Is My Hypothesis Valid???

I prefer the term "tenacious" but you are welcome to call me names if it makes you happy. No matter what you now assert you're position on the nature of evidence is far from clear. In fact it is the very definition of ambiguity. But before we get to that let us just remind ourselves that:

It was YOU that chose to take part in this thread thus inevitably re-igniting our very obvious and prolific past differences regarding the nature of evidence.

It was YOU that chose to utilise your "Perceptions of Reality" pet project as some sort of definitive answer in response to the inherent contradictions and intentional ambiguities of your "subjective evidence" assertions being exposed.

​

Having finally forced you into exposing the contradictions and ambiguities in your thinking Message 145 did you really expect me to just sit back and watch you preach your discredited philosophical musings to the blissfully uninitiated without further comment? You know me better than that by now.

​

Somehow, I don't think my lack of clarity is the answer either, seeing as I have attempted to be as clear and concise as possible about my position.

Apart from the fact that it keeps changing you mean........

​

RAZD writes:

​

For the casual reader, if you come upon a statement that purports to tell you what my position is, and it is not from me, I suggest you disregard it (I would expect this for anyone). Someone who has no clue about my position is more likely to be correct than this person has been.

​

OK. Let's review some of your own words on the nature of subjective evidence as used over the course of the wider discussion that has been taking place these past few months.

​

RAZD the very first time he raises the issue of "subjective evidence" writes:

​

Would you not agree that when we have run out of "ALL empirical objective evidence" that is available that the existence of subjective evidence does not mean there is an absence of evidence?

http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? -->http://EvC Forum: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? -->EvC Forum: Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?< !--UE-->

​

RAZD writes:

​

On a pure and simple basis, any subjective evidence is a causal basis for a person believing what they experienced. It is also obviously observably true that people making claims of being in love or of observing alien visitations believe this to be true, and that their acceptance of the possibility is based on their experience.

http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->http://EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument< !--UE-->

​

RAZD writes:

​

I'm saying that there is probably aspects of reality that can never be known by scientific evaluation. Some of these aspects may be suggested by subjective evidence as possibly valid.

http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->http://EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument -->EvC Forum: Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument< !--UE-->

​

RAZD writes:

​

If it helps the situation any (and I come to despair of every enlightening you on what my argument entails) I will concede that anything that occurs wholly within the mind - such as dreams or the experiences of your bewilderingly bizarre example of a person incapable of sensation - I will concede that these kind of "experiences" do not constitute evidence of any kind of interest to me. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
I would think that should have been clear by now, but obviously this false impression is causing a sever lack of communication of ideas and meaning, so let's eliminate it from the discussion pro and con eh?

http://< !--UB EvC Forum: Is My Hypothesis Valid??? -->http://EvC Forum: Is My Hypothesis Valid??? -->EvC Forum: Is My Hypothesis Valid???< !--UE-->

​

So you have gone from advocating a form of evidence that exists even in an absence of "ALL empirical objective evidence" relating to experiences which "can never be known by scientific evaluation" to now advocating a form of highly ambiguous "evidence" that is completely unable to be experienced by someone who is empirically disabled. A form of evidence that you just point blank refuse to define as ultimately either empirical or non-empirical in nature Message 168

​

And you then have the temerity to call this "clear"!!??!!

​

You are fooling no-one RAZ. Your position has been refuted beyond all doubt Message 178.

