Is My Hypothesis Valid???

This is getting fun, Straggler, I would agree that this certainly would be the understanding of those who have the experience, that it was indeed "empirical" in nature. That is where I've started from, yes. The problem is, in how one could discern when there is a difference between internal and external. We go back to your example from the movie - Nash perceived a (to him) empirical experience. This counts as evidence that the experience is internal in nature, however without such an audience, or some other way to check, there is no way to tell.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) • • •

Sorry that is still very unclear. Is that a yes or a no.Is a vision, and lets for arguments sake assume that it is a vision and not a possible empirical experience, evidence of that which was envisaged?In principle. Ignore the difficulty of discerning the two for a moment.

I have little doubt that the whole Nessie thing was kicked off by the sighting of something that is empirically detectable (a shadow, a floating log or whatever) and then imagination, wishful thinking and deeply subjective "conjecture" ran it's course. Equally the photos of Nessie were of something obviously empirically detectable by a camera. Just, as it happens, almost certainly not a giant sea monster.Did you read my message Message 108. I am intrigued to know how much of that you actually disagree with? Actually I don't think it is irrelevant at all. It is exceptionally important in fact.I don't think it is irrelevant because the question tells us much about our views on the nature of evidence and it is this where I really want to know how you and I actually differ. It is, as they say, the 6 million dollar question.IF you think, as I do, that "wholly subjective experiences" with no empirical foundation at all are in fact worthless as evidence of anything external to the experiencee then that means that you, as I do, only accept evidence that is empirical at root as valid (even if second-hand such as in courtroom scenarios).Thus this means that any claims that deities, for example, are subjectively evidenced means that you think such things are ultimately potentially empirically detectable and indeed evidenced at root.It is my guess (or is it "conjecture"?) that, unlike me, you do in fact think that "wholly subjective experiences" with no empirical foundation are in fact valid forms of evidence of external reality. And that you thus think that there IS such a thing as non-empirical evidence i.e. evidence that it is inherently, not just practically, impossible to analyse scientifically. I don't just mean one off empirical experiences that it is impossible to replicate. I mean experiences that even every instrument of empirical detection conceivable could not possibly detect.Thus I think you are using the excuse that "wholly subjective evidence" and the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" are (quite possibly) impossible to distinguish in practical terms in order to mask the fact that you are advocating forms of evidence that are not empirical in any way at all. If this is indeed the case it would obviously be quite a significant step forwards in the debate. One might almost call it a "paradigm shift".The obvious questions would then become what forms these non-empirical evidences take and on what basis you deem them to be valid in any way at all.Whatever the case, the question, in principle regardless of practical concerns is exceptionally relevant to everything we have been debating on for the past four months (is it that long?).So here it is, the 6 million dollar question:In principle do you consider "wholly subjective experiences" to be evidence of aspects of external reality in any way at all?For the sake of argument lets just assume that we somehow know that the experience has absolutely no actual empirical foundation whatsoever. It certainly is RAZ. It certainly is.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add external aspect to the 6 million dollar question.

