Is My Hypothesis Valid???

Hi onifre, I believe we can pretty well agree, that where a person believes they objectively experienced something, that the best path for determining further validation is through the scientific method. Peeling this back down to the simplest starting point, we have Straggler's original position, now honed to the minimum:{evidence}+{logic}={explanatory conjecture}Where we have not yet found validation. The point being that the {explanatory conjecture} gives you direction to test for further validation. I don't think anyone questions this basic formula, rather it seems the question comes in on the need to pursue some conjectures compared to others, and this is based on one's subjective evaluation of the importance and possible validity of the conjecture. And yet, when that does occur, there is the opportunity to learn something new. If we only look for validation\confirmation of the mundane experiences then nothing new will be learned, yes?Enjoy.

Hi Stile, Again, it seems we agree by and large. The only real disagreement seems to be in where we draw the line in pursuing further information. I think this will always be a subjective evaluation made by the individual that does/n't do the investigation: those that think there is enough reason to investigate further will, and those that don't think there is enough reason won't. As I see it, the "personal opinions" are what tell us individually to pursue with the "best known" method or to do something else, and let others decide to pursue if they want to.I am perfectly happy to let people investigate sasquatch, yeti and alien visitations, even ghosts and spirits, while I spend my time on other pursuits. I only ask that those that do pursue such concepts do so with the Scientific Method.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /

---

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) • • •

I completely agree.We can talk about the advantages for each side either of feels like defending, but the facts remain:-if we NEVER investigate things with little (or no) evidence, we'll never find a whole lot of new things and our expansion of things we do know about will be very limited
-if we ALWAYS investigate things with little (or no) evidence, we'll never make progress with the things we do know about, but we'll never miss anything we could know about I agree. It's nice that people are so diverse that it seems like we'll always have plenty of folks interested in pursuing anything any of us happen to deem "unimportant." Hopefully, once claims to reality are actually discovered, the Scientific Method can be implemented for validation and confirmation purposes to reduce any false-positives.

Hi RAZD, Agreed. If that is the only discrepancy then I'm willing to say that all endeavors that seem reasonable to a single person should be pursued by that single person, or who ever they convince to help them.This is where I usually tend to take my opinion of spirituality and personal religious "quests." If they seem of value to any individual then by all means and available methods, persue it to all end. I simply stipulate, with no authority on the matter, that the person should eventually be honest to themselves and judge the evidence of whatever they seek honestly. I would also go as far as to say, what may seem like nothing of value to one person, may be of great value to another person, and as such is at equal with any other individual persuit.But, as all subjective experiences are individual experiences, who am I to judge the value of said experience? If it matters to the individual then that is all that matters, IMHO. Well, I can agree that a general consensus is not needed for further inquiry. I also agree that one can close themselves off from learning many things if one does not pursue certain unvalidated claims with an open mind - like you said, new things are learned through these pursuits.My point was, though, that an eventual confirmation is needed from a non-subjective sense to eventually validate the original experience. However, this is only if the individual requires it, or wants to be honest about their claim. Many do not need validation as we see with people of faith. And this is fine, at least in my opinion, because, like I wrote in a previous post, reality is only what we experience subjectively and as such any and all illusions, when believed whole heartedly, are no longer illusions to the individual person and is part of their individual reality.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Hi CS. Been away in Paris and elsewhere for a bit but back now. If you decide which concepts are objectively evidenced before considering which concepts can be objectively evidenced then you are bound to run into contradictions and difficulties when applying such a philosophy. That is the deepseated and exposed flaw in RAZD's "Perceptions of Reality" thinking. By taking such a approach you will inevitably end up claiming that things that cannot possibly be objectively evidenced are indeed objectively evidenced. Exactly as RAZD has done.Thus the whole approach is inherently flawed. If you heard it then it is empirical. Regardless of whether you were on your own or not. Empirical as per detected by our five senses. Empirical as in the only means we have of detecting reality external to ourselves.If you claim to have seen something that no camera could possibly detect then that is not "seeing" in any empirical sense. Rather it is an internal vision. If you "hear" something but also claim that no recording equipment no matter how sensitive could detect that sound then that is not "hearing". Rather it is a wholly subjective experience. So if one of these experiences that RAZD wants to include as "evidence" relates to something that is inherently unable to be detected by empirical instruments how can it possibly be anything other than wholly internal to the experiencee? A subjective product of the mind?Unless you or he are claiming that we have some sort of sixth sense with which we can detect non-empirical reality external to our own minds..............? RAZD finally says that he only accepts evidence that can be empiricaly detected after having argued passionately and obstinately for three threads that concepts immune to empirical evidence and investigation (i.e. deities) can be objectively evidenced.That is the blatant and obvious contradiction in his thinking. Our empirical senses are our only means of experiencing reality external to our own minds. Anything that cannot be detected empirically can only be the product of ones internal mind and cannot possibly be objectively or commonly evidenced in any way at all. There is no grey area with respect to this. Unless you are going to claim some sort of sixth sense.There may well be situations where we don't know if what we "see" is actually empirically "seen" or if it is actually an internal and imaginary "vision". You and RAZD both seem stuck on the flawed notion that this fact somehow justifies the claim that any experience should be considered to be evidence for that which is experienced regardless of any further considerationsBut if one is going to claim experiences of concepts/beings/entities that it is also claimed are inherently undetectable and unknowable to empirical instruments of investigation (including our five empirical senses)...............Then you are going to have to explain how these experiences can possibly tell us anything at all about reality that exists outside of the mind of the experiencee.In other words you are going to have to justify non-empirical evidence and overcome the full weight of Western philosophy and scientific thinking in the process.RAZD's "Perceptions of Reality" fails to do that and I don't rate your chances either.