​

But you will never be able to acknowledge this. Possibly even to yourself. You have invested too much of yourself in this whole "Zen Deist", "Perceptions of Reality" world view to allow even the slightest hint of doubt to ever really be accepted. It is probably best if you don't engage any further regarding your pet philosophy because it stands up to scrutiny about as well as your descriptions of "subjective evidence" stand up to consistency checks.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD,This feels like I'm watching mom and dad argue and I'm almost hesitant to speak up for fear of being yelled at. The only thing, IMO, that this could be evidence for, is that the person is actually conscious*, has the ability to have subjective experiences, and, is limited by their view of reality. It says nothing about physical reality - neither positive or negative.*In other posts you have made specific the fact that the person is conscious as opposed to "dreaming", however, one cannot have a dream unless the person is conscious to begin with. Further, lucid dreams and normal awaken states differ in absolutely no way - in the mind. We simply add to our experiences our sensory inputs. However, nothing in the brain changes in function due to someone being asleep. So I don't see why dreaming and awake is any different. - (just a minor quibble) To the individual, nothing can be indistinguishable from the imagination and empirical reality, because, ones perception of reality involves all known methods of experiencing it.In this sense, reality, outside of the way I perceive it, doesn't mean anything to me. Reality IS what I experience - whether it includes imagined things or not - it's my reality, period.I cannot, however, make any claims about reality as being empirical unless we can all objectively agree that it exists - in our physical reality.Not that that means that what I perceive doesn't exist, it just means we can't all agree on the nature of this claim. - I believe you can agree with that. I would say that he has found nothing, other than realizing that he is conscious of his surroundings, has a functioning brain, and, has been told by this brain that he exists (I think therefore I am).Outside of that, his claim is worth nothing to anyone not in his mind - or not experiencing his reality (which is impossible). This is his reality, his reality does not need objectivity to confirm anything about it - it's his, it's true to him and he doesn't care what you personally perceive or not.However he has a problem. I have my reality as well, as do you and so does *he who shall remain nameless*. We experience them in our minds, which is to say that reality exists only in our minds. BUT, we also have a physical reality that we all meet up in. This reality is limited to the physical, to the objective and to the empirical - in this reality we have rules, also limited by the nature of this reality. These rules limit us to the objective.Now, this does not in anyway say anything about the true nature of reality. In fact, IMO, it means there are 2 realities, the one I experience and the physical reality that I'm also a part of. Nothing that exists in one of those realities has to be true in the other, however, in the physical reality I'm forced to adhere to it's rules, so I can't force my personal reality onto the physical one, or try to explain what I experienced in my mind without following the rules of physical reality.Which brings us to the experience of the person in the forest.Is it real - yes. Does it matter that he was conscious or not - in my opinion, no. Has this person discovered something *new* about reality - no, nothing other than "hey, I exist within it."Why? Because he has 2 realities to deal with - the one in his mind, and, the one limited by it's physical nature.In his mind, he has possibly discovered something *new* about the physical reality - BUT - He is limited when he tries to convey this information to the reat of us also in the physcial reality that we all meet up in - because the nature of this reality(physical) has rules to it. One of those rules, as I understand it, is it's objectivity.-------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion: Nothing experienced in an individual mind reflects anything about the nature of the physical reality that we all meet up. So, unicorns, that exist in my mind, are real - in my reality. God, that exists in my mind, is real - in my reality. Whatever I saw in the forest is real, in my mind, in my reality.HOWEVER, in our reality, the physical one, it is far from proof for anything, or even possible proof for anything, other than "I exist in the physical reality and have subjective experiences about it." Because the physical reality has rules. Well, I hope I have understood you properly.