Well actually I think I can. In certain specific cases at least.In the case of the existence of inherently empirically unknowable entities it cannot possibly be anything but "wholly subjective evidence" because, by definition, there is no possibility of any objective empirical evidence to interpret.Are you starting to see why that IPU might just be a logical argument after all?Are you starting to see why things that might have been empirically experienced, no matter how deeply unlikley that possibility may be, are very very very different from those things that inherently just cannot be? As I have been trying to tell you for the last four months.So RAZD what is the nature and form of this "wholly subjective evidence" that CANNOT POSSIBLY be the same as the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" in the case of the inherently empirically unknowable?I am all ears because frankly the cognitive dissonance you must be experiencing at the moment will make up for all the arrogant, patronising, self righteous crap you have been dishing out recently.And I didn't even mention the "D" word (deities for all those not in the know)Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm not sure you'll like it, Straggler, but you asked Yes, I read it. What you\we are really talking about (as I see it) is(reality) + (perceptions of reality) + (logic) = (tentative conclusion)And whether this is a valid methodology for understanding reality. If the logic is valid, and we all assume a priori that reality is valid, then we are left with the validity of the perceptions to judge the validity of the conclusion. This holds for all observations, from ones that are heavily repeated to ones that occur only once (Percy's example of the Tunguska meteorite - I thought "Bolide" meant a meteorite that exploded before impact, I saw one over Canada: spectacular). [pet peeve]The problem is, mathematical models have been wrong time and again. Relying on a mathematical conjecture does not - IMHO - make it any more likely to be validated by evidence than conjectures derived by other means. This is the rat-hole that many creationist arguments go down: that because it is mathematical it is magically valid. The problem is that mathematics can never validate a theory a concept or a conjecture as being true in reality, all it can do is model existing evidence and predict possible new evidence. Whether that predicted new evidence exists in reality or not cannot be determined from the math. In this regard, it is no better than opinion, which is unable to affect reality in any (known measurable) way.[/pet peeve]Which could also have been a total flop. It is not the formulation of the theory that makes it valid, it is the testing of the theory against evidence, against reality, and the ability to predict new evidence.It is the testing against evidence, and testing for falsification, that removes the subjectivity from the equation. The mathematical model could have been completely off-base, and it would be just as mathematically "elegant" just as (in)"valid" a process, whether derived by one man sitting alone in a room or not.Until the theory is validated by predicted new evidence, it is only a subjective wholly mental construction, and is no more objective than the subjective experiences of science fiction novels. Even with validation it doesn't become objective, it can, in fact, never become more than a "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" yes? Yawn. Logical fallacy of part for the whole again. It also includes some conclusions where subjectivity component is high and the objective evidence component is low, like the continued existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker in the Louisiana swamp lands for 50 years after the last sighting, where the "observed" evidence was shot to confirm the identity.Curiously, it was once again predicted new evidence that removed the subjective element from the equation and showed that the conjectured existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was indeed valid. In which case you won't be able to provide any validating predicted new evidence - and the lack of predicted new evidence will leave it on the subjective side of the equation - a mental construction (whether it explains existing evidence or not). Curiously, there are theories that involve no math (or so little math that you could not quatify it), and yet they too can be described as uniquely powerful - the theory of evolution comes to mind (how many equations are in Origin of Species eh?). You can model the process with math, but math was not used to develop nor test the theory. Once again we see that it is predicted new evidence that validates the theory and moves it from the field of subjectivity (a mental construction) to one of objectivity (evidenced validity). The logical fallacy of consequences. I should believe you because otherwise I will be irrational. Sorry, that doesn't pass the logic test.You've introduced a new term to the argument lately: Message 109
One of my pet phrases is that "science is the art of understanding the universe, and engineering is the art of making practical use of science." The engineer does not care one iota of ant frass how "elegant" an equation is, their interest is in one thing, and one thing only: does the equation model reality sufficiently to be useful. To derive engineering equations that are of practical use in the design of things from bridges to supercolliders, the engineers have accumulated a large body of measurements and observations, and they have used curve fitting systems to derive formulas to use in design, to predict the behavior of the designed object. Many such equations are cumbersome, and involve many terms and variables that all must be derived and entered, but they KNOW that this empirical process produces useful, practical solutions. Where there is uncertainty due to variability of results, in spite of their best efforts to define the variables, then factors of safety are added to encompass the variations.What we see here, is that the process of mathematics is used to create some of the most incredible structures that can be conceived by the mind of man, but that the math is the servant, not the master, of the design process.We also see, that as new information and evidence on the behavior of things become known, that the empirical formulas are modified, sometimes simplified, sometimes by adding another variable that must be taken into consideration, and sometimes (rarely) by being replaced by new, entirely different formulasThis is the empirical process. It is powerful. It is based on evidence and on the ability to predict new evidence (completely new designs that work) that make them objective and practical. Mathematics makes such engineering possible, but it is the solid footing of empirical evidence used to validate the mathematics that makes it practical.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) • • •

It is a pointless exercise to attempt to characterize the degree of subjectivity of individual personal experience. The back and forth about what's subjective and what's not is not relevant.What's important is the degree to which we can assure ourselves of what is true of reality by assessing many observations across many people. The IPU and the intelligent designer and God are all in the same boat in this regard - none have the requisite set of consistent observations across many people to conclude any objective reality.--Percy

