Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Well, Straggler, you're reaching new depths. Why should Coyote accept your poor logic and failure to deal with HIS position Or your false representation of my argument - especially when he can refer the real thing? Message 301

quote:

---

Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":

​

1. the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
2. it is called "subjective" because the only evidence is what is\was sensed by the person having the experience, and what they recall of the experience,
3. this is the same kind of experience that happens to people everyday, with mundane experiences: experiences so common that rarely do we ask for backup information to validate the experience, even though these too are only "evidenced" by the senses of the person having the experience,
4. however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
5. we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
6. likewise, as long as the novel\unexpected\unusual experience is not contrary to known reality, there is no logical reason not to accept that the experience may be indicative of reality,
7. without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
8. additional validation is best provided by either
   (a) additional experience by other people, with objective evidence being gathered, or,
   (b) through the scientific method, formulating falsification tests to invalidate the concept and testing them.
9. if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
11. additional subjective experiences, similar to the initial experience, can add to the possibility of validity, however this still does not get you past (8), objective validation.

​

Please note that this is entirely consistent with the Perceptions of Reality, where, once we have run out of scientifically testable concepts we are forced into the realm of philosophy, with logic, with concepts not invalidated by any known evidence, and where the only measure of validity is a multiplicity of opinions that concur, an admittedly poor and unreliable method at best.

---

Why don't you take my challenge in the same thread: If what you claim is really my position, you should be able to find one or more posts that actually state it.If you can't find a single post that supports your view of my position then I humbly suggest that you consider it a fact that you are wrong, and that you have been wrong for a long time.This is a thread in the science forums, and as such you are required by the forum guidelines to substantiate your claims with evidence.I expect to see you at Message 30 - "Winners and Losers" - admitting that you are wrong. I'm not interested in "winning" - what I am interested in is honesty.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 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) • • •

Hi Straggler, still struggling with the reality of my position I see. This is more of your false impression. This is purest bullshit of your manufacture. Either you are lying, unable to understand what I have said, or deluded about my position. I've been saying for several hundred posts that your various representations are false, so I would think you would jump at the chance to prove me wrong.I suggest you take up the challenge before making more foolish unsubstantiated and false statements. Curiously, my position has not changed -- which you would know if you took up the challenge -- unless you are redefining what you mean by non-empirical. This wouldn't surprise me either, as you have consistently tried different definitions to try to build a false facade of your position.This is your previous (recent) position: Fascinatingly we come back again to the issue of how "empirical" such experiences are, where I find such experiences leave me completely unable to distinguish their potential empirical-ness a priori, due to their being untested singular experiences. Because I cannot confirm even the potential "empirical-ness" of the experiences it seems to me proper to consider them non-empirical until known otherwise, if for no other reason than because they have not yet been validated.Are you now saying that these types of "singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual" are now empirical? Conversely do you agree that these "singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual" are non-empirical for now, and that you choose to ignore the fact that you stated they are valid starting points for further investigation, while trying to claim that I am using this type of evidence to justify beliefs in god/s?If you go back to the original proposed topic post for Perceptions of Reality you will see that it has a lot more material than the subsequent promoted version. Note these statements:

quote:

---

Science (as a whole) is limited to the study of natural objects and processes. It depends on studies that can be reproduced by others with similar results, and skepticism about results and the validity of theories that explain and predict results is healthy and valid within science.

​

Science sometimes reaches the limits of what it can substantiate with evidence, places where theory has gone beyond the evidence to what might be true, but the testing, the evidence has not occurred or been found, and here it reaches into philosophy: making logical conclusions based on what is known and accepted as true from the evidence that is available. This is where we get dark matter and a {big-bang\inflation} beginning in physics, and similar untested hypothesis in other sciences.

​

Philosophy (as a whole) expands on science by using logic and rational thought processes, using inductive and deductive methods and "reasonable" assumptions. It depends on the premises being true for the conclusions to be true, and thus discussion of those premises and assumptions is valid in the discerning of the truth of the conclusions.

​

Philosophy sometimes reaches the limits of what it can develop by logical and rational means, going beyond "reasonable" assumptions into metaphysics and fantasy, and {stories\thought experiments} of "what if" -- where some starting point is taken on a "leap of faith" or by the "suspension of disbelief" required by fiction (especially science fiction).

​

Faith (as a whole) expands on philosophy, by absolutely accepting on faith certain things to be true without proof or material evidence being needed or necessary.

​

...

​

Science cannot get to faith directly without going through philosophy; it needs a logical step, rungs on a ladder, a path of stepping stones, a stairway to heaven, and thus the plea for substantiation, of a point to stand on, a rock, a crumb (particularly from those without a worldview that includes much in the way of faith). It is not so much that science "trumps" faith as that it just cannot get there, it can't walk on water.

​

...