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi Onifre, LOL. Are there more than one reality? Better check with the others on this. I'm on record as believing there is only one reality, and that what differs are individual perceptions of that reality, based on accumulated experiences of each lifetime, ie their worldview.So you don't think that an experience that contradicts a person's worldview is evidence of reality? It may well be evidence that the person's worldview was limited by not previously incorporating this, but there is a point, then, where that worldview would need to be *known* a priori in order to incorporate the things not yet known and not be limited. As I see it, finding the limitations of a worldview is done by finding contradictions with evidence of reality, and this is the way worldviews are expanded. Well, that would be why all experience is subjective, because it is being processed in the same way that dreams and hallucinations are processed. But a key difference is that the inputs of the sensory systems are added, and one can test sensations by repetition. This is the basis of my quibble with Straggler's objective empirical (what's next) experience qualifications. How can one person tell from one experience whether it was real or imaginary. It's your perception of reality, it's your understanding of reality, it's your worldview, and yes it is *real* to you, as is true for anyone. The question is what bearing does it have on (what you've called physical) reality and, more to the point, how can we tell? And here is where we have the comparisons of worldviews, to see where they are congruent and where they are not congruent. Where they are congruent, and where the number of people where they are congruent is large, we can have a fair degree of confidence that this relates to reality. I would not expect full congruency on any one aspect with all people, or with all aspects with any one other person. Where they are not congruent, and where they are contrary, we can have a fair degree of confidence that at least one worldview does not relate to reality ... and then the question becomes which one/s' faulty? Exactly. I cannot experience what you have experienced. We can come close, and thus we can agree on the reality of many things, but I would not expect 100% agreement on all things with any other person. I don't agree with that. For me each new experience is like a small "zen moment" full of wonder at something unexpected. Perhaps such unexpected experiences are the more compelling evidence of reality than expected ones, like the scientist running an experiment, and instead of the expected results finds something curious. I'd say worldview, or perception of reality. ... I don't know about "*he who shall remain nameless*" and I don't like to guess what other people think. These are the places where our worldviews are congruent, consistent, conforming, where we agree on the reality because of agreement with each of our individual perceptions of that reality. This is why I think it is better to talk about reality vs perceptions of reality, understandings of reality, worldviews, rather that two different kinds of reality (a subjective reality vs an objective reality as was discussed way back on the Percy is a Deist thread, iirc), as this reduces the confusion of what is real with what we think is real. The perception of reality, the worldview, is a map of reality. Some maps are good (and rarely need more than minor corrections), and some maps are poor (and need frequent major revisions). Sometimes reality changes and even the best maps need to be updated. What is objectivity? It seems that "objectivity" refers to things that exist independent of observation or experience: the chair will continue to be a chair when nobody is in the room, and it will be the same chair to any individual that enters the room. In other words, objectivity is determined by congruency of worldviews, by agreement between individual perceptions of reality. Rather obviously such congruence or agreement cannot exist when other people have not had similar experiences.The forest hiker's perception of reality is revised by the new experience, whether his initial revisions hold up over time is indeterminate at this point. And nobody (to my knowledge) has claimed that (singular, unique) experiences are proof of anything. Rather, that the best such an experience can suggest is a possibility, a possibility that is based on, focused, directed by, an experience, as opposed to random guessing, or the throwing of turtle bones.The possibility is that others will have similar experiences, and that leads to the possibility of the experience becoming "objectivized" - with sufficient agreement between numbers of different worldviews that agree on the perception of reality that includes such an experience. As you said before: It takes confirmation to validate an experience, but the absence of confirmation doesn't mean falsehood. Well enough for me, and I hope I have understood you properly too. Now eat your broccoli.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : broc