I am going to clear up some loose ends regarding terminology while I wait for you to get back to me regarding the real subject at hand. Namely the nature of what is and is not evidence. Which I wholeheartedly agree with. This thread is about the derivation of hypotheses however. Untested conclusions. I am not advocating that we ever accept anything as verified until empirically tested. At all.Let me make it unequivocally clear that I have not once and never ever would, advocate rationalism as a valid form of deriving scientific conclusions. If you are in any doubt of this fact then you need to see this post from the other thread that inspired me to write the OP to the thread we now find ourselves in.http://EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only) -->EvC Forum: What is science? (ROB and STRAGGLER only)As a consequence most of the rest of your above post is just another relentless strawman attack.My argument in this thread can be simply stated thus: The "conjecture" that results in the consideration of the existence of subjectively evidenced fairies cannot in any way be equated to the "conjecture" that results in the predictions of the mathematical, or indeed any other, sciences. Notably Einsteins theory of Special Relativity which specifically meets the criteria of your woefully inappropriate and all-encompassing definition.Simply because you have found a dictionary definition that manages to unite the speculations about fairies and Special Realtivity under the same banner does not mean that this is conceptually, historically or evidentially justified. I could not give a monkeys donut what terms we use. But I implore you to stop conflating concepts.Now with specific respect to Einstein's theories: Where does the quote even say "explained"? Look RAZ not only I have studied and even performed these experiments myself in the historical context in which they arose I have read a great deal about Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare and the others. In what is probably the definitive autobiography of Einstein Abraham Pais discusses the subject of Einstein's SR postulates and the knowledge that he may or may not have had at that time at great length. In the words of Einstein himself: Einstien called the derivation of his postulates "den Schritt" i.e. "the Step". Not only did he have to reconcile these with the known facts of electrodynamics he also didn't know or didn't care about the Michelson experiments. Einstein indisputably derived SR by taking a postulate/axiomatic based approach that lay in absolute and direct contrast to the methods of Darwin or any other example of the non-mathematical sciences.(objective evidence) + (logic/maths) = ("conjecture") Well RAZ if Einstein had purely followed the math and ignored what he thought the observations told him he would have predicted the potentially non-static nature of the universe before it was actually observed. He would have avoided the "fudge factor" altogether. In fact Einstein himself called it "The biggest mistake of my life". 1 - 0 to the maths on that score I would say. Which potentially kind of blows your "observation first" as an inherently superior means of investigation totally out of the water. No?BUT - As I said I am not a rationalist. I would not actually ever advocate relying on maths alone over observation. Even despite the fact that it would have avoided the "fudge factor" in this specific example. Einstein was a genius and Relativity is an exception in that it was more accurate by means of pure theory than the observations available at the time of it's development regarding existing phenomenon. But that of course is exactly why I chose this example to illustrate my point.Either way you are wrong. Whether you concede this or not is immaterial. By your definitions "conjecture" applies equally to Einsteins whole theory of Special relativity and most other current theoretical science past, present and future as it does to the study of "fairy dynamics" at the "university of "fantasylandgonemad".Go figure.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.

Well if you would describe what you actually mean rather than trying to hide the fact that you are citing "non-empirical" forms of "objective evidence" that are for some reason unavailable to empirically challenged blind people.......Then we might all be a lot clearer as to what you do actually mean at any given time. It seems to change constantly and to be increasingly contradictory. Well I accept your faith as personally valid and always have done. I maintain that it is in any way distinguishable from someone who has personal faith in the IPU. But whatever.Faith itself. No problem and no particular argument from me. Fine. My mistake. I hope you can see why I might have come to that conclusion based on what you have said regarding subjective evidence but I apologise for getting it wrong. Here we part company. To me this just translates to:

You have faith.

You have had a wholly subjective experience that you find both very convincing and which you apparently consider to be evidentially consistent with your faith.

You thus now find the second-hand recounted experiences of others that are consistent with you faith to also be convincing enough to deem them "subjective evidence" for that which you (and very possibly they) already have faith in.

​

Can you tell me how this is not just confirmation bias gone mad?