​

Science is stopped by the moat of philosophy from getting into faith, even the most ardent atheist includes a wide swath of philosophy within their {worldview}, and can get quite close to the fuzzy boundary to faith. Possibly just {rejecting\denying} the existence of god figures without necessarily {rejecting\denying} a spiritual essence, the edge of faith. But they won't cross that last boundary.

---

Note several things: this is from December 2005, already I have referenced how a person reacts to information through their worldview, there is no statement that we can conclude god/s must exist, and the question is raised on how we can judge the reality of information\experiences once we have exhausted the possibilities of science. The focus is on perception of reality not on the potential existence of god/s.Further, in the promoted thread the OP was restated in Message 52, in October 2006:

quote:

---

However, not all of this knowledge is true to reality.

​

There is knowledge from previous times that has been invalidated - such as a geocentric earth - and it is possible to base conclusions on false precepts.

​

There are many religions that are exclusive of other religions, so logically they cannot all be true as conceived (although it is possible they could all be close to the reality, just in different ways).

​

Philosophy based on logic is true if the precepts are true, but how do we know if the precepts are true? There are some philosophies that contradict or oppose other philosophies.

​

We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.

​

So how can we judge the validity of perceptions of reality?

​

I put to you that there are two relatively easy measures that perceptions of reality are valid:

• concordance - those elements of the perception of reality that are the most common, universal, plain, and
• lack of denial - the validity of beliefs is inversely related to the amount of denial of {other knowledge}

---

These also apply after exhausting scientific investigation, where the first is based on shared knowledge, the second is the lack of contradictory evidence. There is still no statement that we can conclude god/s must exist, and the question is raised, again, on how we can judge the reality of information\experiences once we have exhausted the possibilities of science. The focus is still on perception of reality, not on the potential existence of god/s.Also note this from Message 74 replying to Warner:

quote:

---

This doesn't rule out philosophy or religion or the reality of any possible spirit world, it just says science cannot go there until there IS evidence.

​

That leaves us with having to use other methods, and that leaves us with problems of finding ways to validate those methods. SO far the best indicators we have are:

• rule out anything that has been invalidated
• consider anything for which there is multiple cross-cultural experiences in concordance

Anything else is making bias a basis of belief.

---

My argument has not changed in over 4 years of posting on this forum. Perhaps this will give you a taste of the reality of my position, and hint that your conception of my position is a false one.So take on the challenge, and let's see how you make out.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) • • •

Still haven't done the homework eh, Straggler? Then proceed with someone else. Perhaps start another thread (we are at 336 now and you have not supported your claims about my position, and you need to do that before switching to another topic - creationist style to avoid the issue - and before this topic closes.I note that this has nothing to do with my position on the validity of a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, as a valid starting point for further investigation, nor does it have to do with your substantiating your (false) claims about my position. Except that your misrepresentation of my position in message 327 is YOUR LIE about my position. Do you really not see the falsehood of your claim? I can categorically state that this has absolutely Nothing, Zero, Zilch, Nada, to do with my argument on the validity of a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, as a valid starting point for further investigation. Don't you find it curious that the only support for your claims about my position are contained in your posts and not in mine?Even when you go to message 325 you find that it links to another of your posts. It seems you are rather fond of quoting yourself rather than going to primary literature. The contradiction is in your mind, so I can't help you. You need to do your homework to see if you can resolve it.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) • • •

Starting with a summary of the various positions presented by Straggler:In Message 1 Straggler proposed that: In Message 6 he qualified it with And in Message 10 he concedes And he seems to come to a conclusion in Message 19In Message 22 I replied:

quote:

---

My first impression of "hypothesis" is that it is essentially a logical construction, as used in math, and formal logic, and isn't necessarily tied to objective evidence. A hypothesis is "true" IF the logical structure is valid and the premises are "true" ... and that at some point you have a set of starting assumptions considered "true" for the sake of argument. Because of this logical basis, a hypothesis does not have to be testable or falsifiable, as they can be subject to mathematical\logical proofs.

---

Then I referred to Webster to see what general usage was, and came to this conclusion:

quote:

---

Conclusion/s

​

Alien life exists - Is this a valid hypothesis?

​

It is valid as a hypothetical guess, speculation, as science fiction, it qualifies as hypothesis₁, but it is not a working explanation of facts, so it is not a (Natural Science) hypothesis, and it does not qualify as hypothesis₂.

​

An intelligent designer exists - Is this a valid hypothesis?

​

It is a valid "working explanation of facts," and a stated objective is to "guide further investigation," so yes, on this basis it qualifies as a (Natural Science) hypothesis, as hypothesis₂, ... just not as a scientific (testable, falsifiable) theory.

---

Webster makes no qualifications on the types of evidence that need to be explained by the hypothesis, just evidence in general. For reference the definition in question is: Straggler eventually conceded that his argument for alien life was conjecture (hypothesis₁) rather than hypothesis₂.In Message 23 Straggler clarifies his position by stipulating that he is referring to the hypothesis₂ definition, and asks: So now he asking whether the hypothesis is scientific, another change. This resulted in my introducing the "red car" argument in Message 26:

quote:

---

So do you or don't you think scientific hypotheses need necessarily be derived from objective evidence?