---

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) • • •

Yet again your careful wording has been noted. If you are advocating a form of evidence that is somehow reliant on our empirical senses but which is bewilderingly in fact not empirical then why will you just not come out and say so? The reason that you will not do so is because the only validity you can claim for such evidence is achieved by intentionally conflating it with genuinely empirical evidence. Remove the ambiguity, remove the conflation and your whole thesis falls apart at the seams. And there we go. The conflation continues. "How can we possibly know?" The only card that you are left with is the card of conflation and ambiguity and you are holding onto it with the vice like grip of a dead argument suffering severe rigor-mortis. Well we can know, because you told us, that the empirically impaired are unable to have experiences that you would include as "subjective evidence". Even despite the fact that you will not actually explicitly limit these experiences to empirical experiences. Why do you not include such examples? Because the opportunity for conflation and ambiguity has been removed. Thus the contradictory nature of your position is exposed. Hence the relevance of that particular example. Well we can tell when the experiences in question are cited as evidence of concepts that are inherently non-empirical. In such cases there is no possibility that the "evidence" in question is empirical at all and thus either the conclusion is wrong or the experience was entirely imaginary. Hence the relevance of that example. So when it comes down to it your whole "subjective evidence" argument, your whole "Perceptions of Reality" pet project boils down to "we don't know what is real and what is not" and on this basis you advocate that we accept any experience that could conceivably be conflated with a genuine empirical experience as a potential indicator of reality. And then you wonder why it is that using this "reality first", "top down" approach to what can be evidenced and what cannot, you end up with inherent contradictions in your arguments and the necessity for ambiguity and evasiveness as the only remaining salvation for your ultimately flawed position. Ambiguities, contradictions and evasiveness as demonstrated here Message 145, here Message 168 and here Message 181Have you ever wondered RAZD why it might be that you have subscribed to an entire philosophical outlook that results in the objects of your faith as able to be "evidenced" and thus rationalised to some degree? A philosophical outlook that directly opposes modern philosophical and scientific thought? Your whole thesis is based on a raft of assumptions about the nature of reality and evidence that, under scrutiny, are completely contradictory and wholly irreconcilable. If you start with "reality" and work your way down to the nature of evidence then you will inevitably end up chasing your cognitive tail down the rabbit-hole of dissonance via the pitfalls of contradiction. Exactly as you have done.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I've got to admit that I didn't read any of the last bunch of pages of replies here. And, I'm most likely taking this quote out of context so please take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.But something popped into my head, and I think it's kind of interesting: This quote sounds very familiar to the fall-back argument of one of the favorite theistic friends here... namely iano. The old "we all rely on our subjective brains so therefore everything is subjective" rabble.I just found that kind of interesting.

You are absolutely right Stile. RAZD's and Iano's arguments are essentially the same but from opposite ends of the spectrum. Where Iano embraced his concept of non-empirical evidence RAZD seeks to sneak it in under the cover of ambiguity.RAZD will tell us that he only accepts evidence that is available to be perceived by our empirical senses whilst leaving the door ajar for inherently non-empirical concepts to be evidenced by taking extra special care to never actually use the term "empirical" to describe this evidence. Thus resulting in various contradictions: Message 145.He has tied himself into so many contradictory knots that I doubt if even he knows what he incudes as evidence and what he does not at this point. It keeps changing Message 181But yes I agree it is very Ianoesque. I had not personally made that connection so: Well spotted.{AbE} For anyone who is unfamiliar with Iano's views I refer you to a thread of his and some response posts from Modulus. Modulus's posts are some of the best posts I have seen at EvC both generally, and specifically regarding epistemology. http://< !--UB EvC Forum: I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me. -->http://EvC Forum: I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me. -->EvC Forum: I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me.< !--UE-->. Respect to the Mod.Edited by Straggler, : SpellingEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Stile I'll grant you that, and trust that you will go back and read to see the context in which these comments extracted by Straggler are discussed. In particularly I suggest reading Message 175 for explanation of my actual position, and perhaps Message 179 for some of the misrepresentations of my position, if you are curious. Except that this is not the same at all. The question is not about all experiences being treated as subjective experiences: we have many many experiences where there is overwhelming amounts of validation that they reflect reality. The question is, that when you have situations where there are no similar experiences, either by others or by multiple experiences by a single observer, when we have a singular, unique experience sensed by only one conscious and aware person one time - by what methodology would you be able to test that it was a reflection of reality or that it was imagination?Can you answer this question? Straggler can't (or doesn't). Message 186
Proof once again that (a) Straggler does not understand my argument and that as a result (b) his opinion of my argument is more likely to be wrong than right. Curiously he seems to now be obsessed with documenting a changing position. Message 181
This is from Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, some 600+ posts ago in a discussion spanning (now) 3 different threads (and digging it up demonstrates the level of obsession we are dealing with here). Here's the full quote: Message 276 (my reply to Straggler)

quote:

---

Namely what exactly constitutes an "Absence of evidence".

​

A very good question.