​

As described here http://EvC Forum: Subjective Evidence Vs Human Invention -->EvC Forum: Subjective Evidence Vs Human Invention

​

Let's remind ourselves that have since used your flawed, and now utterly refuted, notion of wholly subjective non-empirical "evidence" (a form of evidence that you cannot demonstrate to be any superior to just guessing) to relentlessly accuse those that refuse to accept your unspecified "visions" as any sort of evidence, of "cognitive dissonance", "denial of evidence" and "irrationality". Let us not forget that this is how this little "spat" between you and I actually actually first began.

​

Now to get back on topic. We all seem to agree that a valid hyothesis must be derived from something that can be meaningfully called "evidence". Unless you can conclusively show that whatever form of "evidence" it is you have for empirically undetectable entities is any better than randomly guessing I suggest that we all agree that any aspect of the supernatural is neither derived from evidence nor able to be tested by evidence. And thus has nothing to do with any valid form of scientific hypothesis whatsoever.

​

With regard to the wider issue that we all know we are discussing really (four months and two and a half threads later): Let us also agree that belief in such entities, which all of the objective evidence available suggests are the product of human invention, is wholly irrational and evidentially unjustifiable. Thus making a degree of non-belief, rather than pure 50-50 "I have no idea" agnosticism, the logical and rational conclusion.

​

So RAZ do you or do you not agree? If not why not? Be specific.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler Once again your words and preconceptions get in the way of your true understanding.Was it "wholly subjective" or was it "subjective experience of some aspect of objective reality" -- I don't know.Was it consistent with my belief? yes, but that is not a difficult bar to cross: the universe is consistent with my belief. It was more like an indication that I may be on the right path - for me. Call it an epiphany, kensho, an understanding. Curiously, the "second-hand recounted experiences of others" is how knowledge is passed from one person to another.As noted above, if anything, my personal experience only serves to validate the concept that subjective evidence can indicate truth about reality, it is one example of many. But this is not the only reason, the only basis, for using subjective evidence, nor is it a convincing reason.No, my reason for being convinced of the validity of subjective evidence has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief, rather it has to do with the logic being used. Try this again: The tentative conclusion is an explanation of reality based on perception/s and logic. All "objective evidence" is a perception of reality, and it is only by multiple and repeated occurrences that the subjective perception of reality is deemed to be objective evidence.Because the "objectivation" of (subjective) perceptions of reality depends on multiple and repeated occurrences of the perception, it is necessarily a sliding scale, with the likelyhood that valid perceptions of reality exist that are not multiple nor repeated sufficiently to be deemed objective. See Percy's comment about the distinctions in grades of subjectivity being pointless, Message 126:

quote:

---

It is a pointless exercise to attempt to characterize the degree of subjectivity of individual personal experience. The back and forth about what's subjective and what's not is not relevant.

​

What's important is the degree to which we can assure ourselves of what is true of reality by assessing many observations across many people.

---

The confidence we can have in (perceptions of reality) being valid is based on multiple and repeated occurrences of the perception (1) Because I am not mixing the two: what a specific subjective experience involves, is not related to how subjective evidence can be used to form conjectures.
(B) Because using evidence to validate a conjecture is not confirmation bias, or all of science is confirmation bias.
• - Confirmation bias is when you exclude contradictory evidence and concentrate on only the evidence that supports your conjecture/s.I find it curious that I spent a whole thread talking about subjective evidence, and not just without reference to it being in any way important to my belief, but actively rejecting discussion of any relationship between the discussion and my belief, yet here it is again being raised by you as if it was an integral element of the discussion. weary sigh. No, it is more based on what you have said about my beliefs and my argument about subjective evidence. No, you still don't get it.Premise 1: There is no way you can distinguish "objective" evidence from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" - for any single experience.Premise 2: There is no way you can determine - for a single subjective experience - whether it is a "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" or a "wholly subjective experience" - either by the person having the experience or by a later telling of the experience.Conclusion: There is no rational logical line between what is valid evidence of reality, and what is not -- when dealing with single experiences.Premise 3: The confidence we can have in evidence can be increased by multiple and repeated experiences of it until it reaches a point that we can call it "objective evidence of reality" and assume it is a valid representation of reality.Conclusion: While this process yields a class of evidence we can confidently call "objective evidence of reality," it cannot show that other subjective experiences can be excluded as an indication of reality.All this shows is that we should have less confidence in unconfirmed subjective evidence, not that subjective evidence is de facto invalid.I have not seen this argument refuted. Again I refer to Percy's comment about the distinctions in grades of subjectivity being pointless, Message 126:

quote:

---

It is a pointless exercise to attempt to characterize the degree of subjectivity of individual personal experience. The back and forth about what's subjective and what's not is not relevant.