How do you determine if something has been empirically sensed or not? By validating it with other experiences, right? So a single isolated experience has to be considered to be imaginary? Right! Whoa, wait a minute...Any experience should be considered to be evidence!?regardless of any further considerations!?Where did that come from? Did I say that? I'm not advocating that position.You didn't reply to this from Message 198:

quote:

---

Straggler in msg 197 writes:

​

In the case of inherently non-empirical concepts there is no possibility that the "evidence" in question can possibly be anything but "wholly subjective".

​

If by inherently non-empirical concepts you mean that there is no possibility that the "evidence" in question can possibly be objective, then you’re just stating a tautology.

​

But if you’re talking about the same thing as Stile, where things become empirical as they become validated, then why is there no room for things that have not been validated yet but aren’t imaginary nor wholly subjective?

​

If I hear a noise, I can tell if I’ve imagined it or not (although I could be wrong if I’m going crazy). If two of us hear it, then it’s not in my head alone. As more and more people have heard something, then we have more confidence that it is empirical, right? Isn’t that how you’re using the word?

​

I don’t agree that things are imaginary until they become empirical and that’s not how I experience things. I can pretty much tell what’s real or not by myself. Sometimes, it’s not so easy to tell though. If other people have the same experience, then I can be more confident that it was real. But just because nobody else heard it doesn’t tell me that I imagined it. I may not be so sure, but I do have confidence in my sanity and my ability to tell reality from imagination.

---

Again, if by this: ...you are just stating the tautology, then I'd like to know how you determine if something has been empirically sensed or not?

