Non-scientific evidence

And the scientist would ask, "Gnomes? What gnomes? What predictions does gnome theory make, and what is the null hypothesis for gnome theory?".When I think of evidence I think of a scenario where the data could be anything independent of what the theory states. Evidence FOR a claim necessarily includes lack of evidence that would be AGAINST the claim. IOW, if A is true then you should see B and not C. The "not C" part is as important, and perhaps more important, than "B". Using gnome theory, what should we NOT see if gnomes are producing gravity, and why? If any and all potential observations are consistent with a claim then you can not claim to have evidence. What you have is dogma, which itself is only evidence of your gullibility. Totally agree. All scientific conclusions are necessarily tentative given the fact that new experiments are always being done. Science can only produce human constructed models, backed by experimentation and evidence, of how we think reality works. To which the scientist would reply, "Then why are you bringing them up?".

These guys are jumping right to the conclusion by claiming it was a ghost. What did they actually observe? How did they confirm those observations through other means? How do they know that it wasn't an optical illusion? The question I often ask is if you observe David Copperfield levitating an object do you look for the wires or do you proclaim "Wow, that's magic!"?Approaching a problem/observation from as many angles as possible is a very big deal in science. In science circles there is a something called a "one hit wonder". It is used to describe a spectacular result produced through a single experiment and/or a single observation. These one hit wonders are looked upon with heavy skepticism. What scientists want to see is consilience of many different approaches to the same question. One of the questions a scientist is always asking himself is "I observed it, but is it real?". The "art" of science is figuring out how to try and prove yourself wrong while secretly hoping you are right.

Isn't that convenient. I could make up anything I wanted and attach the same description to it but I guarantee you would not accept it as being true.I have an invisible dragon living in my garage, but it is undetectable by scientific means. Do you believe that there is an invisible dragon in my garage? Probably not, right? Then it isn't proof. What we appreciate the most is honesty and effort. You seem to be doing fine so far. Just remember that we argue the argument, not the person. It's nice having a different voice and hope you stick around. If there is an unseen (i.e. undetectable) world out there then no, we can't know anything about it. We can have beliefs about it, but not knowledge. Is there a greatest authority? I think you need to start there first. As an unevidenced entity that people believe in nontheless. What we need or don't need has nothing to do with what does exist or doesn't exist. If I needed unicorns to be real they don't suddenly poof into being.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The point being that you can go to France and verify it yourself. It is an objective fact.If you think knowledge can be gained without any facts then please, show us how. How do faith based beliefs turn into knowledge? If I really, really believe that there is an invisible dragon living in my garage who is undetectable by any means does that turn into knowledge just because I really, really believe it? If you don't have any evidence the argument is already over. But what you personally think has nothing to do with what actually exists. You are allowed your own set of personal beliefs but you aren't allowed your own set of personal facts. Reality does not care what you think is or is not reasonable. At one time many believed that the Earth orbitting the Sun was unreasonable, but it was still true. Basing arguments on personal incredulity is a logical fallacy, the very opposite of reasoned discourse.

No, I got it. If you can't see gisrugnienfilaubflvfaaziafcn how would you be able to define it? What you are asking for is a made up definition for something that you will protect from disproof. It's a foolish errand that I don't feel like participating in. Either provide the evidence or admit you have none. See my previous post. The existence of Paris is a verifiable objective fact not to be confused with unverifiable deities for which there is no evidence.

For a one time event with no way of replicating the results I would say that it is very unreliable. I think reliability is gained by our ability to futz with the observations, to manipulate it. For example, let's say that three different astronomers observe a celestial event such as a supernova. All they have is their memory of the event, none were able to record the event with scientific instruments. Their description of the event would be informative, but it wouldn't be reliable. What you really want is a full spectral recording of the event so you can manipulate the data, look at specific spectral lines to see which elements are present and the energies involved.