---

What is relevant is how you validate the "subjective evidence" to transform it into "objective evidence" - and this is why I (now) think it is more useful to talk about (perception of reality) and the methods we can use to validate them: I see two methods of validation:

1. multiple perception and repetition of perception/s. This is the way we validate common and mundane experiences as being valid objective experiences, from cats crossing roads to meteorites burning up in the atmosphere. The thousands of things we see every day that fit into our perception of what is "normal" and "usual" are not questioned as evidence of reality because of multiple perception and repetition of perception/s.
2. testing, particularly of unique predictions of new (perceptions of reality) based on conjecture derived logically from the initial (perceptions of reality). This is the way science validates our knowledge of reality.

Now do you agree that this is a valid approach to reality - that is your purpose for this thread isn't it? - and that the artificial distinctions of subjective/subjective+objective/objective evidence is irrelevant to the point of determining valid perceptions of reality? And you accuse me of confirmation bias. LOL.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : unconfirmed

---

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) • • •

And you accuse me of **long** posts. I don't have time to read this waffle at the moment so I will just ask whether or not you have answered the question posed in Message 123.If so a simple and specific statement of the answer to that question will suffuce.Let's also bear in mind the points made in Message 124.And also let's bear in mind that unless you can demonstrate that whatever form of evidence it is that you are actually advocating can be demonstrated to be better than guessing then that is exactly what you are doing.If you have actually addressed none of these points in your post then please do so and stop evading the issue.More later. I have to put my son to bed.

Again with your woefully inaccurate Venn diagrams.The set of (perceptions of reality) does not entirely rest within the set of (reality). If it did, every perception would qualify as "real," including hallucinations, and the Virgin Mary in a water stain.

Thanks Rahvin for the astute observation that is irrelevant to the argument: Curiously, this does not invalidate the argument. I could have fun and argue that the falsified perceptions of reality are also a part of our reality, but it is much more fun to adapt the diagram to this: This divides the background into "reality" and "not reality" -- is there any category missing there?This divides the "perceptions of reality" into those based on reality and those based on not-reality, so "false perceptions of reality" is now added to the mix -- any complaint now?Now you have the additional problem that not all "objective evidence" has held up to scrutiny, and turns out to be false or incomplete. Some of what used to be considered "objective evidence of reality" turns out to be "false objective evidence of reality" ...Thus not only is it logically indefensible to exclude (perceptions of reality) that don't qualify as "objective evidence of reality," but you can't guarantee that all "objective evidence of reality" is valid. Are you saying you can always determine a priori those perceptions that fall into this category? What is your basis?The question is not that such perceptions exist, but how we can determine what perceptions of reality are reliable and a valid source for information about reality.We can test for hallucinations by having observers attend the subject individual and check whether or not they experience the same perceptions. If we can't then the perceptions can be deemed unreliable. Likewise if the perceptions are not repeated we can be skeptical of their reliability.We can test the perception of the "virgin mary" stain by first establishing evidence of what this person actually looked like, and how people making the claim are aware of this appearance.If there is no evidence for what this person looked like, or even that she existed, then it becomes rational to dismiss the claim.Thus when we consider the perception of reality We should include in the logical analysis the removal of already falsified concepts, or the tentative conclusion would be invalid, yes?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) • • •