​

In a complete and utter absence of ALL empirical objective evidence how can we know what properties material or immaterial things can or cannot have?

​

I note that there is a vast difference between any evidence at all and "ALL empirical objective evidence" - a difference that in our courts of law is filled with subjective evidence when it is available. A person who has experience regarding the question under investigation can testify what they believe occurred. This does not mean that such testimony is necessarily true, nor does it mean that the court must use it in reaching a decision. It also often brings into question the character of the person/s presenting such evidence. In some cases you have several witnesses that can each testify as to what they observed, and the consistency of their testimony helps to bolster the validity of the evidence presented.

​

Would you not agree that when we have run out of "ALL empirical objective evidence" that is available that the existence of subjective evidence does not mean there is an absence of evidence?

---

As you see, it is the same basic argument: what is the validity of evidence that falls just outside Straggler's (arbitrary) cutoff?Curiously, I see no difference between that question and the question about the reality of a singular, unique experience sensed by only one conscious and aware person one time - with the "careful wording" added to prevent misunderstanding ... the argument is still about what we can logically and rationally understand about reality when we have run outside of the currently known bounds of scientific knowledge, especially when there is not much information available, but there are some experiences that could be of some part of reality.So, Stile: do you think the answer is as simplistic as Straggler's denial, or is there some actual possibility of reality in such (singular, unique experience sensed by only one conscious and aware person one time) experiences?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added full textEdited by RAZD, : rEdited by RAZD, : conscious and aware, clarity

---

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) • • •

Hey RAZD, I didn't really want to get too involved, but your questions intrigue me, so here I go: I should, but I am not that good of a person. I am too lazy, and this long-ongoing-debate between you and Straggler has me kind of scared of it. But I can offer another, hopefully acceptable, solution. I can certainly begin with a "clean slate" so to speak and start from scratch with what you've posted here to me. My answer is "there is no methodology I'm aware of to do such a thing." The only method I know how to identify something as being a reflection of reality or not is through validation. Validation requires other people to also test the experience.To me, there are two main categories of experiences: "imaginary" and "validated".
'Validated' is along the lines of "commonly-viewed" or "shared-experiences". It is what most people refer to as "reality." Except I don't like to use that word when being precise. I do not understand how to possibly know that anything is the absolute-truth of reality or not. However, since that is a problem we all have equally, I also think it's an irrelevent issue.So, we have imaginary and validated.And, we are fallible humans. We can have brain malfunctions, tricks, mistakes... the list is long for the possibilities on how we can be incorrect.Then we add an experience.With just an experience, we cannot (alone) know if it is imaginary or validated.
Validation requires others to test the experience as well. Without such, the experience's claim to reality remains identical to an experience that is known to be imaginary. Until validation occurs, we must concede that any number of human errors could be affecting the experience. Possibility? Yes, there's a possibility. But without knowing that the experience is validated, we are forced to acknoweldge that it is identical to any other known imaginary experience. Therefore, the probability of it being "real" is exactly the same as the possibility of any other known-to-be imaginary experience.Luckily, this kind of situation is so extreme as to be practically non-existant in our world. We live in a world where it is almost impossible to not interact with other people. Therefore, most of our experiences are validated exactly as they happen. "Science" is in the business of validating experiences to a professional level.So, there is a possibility, but is there a reasonable possibility? No. Such things require validation on some level. Otherwise we are ignoring the fact that humans are fallible.
And, if we do begin interacting with other people, and we research and look for validation, and if we cannot find any validation at all... anywhere... for 1000's of years... we can become confident that the experience indeed is only imaginary.