Can something that is unable to be detected by by our empirical senses or instruments of empirical investigation be evidenced?If so how?That is the question. Well if a particular concept/being/entity/whatever is empirically undetectable and unknowable then it cannot have been empirically and objectively detected can it?In which case any experience that is cited as evidence in favour of such empirically undetectable concepts/beings/entities must either be a misinterpretation of genuienely objective evidence OR a wholly subjective experience that is in fact no evidence at all.Which is it CS?Are experiences of gods etc. able to be empirically and thus scientifically verified? Or are they products of the mind?Because logically they must be one or the other.Unless you are claiming the existence of some sort of sixth sense with which we detect such entities.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well what a pile of ill informed baloney you have posted about me (without the balls to address it specifically to me) in my absence!!!!!!The bottom line to all of this can be summed up by the following questions which you will no doubt ignore, refuse to answer directly, claim as "off-topic", or otherwise evade:1) Can any experience that is non-empirical in nature (waking visions, dreams etc. etc.) count as actual evidence of the existence of the concept/being/entity/whatever experienced?2) Can any experience relating to concepts/beings/entities/whatever that are inherently non-empirical in nature be anything other than a wholly subjective internal experience that is a feature of the internal mind with no basis in external reality?Your whole "Perceptions of Reality" philosophy relies on the notion that the inherently non-empirical can be somehow objectively and externally evidenced. External to the mind of the experiencee.Yet you are completely unable to support this contradictory and flawed conclusion beyond conflation with Nessie, aliens and other wholly empirically detectable concepts. Instead you attack the character and debating methods of those who oppose this blatantly flawed thinking.So will you actually answer the above questions directly? Or will you, yet again, use various evasion tactics to hide the flaws in your position?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The study of epistemology is indeed philosophically fascinating.The main conclusion of Western philosophy (starting with the methodologies of Descarte and progressing onwards) is that there is the internally knowable and then, seperately and distinctly, the ability of different concepts to be objectively and externally evidenced.The difference between the internal and subjective and the external and thus (at least potentially) objective, is the key differential at the basis of most philosophical problems. If we each assume that we are not a "brain in a jar" (or some other such variant - which we must accept as a philosophical posibility but discard to all practical intents and purposes) wholly subjectively experiencing reality then we must conclude that there is an objectively and commonly experienced reality external to our minds.If this is the case then the only means we have of experiencing this external and objective reality is by means of our empirical senses (unless we claim the use of some sixth sense). This simple (and frankly inarguable) statement is absolutely key to understanding all else.If this is the case then empirical investigation, i.e. the basis of the methods of science, are the ONLY means by which we can verify or know reality external to ourselves and our individual minds.Thus any claims of the inherently non-empirical being objectively evidenced (as RAZD's Perceptions of Reality and various other forms of mysticism attempt to do) are inherently flawed in terms of the whole of Western philosophy from which scientific thinking is derived.It is fascinating stuff. But don't let RAZD's clever talk of Nessie, aliens, rocks or any other potentially empirically detectable entities detract from the fact that he is proposing that we bypass most of Western philosophical thinking in order to accept that the inherently non-empirical objects of his subjective beliefs are in some way objectively evidenced.Any claim of the objective existence of anything that is external to you MUST be empirically evidenced. Otherwise how can it possibly be anything but a product of your mind?

I agree. And on the basis of that agreement, I need to talk about your earlier statement from the same post: I would say that anything "internally knowable" is inherently not "known" but rather guessed at. I cringe at terms such as "internal truth" or "personal knowledge." Truth and knowledge are neither internal or personal. Of course, I think you agree (?) and this is probably me just disagreeing with general "Western" philosophy. (Or maybe I am ignorant of the proper use of the terms...) I'm not positive that this is what RAZD is trying to do. But, I'm also not very clear on what (specifically) it is that RAZD is trying to do at all. I left the latest discussion between him and I without a clear concept of what he's describing. But it started to hurt my brain, so I'm content in walking away from this discussion (for now... ) with an "I've said my piece" message and viewing from a bit farther away again. Until, of course, I feel that the discussion cannot go anywhere unless I intervene with my divine powers of persuassion. At which time, you will know I'm coming from the drum-beats and parades (now with monkeys!) I agree. I disagree.
It's possible to guess correctly. It's just not an efficient (or useful in any significant sense?) method for progress.
We also must be careful to not confuse claims for objective existence for hopeful guesses about objective existence. One requires empirical evidence, the other only requires curiosity. Both have there place when questing for knowledge of the universe. However, I certainly agree that "there places" are often obfuscated for the purposes of personal agendas and we must ensure they are kept extremely seperate to avoid confusion in an honest evaluation.Edited by Stile, : Added some pretty italics for clarity