Again, it is the modification with "scientific" that is more relevant to the question than the term "hypothesis" - let's say we are going to limit our discussion to red cars, and then ask whether you think all well made cars are red.

---

In Message 63 I proposed a reformulation that I think is closer to the real process:

quote:

---

Thanks. My thoughts today were along the lines of rephrasing your formula slightly:

A + B = C

Where:
A is a compiled and organized set of evidence,
B is a logically derived hypothesis to explain the evidence
C is an extrapolated conclusion

In this version, the starting point is a body of evidence, so a single observation doesn't make the cut, the hypothesis is your untested scientific conclusion and the conclusions (conjectured new evidence) are the tests for the hypothesis. We then take it as given that none of the conjectured new evidence has been found yet, and the the hypothesis (B) is untested.

---

Then began a long discussion on what constitutes valid evidence to use in formulating the hypothesis, and some of this involved the nature of "subjective evidence":

quote:

---

You will probably note that I have taken the word "objective" out, and there is a reason for that.
...
What is objective evidence?

​

The problem I have, is that I don't think you can draw a clear and distinct line between "subjective" and "objective" evidence. Where does one end and the other begin? All evidence is experienced subjectively, and we derive a sense of "objective reality" by the conformity of similar experiences by different people, and by repetition of the experience. The chair is always were I left it, and other people see, and sit in, the chair: thus the chair gains a sense of objective reality, an existence outside our experiences of the chair. But what happens when someone has a unique experience that can't be repeated?

---

After much relatively silly discussion we finally ended up with some agreement again:(1) In Message 102 I, to clear some of the silliness that was being attributed to my argument I stipulated and conceded that:

quote:

---

As I've said many a time, you misunderstand my argument. I am not interested in dreams and unconscious experiences, I am interested in experiences that occur while conscious and aware.

​

RAZD Concedes (does this even the score?)
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?
...

... our mutual aim should be to try and envisage the best means of seperating and establishing this as distinct from the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence".

​

Except that I just don't think that this is possible. If it helps, as noted above (RAZD Concedes) we can separate dreams and other unconscious experiences from the experiences of a conscious and aware observer.

---

and, finally,(2) In Message 304 Straggler concedes the validity of certain "subjective evidence" Thus we are left with what I said in Message 228

quote:

---

Take any experience made by a person, and derive a logical hypothesis based on it, then test that hypothesis for validity, and you will either end up with:

​

1. validated experience,
2. invalidated experience, or
3. a null result (no further evidence either way)

​

And the validated ones, no matter what their original basis was, would be evidence of reality.

---

We are agreed that the only known way to validate concepts is through the scientific process. The only real disagreement has been about what kind of information we need to start with.Straggler kept arguing for an intrinsically untenable position - that it had to be known objective evidence. He has concede that the singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality and is a valid basis for forming a hypothesis to be used for further testing.We end up with (see Message 63):

quote:

---

... all I have ever suggested is that we start with evidence and proceed to do same kind of evaluation or investigation, and whether you call evidence subjective or objective, is irrelevant.
(objective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(subjective evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")
(evidence) + (logic) = ("conjecture")

---

Where the (logic) includes the hypothesis and the (conjecture) involves the predictions of new evidence necessary for validation.Q.E.D.Note that there is no reference to proving god/s or any other reference to evidence for supernatural entities as falsely claimed by Straggler. For anyone with questions about my position, it is summarized on Message 301

quote:

---

Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":

​

1. the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
2. it is called "subjective" because the only evidence is what is\was sensed by the person having the experience, and what they recall of the experience,
3. this is the same kind of experience that happens to people everyday, with mundane experiences: experiences so common that rarely do we ask for backup information to validate the experience, even though these too are only "evidenced" by the senses of the person having the experience,
4. however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
5. we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
6. likewise, as long as the novel\unexpected\unusual experience is not contrary to known reality, there is no logical reason not to accept that the experience may be indicative of reality,
7. without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
8. additional validation is best provided by either
   (a) additional experience by other people, with objective evidence being gathered, or,
   (b) through the scientific method, formulating falsification tests to invalidate the concept and testing them.
9. if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
11. additional subjective experiences, similar to the initial experience, can add to the possibility of validity, however this still does not get you past (8), objective validation.

​

Please note that this is entirely consistent with the Perceptions of Reality, where, once we have run out of scientifically testable concepts we are forced into the realm of philosophy, with logic, with concepts not invalidated by any known evidence, and where the only measure of validity is a multiplicity of opinions that concur, an admittedly poor and unreliable method at best.