You cannot test it. Which is exactly why it is not evidence by any meaningful standard of the term. If you include such experiences as evidence in themselves then you end up in the circular position of citing the experiences people believe themselves to have had regarding the things they believe in, as evidence of the things they believe in. This is simply a case of confirmation bias and circularity run riot. You barely understand your own argument at this point in time. You have changed the nature of subjective "evidence" from including things like love to now being only able to be experienced by the empirically able. All the while taking special care to never actually use the term "empirical evidence" in order somehow leave the door ajar for the inherently empirically unknowable to be somehow evidenced by our empirical senses. How you reconcile this in your own head God alone knows but the contradiction can be seen still unanswered here Message 145. There is nothing arbitary about it. In fact the cutoff point was defined by YOU!!!(objective evidence) + (subjective "evidence") + (logic) = (tentative conclusion).In practise this is identical to:(empirical evidence) + (subjective "evidence") + (logic) = (tentative conclusion).EMPIRICALLY CHALLENGED
In the case of our empirically challenged insensate witness the (empirical evidence) term is effectively eliminated. In this situation YOU quite unequivoably declare there to be no opportunity for anything that YOU would describe as evidence. As stated in Message 145. Thus we must conclude that YOU deem subjective "evidence" on it's own to be utterly worthless.EMPIRICALLY UNKNOWABLE
In the case of concepts which are empirically unknowable we have also by definition eliminated the (empirical evidence) term. Thus conclusions relating to the empirically unknowable on the basis of subjective evidence alone must also be deemed utterly worthless if a logically consistent approach to evidence is to be maintainedGENERAL CASE
In the more general case where we cannot actually wholly eliminate either one of the evidence terms you use the potential conflation of the two as the basis of your present argument. However given that subjective evidence alone is deemed to be worthless why would we ever do anything other than seek to eliminate this term as much as possible? Strangely this is exactly what the methods of science seek to do. Maximise the empirical evidence and minimise the opportunity for subjective input.SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
So where does that leave "subjective evidence"? Well it leaves it as the wholly unreliable component of our evidence equation. It leaves it as the term that on it's own is worthless and which when combined with genuine empirical evidence is the term that needs to be eliminated as much as is possible in order to derive any reliability of conclusion at all. In fact it leaves "subjective evidence" as something that is the very antithesis of anything that could meaningfully be called "evidence". A hindrance to uncovering the nature of external reality rather than a help.And yet your entire pet philosophy project "Perceptions of Reality" is based on accepting this form of evidence as a valid indicator of the true nature of reality. Thus unless you are going to claim that there are forms of non-empirical objective evidence you have refuted your own argument by denying our empirically challenged insensate witness access to the forms of evidence YOU are advocating. I have never denied the philosophical possibility of anything. I have simply and consistently denied that some things can possibly be evidenced.In a thread that is about the very nature of evidence itself it seems fairly fundamental to define those concepts that cannot possibly be evidenced at all. Your ongoing evasion tactics regarding this matter are fooling no-one.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Good post Stile!!Indeed none of this is about denying possibilities. No concept or experience can be denied as a philosophical possibility. But is it evidence? Are claims of such experiences to be included as evidence if everything we know about the human mind suggests that such experiences are fundamentally fallible and inherently unreliable? The only possible reason anyone could wish to include such fallible and unreliable experiences as "evidence" is because such experiences support, and thus justify, that which is desired to be true.And that is the worst of all basis upon which to determine the nature of legitimate evidence. Here RAZD shows us that he is already assuming that there is a "reality" that exists seperate and distinct from the reality that we can perceive. In a pique of confirmation bias he then develops a whole philosophy to convince himself that this "reality" is somehow "evidenced" by perception despite not being part of the reality that is perecived. Contradictory? Well you judge for yourself.Honestly once laid bare of his conflations, ambiguities and clever use of language the whole thing is a joke. But credit where credit is due: RAZD is a a master of both self deception and of drawing the most out of a dead argument on the basis of ambiguity alone.RAZD clearly states that only those able to empirically perceive are able to experience that which he would include as "evidence". But try asking him if this "evidence" is actually empirical in nature (Message 168) and watch the ambiguity unfold.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Stile, Sounds fair to me. Curiously, that is the point of my argument, that there is a possibility. There is also a possibility that it is imaginary. That to me results in uncertainty, but also provides a testable possibility. Exactly. Without validation (or invalidation) we can't know, cannot tell real from imaginary and this is necessarily so for unique single observations made one time by an aware and conscious person.Straggler started this thread with the premise that a conclusion could be reached based on evidence and logic, AND that he was talking such conclusions not being validated at this point.A testable possibility can be validated by further investigation, and the search for more information can be guided by the experience to see if it can be repeated. That, to me, is just as valid an approach as any other conclusion reached from evidence and logic. So if you had two people, with two totally independent experiences of a similar nature, neither aware of the other until afterward, would that be sufficient validation? If not, then what is the cut-off point? For me it is a spectrum from validated (the robins in my backyard) to imaginary (seeing shapes in clouds), and in between is a gray area of uncertainty. Exactly. We can have a fair degree of confidence in our own perceptions, but there will always be some doubt, some level of uncertainty. The more unusual the experience the greater the degree of uncertainty. Certainly, if the experience is of finding a rock on a mountain, perhaps a whitish crystalline one that is the right size to sit on, we would not be too uncertain of our conclusion that it was indeed a rock: we'd probably be so certain that we would take it for granite ... Yes, I said previously (to Phage0070, Message 166) that 99% of the time the experiences would be mundane, everyday, unremarkable events. I would also say that the amount of evidence that has been validated scientifically is small compared to the degree of evidence that is accepted generally as being indicative of reality, as this includes our repeated everyday experience of the objects around us, things so mundane that we almost ignore their existence (taking things for granted ...). Curious, possibility admitted and possibility denied? I would say that the difference is due to uncertainty, where the uncertainty one can have about an experience would be inversely related to the number of similar observations and positively related to the number of attempts at observation. I've seen 1000's of rocks, so even 1 observation / 1000 similar observations results in low uncertainty. One experience in 1000's of attempts = high uncertainty
1000 experiences in 1000 attempts = low uncertaintyHere we have one experience in one attempt -- and I'd say the uncertainty is unknown.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) • • •