We don't know, and how would we know if there were? How would you know that there couldn't?It also depends on what you mean by "evidenced". If you mean "detected by by our empirical senses or instruments of empirical investigation" then you're just stating a tautology. However, if there are things that are unable to be detected by by our empirical senses or instruments of empirical investigation but that people have come across as believable and/or plausible, then there should be some kind of evidence that brings them to that.Take my belief in god for example: It hasn't been detected by my empirical senses, but I also don't come to the belief just willy-nilly, so there could be something that evidenced it even though it wasn't empirically detected.Or what about a ghost-like entity. Something that is intelligent and can appear and disappear at will. If you saw one with your eyeballs one time, you wouldn't know if it was empirically detected, or if you imagined it. But if you and some other people saw it, then its doubtful that you all imagined it. If when you put the camera on it, it decides to no longer be visible, it hasn't been "empirically detected" yet (now you could say that it has because you saw it with your eyeballs, but we don't know that for sure because it still could have been mass imagination), but there has been some evidence of it.Or there could be some sixth sense like you've brought up.I'm not convinced that being unable to be detected by by our empirical senses necessitates that something cannot be evidenced. I guess not, but that doesn't mean that you cannot look at other things that are not the particular concept/being/entity/whatever but are a result of it and then come to a belief in the particular concept/being/entity/whatever in the absence of objective detection and then say that the particular concept/being/entity/whatever has been evidenced.Its like seeing design in the universe and concluding there's a designer. There still no empirical detection of the designer but there is evidence of it. Not necessarily for reasons listed above. Its a false dichotomy brought on by circularly reasoning that 'evidenced' must be defined as 'empirically sensed' so therefore if its not empirically sensed then it cannot be evidenced.

Hi CS, How else do we experience reality, if not through our senses?At the very least would you agree that the only way to experience reality is through our senses? Wouldn't this just be an argument from incredulity?How is that evidence? But if there is no other way to experience reality, wouldn't you agree that we are limited as to what we can call 'evidenced', because we are limited to just our senses? Perhaps, but wouldn't we still need empirical evidence of this new 'sense' before we can attribute any functions to it?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

We could use logic to determine that a square ball cannot exist without the need to sense reality. Does that count as an 'experience'? Is there life on other planets?I think we can say that there is out there somewhere based on the facts that abiogenesis is plausible and there's a shit-ton a planets available but in the absense of ever sensing that life. Not if the incredulity is not what the argument comes from In the same way that we have evidence that there is life on other planets. Technically, we don't really yet have evidence for it but we can be confident that its out there somewhere so we do have some kind of evidence. I mean, its not a random guess so there has to be something there. Not necessarily. You can certainly define evidence in that way if you want to though. Fuck if I know...

That is not an experience, nor is it an accurate statement of reality. The concept of a ball is a definition applied to something with particular characteristics, as is a square. Refusing to apply it to a particular object has no bearing on reality; we could arbitrarily refuse to apply the term "sphere" (or oblate spheroid) to the Earth, but it does not change the reality of Earth's shape. Even logic itself is descriptive, and as such reliant on observation. You didn't address the question, unless you consider an inference the same thing as experiencing reality. Uhh, NO! We have evidence that points toward it being likely, but that is NOT EVIDENCE! Seriously, can you not tell the difference between suspecting and observing? Do you really think that just because we have evidence pointing toward something that it has to be true??Perhaps you can clarify your position, but it appears that you are completely loony. You seem to think that if you imagine something, or are lead to believe something is likely, that is necessarily *is*. As an extension of this you somehow conclude that when you hope or suspect something it is just the same as observing it. I suggest that holding such a position makes you completely off your rocker.

Your position has changed from that of advocating that experiences might be empirical and that they should therefore be considered as potential evidence to now advocating that experiences need not necessarily be empirical in order to be considered as potential evidence.Is that fair comment?Before I respond to the rest of your post could I just get some further clarification? Do you, unlike RAZD, consider it possible for the empirically insensate witness (blind, deaf, paralysed etc. etc.) detailed in Message 145 to be capable of experiences that you would indeed accept as evidence? Not really. My thinking is not circular at all. It is based on the indisputable fact that empirical experience is our only known means of detecting and experiencing reality external to our own minds.If you are claiming that there are other means by which we can experience a reality external to our own minds then I would be delighted to consider that argument.But let's pin down exactly what you do consider evidence and what you do not with relation to the empirically insensate witness as our baseline first.