---

Note again that there is no reference to proving god/s or any other reference to evidence for supernatural entities as falsely claimed by Straggler.Enjoy.ps -Whether Straggler owns up to his frequent false portrayal of my consistent position on this issue, generally on what evidence is valid for a starting position of investigating concepts of reality, and specifically on the relevance of deities and supernatural whatevers to the issue, is relatively unimportant. I have the empirical objective whatever he wants to call it evidence of his dishonesty.I do apologize to those reading the thread for the dirty laundry that has been washed here, and note that there should be relatively little need for me to post further on this thread: Straggler will either admit his dishonesty or blindly continue with it, and I can neither force one nor the other to occur. All I can do is document it, and that has been done.Thanks.Edited by RAZD, : spling

---

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

---

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

Hi Catholic Scientist.It seems I am not the only one who has trouble getting Straggler (a) to understand your position and (b) not misrepresenting it to suit HIS argument.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) • • •

Hi Peanut Gallery, Friends, Citizens, Countrymen: lend me your ears.I see Straggler has still failed to find a single post of mine that supports his (false) claims about my position. This is - and continues to be - more evidence that his claims are, have been, and continue to be false. Actually Straggler should have listened to Percy when he said (Message 111):

quote:

---

I actually like the term "subjective evidence," but maybe it needs to be given a clear definition. I like to think of a scale that runs from subjective to objective. Any single individual's observations are subjective, but the degree to which his observations can be shared by others increases its objectivity. An observation can only be made with the five senses, and that includes observations made with the assistance of technology, such as microscopes, thermometers and Large Hadron Colliders.

---

Note, that rather than be ambiguous I have been specific in (a) ruling out dreams and similar internal concepts, (b) insisting on limiting the types of experience to those of an aware and conscious individual that, as best they can determine, is through their senses. In this I have been consistent across all the threads in question.Note that Straggler in Message 304 agreed that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality.Thus had he listened to Percy, the argument would have been over long ago. Straggler has claimed that I have been ambiguous in order to obscure the argument, however it is not being ambiguous to talk about a whole class of experiences in general terms when the discussion pertains to all such experiences.The essential problem with Straggler's original position (I'm not sure what the current one is, as it has changed from the first posts) was that he only considered "objective evidence" to be a valid starting point in forming an hypothesis. Obviously this is logically invalid - any evidence can be used for form an hypothesis. What I have shown is that there is an obvious entire class of experiences that cannot be considered objective due to their singular nature, but which are entirely valid for the formation of an hypothesis, including hypothesis that can be scientifically tested. Thus it should have been a simple matter to simply point this out as an obvious contradiction to his assertion.Straggler's essential problem is that he does not see Percy's spectrum, but only black and white. Evidence is either {A} or {B}, {A} is "good" (and leads to science) while {B} is bad (and leads to gods and demons) and he thinks he can somehow discern\divine\distinguish black from white in all cases, and often better than the person having the experience. He thinks he can tell when a person has "made up" an experience simply by sitting at his computer terminal and reading it.Because he is caught in his false dichotomy he makes further logical errors. This is because Straggler is caught in the trap of his false dichotomy. Thus when something is not{B} he thinks it is necessarily {A}. See what I mean? It's either {A} or {B}, no middle ground, no uncertainty. If I reject dreams as evidence then I only accept "empirical experiences" ...... when in fact what I accept are any experiences of an aware and conscious individual, without needing to pretend that I (somehow) know if it is "empirical" or not.What Straggler cannot seem to understand is that:

1. the singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality and is a valid basis for forming a hypothesis to be used for further testing, and
2. however we can also agree that non-empirical evidence can form a logical basis for further investigation

... are saying exactly the same thing. In neither case can we be certain about the nature of the evidence without further research and testing.Straggler is hoist on the petard of his own making by insisting on a (false) dichotomy, when in fact there is no hard and fast line, but instead there is a spectrum of evidence. There is evidence in the muddled middle that it is rationally impossible to claim that one can know what kind of evidence it is until further research is done. You just cannot know a priori what kind of evidence you are dealing with.Only by being blind (cognitive dissonance anyone?) to the spectrum of reality can one ignore that (a) can be (b) or that there is a class (c), where you cannot tell if it is {A} or {B}.Straggler finds a contradiction in the way he perceives my argument, but the contradiction is not in my position, rather it is inherent in the false dichotomy through which he (darkly) perceives and filters my argument, selecting with confirmation bias only those bits that fit his preconceptions.Rather than concluding that his argument could be false because of the contradiction (there's that cognitive dissonance again), he makes absurd claims about my position, claims that are still unsubstantiated by a single reference to a single one of my posts. Reality has come knocking, and reality has found Straggler wanting.I'd say "enjoy" but it is actually rather sad to see Straggler's apparent inability to understand or accept such a simple concept, there are well built red cars, but there is also a whole spectrum of well built cars, and so in closing, I'll just say ....Enough. Note, see Message 34 Winners and Losers: I have decided not to answer any more of Straggler's posts, at least not until he actually attempts to substantiate his false claims about my position and fesses up to his multitudinous falsehoods.

