in an objective reality external to the experiencer. Physical evidence that can be independently corroborated by other conscious beings inhabiting the same objective reality as yourself.When I see something mundane and everyday I quite justifiably assume it to be really there and not a figment of my imagination. I have a lifetime of empirical experience of witnessing things that are also being witnessed by others around me. I have no reason to think I am imagining the evryday and ordinary.If I were in the habit of seeing things that nobody else could see or hear I might not be quite so presuming with regard to this matter.
Similarly if I witnessed something extraordinary I would very possibly not believe my eyes unless there were fellow witnesses equally as stunned and able to corroborate what I had seen.According to you it seems that there is scientifically verified evidence and then all other forms of evidence which are all equally valid. Empirical and non-empirical.
This is foolish. I don't need to scientifically study each individual I meet to know that they are real.
I have a lifetime of empirical physical experience on which to base the conclusion that they are real.However extraordinary claims such as UFO experiences, bodies rising from the dead, interracting with angels etc. etc. etc. are by their very nature not mundane, not ordinary and not able to be assumed as reliable as there is not a wealth of previous empirical evidence on which to base such a conclusion. In such cases more thorough analysis is needed to render the conclusion reliable.In short nobody is suggesting that day to day empirical experience is a substitute for scientifically rigorous investigation.
However nor is it possible (or even desirable) to subject every day to day claim to thorough scientific analysis. In the case of the mundane we can still make highly reliable conclusions based on past empirical experience.
Extraordinary claims however obviously require more analysis in order to be rendered reliable.It is not a difficult concept. If you stop confusing empirical evidence with scientific investigation then I am sure you will get it eventually.