Straggler, I know from past experience that you will badger until you get an answer, no matter how irrelevant your question is. You've already started this pattern again on this thread. Message 130
Heh, I'm only getting started ... and you asked for it. It is important to you. It is irrelevant to me, and according to Message 126 it is irrelevant to Percy. Curiously, I am no more interested in talking about deities here than I was on the IPU thread. I feel that I have said all that is necessary about what I believe and why. If this does not satisfy you then take your nosy-parker attitude elsewhere. I consider my belief personal, and I also consider it irrelevant to anyone else: they have to discover their own "truths" or they have discovered nothing.Strangely, what I am still interested in discussing is the subjective evidence that can be used for legitimate investigation of reality.Fascinatingly, I don't think it is necessary to discuss deities to discuss the usability of subjective evidence to form valid conjectures about reality.Interestingly, I would think, that if you really want to discuss the validity of deity experiences, that first we should establish the validity of using subjective experiences, and what limits that use. Then we could see if that was applicable to deities in any way shape or form. I would think that this would mean starting with common subjective experiences and working up from there. We can start with what makes subjective perception of reality into "objective evidence" and see if there is some hard and fast limitation or is it a fuzzy line.I would predict that if we actually can do this, that we would never get to deities at all, certainly not to any that would be involved in my beliefs. Why? Because I don't believe that god/s are knowable. That kind of makes it impossible to even postulate what could be evidence for same. Do you consider only red cars to be well built?For the sake of argument let's just assume that we somehow know that there are no non-red cars that are well built?I wonder if you can ask a question without begging the answer you want to get in the question.http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/begging.htm

quote:

---

Begging the Question
(petitio principii)

​

Definition:
The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.

​

Examples:

1. Since I'm not lying, it follows that I'm telling the truth.
2. We know that God exists, since the Bible says God exists. What the Bible says must be true, since God wrote it and God never lies. (Here, we must agree that God exists in order to believe that God wrote the Bible.)

Proof:
Show that in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true.

---

If I assume that "the experience has absolutely no actual empirical foundation whatsoever" then either you have already answered the question of whether "wholly subjective experiences" can be evidence of "any aspects of external reality" or you have made the answer irrelevant, because you could never verify that any "wholly subjective experiences" was evidence of reality or not. So the best answer I can give to your question with that condition is that it is impossible to know.Thus, once again, you are barking up an irrelevant tree, convince of the correctness of your viewpoint, convinced that one day you will catch that squirrel.Now, do you agree, or do you not agree, that a better formulation for your equation, one that avoids the rabbit-hole (I love mixed metaphors) of what kind of evidence we are talking about is: Would you agree that we should include in the logical analysis the removal of any already falsified concepts, yes? And we can specify that there has not been any validation (yet) so these would still be your "untested scientific conclusions" yes? Is this not what you are asking for?Note, that built into the process is the assumption that we are talking about perceptions of reality and that what we want to know is whether those tentative conclusions are valid explanations of reality.We can refer to the venn with Rahvin's modification Is this a good basis to on which to build an analysis of how to analyze reality? What makes it especially fun for me is that it continues from where I was on the Perceptions of Reality thread (now closed, having maxed out), where my basic question there was - once you have run out of concepts you can test scientifically, how can you judge the validity of the concepts that cannot be tested, and that are not invalidated by the scientific knowledge?Curiously, the conclusion I came to was that the only indication that could be used in that event was common experience and understanding - the degree to which other people agreed with the concepts\conjectures was an indication of their potential for understanding potential truths that cannot be tested by scientific means.Interestingly, this is how evidence gets "objectivized" according to the understanding of evidence that has developed on this thread. And what is really fascinating here, is that this objectivation of evidence occurs without scientific analysis, just by common repetition and multiple experience to the point that such experiences are considered mundane, common, and unremarkable. I would venture to say that a very high proportion of what we all consider the objective reality that we live in has been derived by this process of repetition and multiple experiences, and not by science. We don't scientifically test and analyze to validate that the cat that crossed my path this morning was in fact a cat and that it did in fact occur this morning: we assume it to be true. Given this fact, we can again review this diagram:Where I would specify that these refer to:

• science - 1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
• philosophy - Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
• faith - Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

And I would note that we take our common, mundane experiences to be valid reality on faith as defined above. We are confident in our belief in the truth of this as evidence of reality because of repetition and multiple experience.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) • • •