​

It would be pointless to do so, as Straggler has convinced himself that he is right, and evidence doesn't matter, and he will continue to portray my arguments in false and deceptive ways. He has used every creationist tactic I can think of to avoid doing the honest thing.Edited by RAZD, : end note added.

---

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

---

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

In Message 1 Straggler asks A valid argument is one that is logically derived from known true or assumed true premises in a way that does not involve any logical fallacies or contradictions.Whether or not it needs to be derived from evidence depends on your purpose in making the hypothesis. If you purpose is science, then it needs to explain a body of evidence. For a general philosophical purpose (the layman's hypothesis) there is no need for evidence, as for example the IPU hypothesis, which is not derived from any evidence, yet many atheists seem to think it is a valid way to pursue our knowledge of reality.Whether it needs to be refutable also depends on your purpose in making the hypothesis. If you purpose is science, then it must be falsifiable. If your purpose is philosophical validity, then all it needs is an absence of invalidating evidence.Next he argues a "formula" for approaching the study of reality: This is one (1) valid approach -- the basic scientific process, take a body of known and validated evidence and by logical analysis derive basic patterns and relations, and then form an hypothesis to explain the evidence and form a basis to make predictions that can then be tested to see if the hypothesis is invalid or tentatively true.However it is unnecessarily restrictive, and a much better formulation would be: This is demonstrated by the example of a single awake, aware, conscious and cognizant individual having an experience, and whether that experience can be used as the evidence for forming the hypothesis.To try to classify the nature of the evidence involved in such an experience is rather hopeless, as well as relatively unnecessary.Hopeless because it is hard to tell from a single anecdotal example whether it is an example of objective reality or not.Unnecessary because if you follow the process from evidence to logic to hypothesis to prediction to testing, then you will likely determine the nature of the evidence in the results.Objective evidence will lead to objective results. Anecdotal evidence that we cannot pre-classify as objective can also lead to objective results.Other evidence, anecdotal, subjective, whatever you want to call it, may lead to inconclusive results - no strong conclusions pro nor con - and resulting in ambiguity or indecisive answers, where the logical conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to know one way or the other.Finally some evidence, even some objective evidence may lead to invalidation of the hypothesis.Thus limiting the evidence to just known objective evidence is not required for a complete approach to evaluating the possibilities of reality.Then there is the issue of the nature of evidence. To my mind there are several basic forms of evidence:There is scientific evidence, the evidence produce as a result of testing and documentation and evaluation and retesting and by replication of results by different people. An example of this kind of evidence is the age of the earth, as measured by radiometric methods, each one tested and retested, correlated by different methods and checked and checked again. This is probably the strongest form of evidence, however it is still inherently tentative, due to the inherently tentative nature of science.There is mundane evidence, the evidence of everyday common experiences that are shared by many individuals, but which is never put through the rigors of scientific study and evaluation due to the common acceptance by (virtually) everyone. An example of this kind of evidence is the table and chairs in the coffee shop where people come and go, speaking of Michelangelo. Some may claim that this kind of evidence is stronger than the scientific evidence, however there are also whole cultures of people that have common beliefs about spirits, ghosts, etc. that they are treated as common mundane concepts and a part of accepted reality, and which are not considered real in other parts of the world, so just the common acceptance of a concept may not be sufficient filtering for the validity of a concept.Then there is subjective\anecdotal experience and personal experience. I can read a book or go for a walk in the woods, and the walk in the woods is a different kind of experience than reading the book, it is primary in that it is experienced directly by the senses, while the book is sensed as words or pictures in a book and interpreted in the mind into a fuller experience. If I tell you about my walk in the woods, it cannot be a primary experience for you, rather it is subjective\anecdotal and like the experience of reading a book.The walk in the woods is like the experience of mundane evidence, full of things commonly experienced by people walking in the woods, and thus it is common to accept the anecdotal evidence of such events as indicative of reality in the same way that the tables and chairs are considered elements of reality.Certainly the person making the walk in the woods is justified in thinking that they are experiencing reality in the same way that the reality of mundane evidence is generally experienced. For them the experience is different from those who read about it or are told about it, and thus they are much more justified in their belief in the reality of the walk in the woods than these others that have not had the experience.Certainly that makes this a subset of the valid approaches to beginning the determination of the possibilities of reality: This is can lead to testable and verifiable hypothesis regarding the reality of the experience in question.Even when the experience is unusual, unexpected, something previously not known.This makes the experiences of people who have seen yeti\sasquatch, or aliens or whatever, still a valid beginning to the determination of the possibilities of reality with further (by scientific evaluation or by mundane repetitions of the experience) investigations.Especially so, for those who have had the experience or similar experiences, as opposed to those who only have secondary, anecdotal evidence of the experience.If scientific evaluation demonstrates that yeti\sasquatch are indeed living organisms, then they will be accepted as a part of reality.If the experience of alien visitations becomes a common everyday experience, then they will be accepted as a part of reality.In any event the simple approach is a valid starting point for determining the possibilities of reality.There is no need to pre-evaluate the nature of the evidence, as that entails making a priori assumptions, often to limit what can be studied, based on personal biases and beliefs.The pursuit of knowledge is done best when it is not hampered by previous beliefs concerning reality.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : more clarityEdited by RAZD, : even more