And you STILL don't have a clue. There is only *one* reality. The "seperate (SIC) and distinct" things you see are in your imagination, not in my argument. You really should give up trying to portray my argument until you understand it.Enjoy.

After nearly 200 posts of a thread about the nature of evidence RAZD continues to talk about "experiences" rather than confront which concepts it is possible to consider evidenced and which it is not. Except where the concept in question cannot possibly be evidenced because, as you have identified, where something cannot be empirically experienced it cannot be objectively evidenced. Message 145Thus placing such objectively unevidenced concepts necessarily outside your "spectrum of evidence". Exactly as I have been saying for nearly three threads now. Yes RAZ we all agree that rocks are highly empirically evidenced phenomenon. Well done for making that astute and important observation.Curiously however where the concept or phenomenon in question cannot be experienced empirically we have no uncertainty at all. In such cases we can be completely certain that the "observation" is in fact a wholly subjective experience that has no evidential validity whatsoever. Thus making the number of "sightings" utterly irrelevant.Wouldn't you agree?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As long as the foundational basis of your entire pet philosophy is a contradictory form of evidence that is only empirically detectable but which is itself bewilderingly not actually empirical evidence: Your entire position remains refuted. Message 145Then in the name of clarity maybe you can clear up some misunderstandings that those of us struggling to comprehend your flawed and contradictory thinking might have.Science limits us to only considering those concepts which are able to be empirically evidenced as being possibly evidenced. As I understand it, and please do correct me if I am wrong, the "Big Idea" behind your "Perceptions of Reality" thesis is that it allows us to investigate concepts which lie outside of the boundaries of that which science can consider evidenced. I quote: Message 133If you are also limiting that which you would call "evidence" to that which can be detected empirically then how can you possibly be examining anything that is unavailable to the methods of science?Please clarify this gaping contradiction in your position.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

for the OP:Is string theory inherently testable ? If not, is it still an hypthesis in your view ?Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.