In this post I will highlight a contradiction in your thinking and demonstrate why it is that your whole argument is utterly flawed, specifically with regard to the inherently empirically unknowable. Why is it up to you to decide what is relevant and what is not? Is not a debate a two person (at least) venture?I don't tell you all your questions are irrelevant. I try to answer them whether I think they are irrelevant or not. If you think I have failed to answer any question you deem important just tell me and I will ensure that I do so.It would be appreciated if you did the same without these little hissy fits. Let the answers lead where they may without prejudging how relevant you think they are. Has it possibly occurred to you that if your position is in fact wrong such questions may be more relevant than you yet realise?The question of our empirically challenged witness, of which you were so dismissive and scathing, in Message 44 is just such a question. As I will show at the end of this post. This is untrue. It categorically is not impossible to determine whether something might actually be objectively evidenced or not. In certain specific cases.Let's take this slowly RAZ. Step by painful step.THE SITUATION
Person A has an experience that to them is indistinguishable from an experience of empirical reality.Person A concludes that this experience is of a supernatural inherently non-empirical entity of some sort.THE APPLICATION OF LOGIC
Something cannot be both simultaneously non-empirical and empirically experienced because this would be an inherent contradiction.Thus if we are to consider the conclusion of person A both evidenced by the experience and the experience itself non-empirical in nature we must logically also be considering some form of evidence that is not empirical.There are no forms of objective evidence other than ones that are at root empirical (second hand or otherwise) that can be demonstrated to be any more reliable than biased guessing.Thus claims of the supernatural are inherently unable to be objectively evidenced in any way at all that is superior to merely guessing.Unless, of course, you can actually show that there are wholly subjective non-empirical forms of objective evidence that lead to conclusions that are able to be demonstrated as more reliable than guessing.But you cannot.Thus, with regard to the empirically undetectable, your claims are utterly refuted. Well exactly.In which case such things cannot be empirically experienced by very definition. Which means by very definition that they remain unevidenced empirically and thus objectively.Unless you can cite a form of objective evidence that is not ultimately empirical and that is demonstrably superior to guessing.Do you seriously not see the problem here? Whether you like it or not the inherent non-empirical nature of such things makes the question of these things intrinsically and inherently different to anything that might have been experienced empirically. Nessie, aliens probing you, courtroom testimony, bigfoot, whatever. These are all claims of the empirical regardless of how poorly evidenced they may be. As long as it is potentially empirically experienced your claims regarding our inability to seperate the "wholly subjective" from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" are at least partially true.But in the case of the inherently non-empirical this is just not the case. Such entities cannot be empirically experienced. Therefore they must have been "wholly subjectively" experienced. Therefore there is no form of evidence that can be demonstrated to be superior to merely guessing available.Whether you like it or not this is why the IPU and deities keep being mentioned. If it CANNOT have been experienced empirically then by very definition it is "wholly subjective" unless you are claiming some demonstrable way of determining some sort of "non-empirical wholly subjective objective" form of evidence.Which given the very contradictory nature of such a thing I would also suggest is logically impossible.Thus your position, with regard to the inherently non-empirical, has been refuted. Well here are some more "irrelevant" questions for you.1) Are you able to demonstrate that there are any forms of wholly subjective non-empirical evidence that are objective and from which conclusions which are more reliable than just guessing can be derived?And specifically to help you think about the contradictory nature of your claims:2) Why did you tell me that our empirically challenged witness in Message 44 was not able to have the sort of experiences you are advocating as evidence if these experiences are inherently non-empirical in nature? It was indeed very clear RAZ. Eventually. Which is why I don't understand how the experiences of inherently non-empirical entities that you claim as evidence for the actual existence of such phenomenon are unavailable to the empirically impaired.This is contradictory.I would suggest that your relentless evasion tactics with regard to defining what you are including as "subjective evidence" have at last caught up with you.Please explain this contradiction. No. I think it is deeply and inherently flawed. I will answer any questions you pose to me regarding your wider position once the above contradiction has been sufficiently dealt with.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.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Again, most courts would require some sort of objective evidence, at the very least, a dead body or a weapon that had been used.But beyond that, because a jury or a judge finds the argument compelling does not make it correct. The sheer number of convicts on death row that have been over turned by genetic evidence proves that our court system is not the be all and end all of truth. In fact, it would seem to argue in favor of objective evidence versus subjective evidence, depending of course on the actual specifics of the testimony in the orignal court case.