---

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) • • •

Hello Hyroglyphx, welcome to Straggler's sandbox. Watch out for the buried poop. Point made. Naturally Straggler will fail to see the significance, and will try to argue that he can still divine the nature of evidence from his vast knowledge of reality, or in other words equivocate. See?So what is his latest attempt to parse evidence into competing camps, to pretend there is a dichotomy when there is in fact a spectrum, and is it valid? Is it any better than any of this other attempts. How does this apply to a data set of one (1) experience of a conscious and aware individual? Can you apply this criteria to divide one experience from another, when the only difference is what was experienced by the individual?Personally, I don't think that can logically be done, certainly not for all evidence, without using bias and preconceptions of reality, and have said so consistently through this whole argument.Empirical evidence - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data.[3]

---

Oh dear, looks like I'm not alone there. It looks like it is not a valid distinction that will always result in the same conclusions. We have a spectrum of evidence again. So is it any better than any of this other attempts?Remember we are talking about a single non-documented experience, what has been called anecdotal evidence.Remember that the person making the observation uses the exact same procedures and senses in their day to day life, living among the mundane objects that, by experience alone, seem to be valid parts of reality. This person is justified by the ongoing accuracy of his experiences of such mundane objects to trust his senses.Now we also need to remember that Straggler agreed that such an experience was a valid starting point for further investigation: It is curious that he now equates this with using non-empicial evidence: Especially seeing as how my (actual) "wider argument" has (always) consistently been, and continues to be, that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality.If this is so then he is also using "non-empirical evidence" whenever we discuss any examples of singular subjective experiences, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality, for he has agreed that such evidence is admissible. Such is the unintended consequence of false dichotomies and myopic thinking.This apparent contradiction is due to the dystopic dichotomy in Straggler's vision, where he can only see the ends of spectrums and nothing in between (as your examples show, the understanding of the character of lightening before knowing what electricity was, or the concept that gravity affected rocks and feathers differently. Which of course is where the whole thing started with Straggler. I warned you to watch out for the buried poop.When we only have one piece of anecdotal evidence of someones conscious and aware experience, we can use it as a valid starting point as a possible indicator of realty. We cannot judge how valid the evidence itself is -- until we have done the further investigation -- as that would be applying personal bias and preconceptions, a method that is known by vast experience to be faulty.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) • • •

Hi Perdition, pretty good summation. Exactly. I don't understand what is so difficult about this. I consider the specification that I have made to be anything but ambiguous: the evidence in question must be sensed (or appear to be sensed) by an aware and conscious individual, a person who validates his senses every day in his relationship to the mundane things we all consider to be real due to experience and conformity with the experiences of others. A person who based on years of experience has reason to believe the validity of their senses. Seeing as we cannot know that it is necessarily empirical, we are left with not empirical (or not known) until more information becomes available.That's a good part of the picture. Message 361: Hi Rahvin, I'll continue with your post for continuity here: What kind of experiences do you usually have when you interact with reality through your senses? Does your experience have some quantifiable difference when in a crowd compared to when you are alone? Don't you think that years of experience give you a high degree of confidence in your ability to sense reality? This is the other half of the problem isn't it? People will naturally interpret their experiences according to their particular world view, and without any other verification of the experience all we - those of us who did not have the experience - all we have to go on is the anecdotal evidence as it is related by the observer. This is why anecdotal evidence in court is suspect, yet still considered indicative in the absence of any contradicting evidence.There is uncertainty about the quality of the evidence itself, because it is not verified by any other experience\evidence, and there is uncertainty about the quality of the representation of the evidence by the observer. These uncertainties are unavoidable.The third unavoidable uncertainty comes with the acceptance of the experience/s by others. Onifre made an excellent observation here: that there is a variation in the acceptance of such evidence such that some will pursue further validation and others will not, based on their particular world views.What you often see is that secondary observers make assumptions about the related experience based on their particular world views, with the result that one experience will seem reasonable (ie it is consistent with their world view) while another will be viewed as unreasonable (ie it is contradictory to their world view). One need only think for a minute to recall the number of times Straggler has exclaimed "of course that is empirical" or "but there is more evidence that these experiences are all made up in a persons mind" to know the verity of this. This is nothing less that Straggler trying to impose his world view on the evidence rather than to consider the evidence on it's own.An open-minded view is that the process of the related experience is identical, the quality of the observer can also be similar, or similar enough, not to bias the information, so the use of pre-conceptions on the part of the secondary observer to categorize the evidence represents personal bias rather than rational evaluation of the evidence on it's merits alone. A skeptical view is that no such experience can be considered conclusive, only that it can form a reasonable basis for further investigation. This is the red car fallacy. See Perdition on this. What we have in addition to evidence where we can be (relatively) sure that it is empirical, is a lot of evidence were we just cannot be sure, because there just is not enough evidence to ascertain it. Interestingly, there is something to consider in this light: Rrhain has commented that anyone that believes in creation of any kind must logically believe that everything is created/explained by that force (I trust I have this right, I wouldn't want to misrepresent anyone). A corollary of this is that it is inherently impossible to sort out between supernatural force and natural force: this rock was created, but that rock wasn't? That makes trying to use the evidence of rocks to prove a supernatural force rather ludicrous at best.Curiously (you knew it was coming), I consider faith\belief to be orthogonal to logic and the types of scientific knowledge we can learn by testing concepts (all concepts) against the known evidence of reality, so any attempt to understand faith\belief by these methods is doomed to failure before you even start. You can't get there from here, because that dog don't hunt. Understand this and you will know that all of Straggler's claims of me trying to do that are inherently, laughably, false. I'm afraid I'm already over the Granny Magda Limit (GML), so I better draw to a close.Evidence is evidence, some of it good at leading to more information, some is not so good, and some of it leading to no conclusions at all. In the face of an absence of contradictory evidence, what we have are testable, rational possibilities to start an investigation for further understanding, places that are better than random guessing.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : sEdited by RAZD, : gmled

---

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) • • •

Hi Rahvin, I'll try to keep this brief ... I am interested in perceptions of reality, and what we can know. Personally I think any and all concepts can be tested against reality to see how they stack up, and readily discard any that are falsified.The issue I have with Straggler is that he keeps trying to divide evidence into two categories -- those he is comfortable with and those he is uncomfortable with -- and it seems he doesn't understand is that his bias can lead him to discard valid concepts.Curiously, I only need to keep the focus on very specific forms of experience to show that his attempts to divide evidence into different categories is doomed to failure.Xongsmith took him to the mat on subjective experience until Straggler was left with an impossible position: only the sensations of a person completely and totally unable to sense anything can be discarded as evidence of reality. Fascinatingly, I do not see that end of the spectrum as being heavily populated. Agreed. It is impossible to divide the evidence into what you think is good evidence and what you think is poor or impossible evidence, because it may be one or the other. Of course some worldviews are more rational than others, I've never disputed that, what I have suggested is that in the absence of any other evidence, in the absence of any contradictory evidence, that a majority of worldviews agreeing on a concept would indicate that such a view is rational, ... and possibly true.Certainly one should test (what one considers) the most probable answers first. All A is B, B!!! therefore A? (do I need the diagram?)We know that some concepts are made up, as for example the IPU, but we do not know that all concepts are made up. Check Message 1. Amazingly I have been saying that attempting to discuss this is inherently pointless, and have instead tried to focus on what we can know about reality by the use of our senses and testing of experiences. Unless you know everything. And you won't know if they are testable or not unless you try.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) • • •

Hi xongsmith, And that would be applying your subjective interpretation to the matter. What you absolutely cannot do is tell if the experience is completely "empirical" completely "subjective" or somewhere in between. And curiously, his original OP (Message 1) had nothing to do with my beliefs, so yes that is off topic even if he started the thread. Interestingly he has not discussed the topic of the thread for a long time. And the experience of anyone NOT the totally insensate individual at the lonely end of the spectrum of experiences that ARE valid. Exactly. He has essentially admitted that any evidence can be a valid starting point for an hypothesis.Straggler's dichotomy only exists if he sits at the end of the spectrum with his special person, any evidence vs no evidence.pwndEnjoy.

---

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) • • •

Hi Catholic Scientist, Indeed. But then it was a false argument from the start, because it relied totally on his made up concept of my argument rather than the real thing.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) • • •

Hi again Perdition, Thanks, however my arguments here are just another application of the same logic and, perhaps, dealing with similar false preconceptions, or the perception of them. Philosophically I can find no contradictory evidence, no refutation of the concept of gods, no need to not believe, so I don't see such belief as irrational. Unexplained possibly, but not irrational."Asserts" is a bit strong to me, as that would imply that I am telling you that what I believe is true, while just telling you that I am a deist is as much of a confirmed objective fact as that I am a liberal. Your "at least possibly so" is the key to why any such experience may be a valid experience of reality.Consider an analogy: the casting of nets into pools of water. The pools represent possible concepts, the nets represent testing of concepts, and the ideas caught in the nets are validated by a scientific process or similar validation of evidence (such as the mundane process used for common information)The fundamentalist will cast nets sporadically, inspect the results and cast out any that contradict their beliefs, thus leaving only concepts that fit within their worldview of reality.Then we have people that inspect the pools first and only cast nets in pools they think contain valid information. This is just as biased as the fundamentalist.And then there are people that cast their nets on any pool, if not on dry land, for they are not worried about the quality of the evidence, only about what is caught in the net of testing and validation.The sound you hear is the Flamingo Dancer stamping in the last nail in the coffin (I love mixed metaphors) of Straggler's attempts to bias the evidence by pre-selection.What you start with is not important, you can start with any concept, for what is important is what passes the testing and the validation and passes from the realm of conjecture into known (but tentative) fact.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) • • •

Message 150 - the actual full quote with context: In other words all experiences may contain true perceptions of reality. Notice that reality does not cease to exist for the insensate person incapable of sensing the world, only that they cannot sense it through the 5 senses. An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses. There can also be rare events that cannot be replicated and due to chaotic circumstances among other reasons.Hence we can correct your most recent misrepresentation: We agree that any experience that (appears) to be due to our sensing of reality is viable for forming testable hypothesis. Our best way of gaining verifiable evidence of reality is through tested experiences. Some experiences cannot be tested, for a number of reasons, however this just means a lack of reasonable conclusion. Curiously, if this were so, there would be no talk of the IPU. What we have, in fact, is a plethora of subjective evidence. Your biased preconceptions are showing again, once more limiting your ability to reach a logical conclusion.Something that has not been observed does not mean that it necessarily cannot be observed, it only means that it has not been observed in a way that has yet been able to be verified.Your insensate person is incapable of experiencing reality as we know it, however this does not mean that reality ceases to exist for this person - a position your conclusion inevitably leads to: for such a person reality is the same as the IPU and your (limited) "immaterial, supernatural entity".Something that has been experienced, but not been verified does not mean that it has not been observed.Something that cannot itself be observed does not mean that effects cannot be observed.Which, of course, means that your conclusion is false.Your problem is that you are trying to reach a conclusion before you have tested the evidence.We can agree that the best method we currently know for testing evidence of reality is through replication and documentation. What this means is that we can place the evidence along a spectrum:(1) at one end: tested and validated evidence, where we can tentativley conclude that they represent actual reality,(2) at the other end: tested and invalidated evidence, where contradictory evidence shows that the initial experience was misinterpreted, and(3) in between: all other evidence, where the most we can conclude is that there is insufficient evidence pro or con to reach a reasonable conclusion, ie that we don't know.We take the things caught in the net of testing and place them into two piles - (1) tested and validated: those we tentatively believe are true aspects of reality, and (2) tested and invalidated: those we are highly confident are falsified aspects of reality - and all other concepts fall back through the net, to remain in the pool of possibilities until a better net becomes available. It appears that your biases and preconceptions are preventing you from considering all the possibilities.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : 150

---

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) • • •

Hi Onifre, Or have the appearance of being sensed, yes, but what we have is that something was sensed. What was sensed may be an incomplete view of the cause of the experience or it may have been something of an after effect.The insensate brain of Straggler's extrapolation would still "black-out" at 3g's of acceleration even though it was completely incapable of sensing the environment around it that cause the acceleration. Thus reality is still able to affect the experiences of the insensate person in spite of them not being able to sense what was going on or to explain what happened in terms of what was sensed. There is no way that the insensate person could make a testable hypothesis of what caused the blackout, or test it if they did.The ultimate after effect, of course, would be if god/s created everything to behave the way it does, as then everything sensed is evidence of that creation, but we just don't know that we are sensing it. One other way is by comparing notes, by looking at other unexplained experiences. Another way is by looking for anomalies in the behaviors of things. Secondary experience.A third way is to make extrapolations like Straggler did about the existence of life on other planets, using an evidence set of one (1) as a basis, a projection of possibilities that are not contradicted by known evidence of reality.Another way would be through dreams and hallucinogenic states. As I've said before, any idea can form an initial basis, the critical element to me is that we have a way of testing those experiences to determine the validity of the concept, not what the initial concept was. Many an engineering or scientific breakthrough has come during dreams, however they were only validated by later work.Now before anyone jumps up and down and has a tantrum, please note that I still only choose to discuss those experiences that we know, or are fairly certain, come from immediate sensations of an aware and conscious person, because I have a high confidence in such experiences being real possibilities that can be validated, and that even with such limitations on the experiences considered, we end up with possibilities that lie outside the box of Rummie's "known knowns", so we don't have to search for additional unknowns.We agree, you and I, that not every concept can practically be considered and tested, and this is how I draw a line between what I consider practical and what I don't.This is why I see no validity in discussing the reality of god/s and supernatural without additional evidence, there are too many unknowns.Do we only play inside the sandbox, where the boundaries are known, or do we play outside the box? If we go outside, how far, practically, do we go?Straggler needed to have a foundation for his extrapolations of alien life. To me the experiences of conscious and aware individuals that at least appear to be experience through the senses form a relatively solid basis for investigating possibilities as these are most likely to be validated by additional experiences.It's still one end of the spectrum of all experiences, but the focus is a little wider.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) • • •